Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

15 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni”

1. 2

   The cited Forbes article by Wayne Winegarden: “The ITC Is Subsidizing Patent Trolls” says, inter alia: “Not surprising, many patent trolls are using litigation at the ITC for precisely these goals. According to the ITC’s own data, NPEs filed nearly one-fifth of all ITC investigations between 2007 and 2021.” [Reportedly ignoring the protection of “domestic industry” requirement of Congress in its legislation for ITC product importation exclusion orders.] [I would like to see that actual ITC data.]
   1. 2.1

      The “reportedly ign0ring” is just not correct, if I recall correctly, licensing programs are considered to fall within the domestic industry umbrella.
      1. 2.1.1

         A PAE is a “licensing program” and that is the kind of “domestic industry” that Congress wanted to protect? Apparently so, at least in the view of the ITC itself, which is presumably what is being attacked in this article.
         1. 2.1.1.1

            Which is rather the point that the “attack” is ill-conceived.

            “Not liking” is — as usual — a p00r legal basis.
         2. 2.1.1.2

            >>A PAE is a “licensing program” and that is the kind of “domestic industry” that Congress wanted to protect?

            Paul, really, you are a grown man. You know that a licensing program can be nothing but a substitute for outsourcing production.

            Really Paul. Stop the shxt show.
   2. 2.2

      Where “subsidizing” apparently means “actually going to trial and, if the patentee wins, issuing an injunction.” /sigh
2. 1

   >>Prof. Mark P. McKenna and Prof. Jessica M. Silbey: Investigating Design (Source: SSRN)

   >>But it seems to be a particular problem for antibodies. Applying the Federal Circuit’s reinvigorated written description and enablement requirements to antibodies and their chemical structure fits poorly with the science underlying the molecules themselves.
   >>Antibodies constitute a staggering $145 billion annual market—an amount projected to almost double by 2026. Consequently, patents covering antibodies are among the most valuable in the patent system.

   So let me guess based on Lemley’s past behavior. Lemley is getting paid big, big money to help the antibody manufactures protect their patents. Probably much, much more than he got from Google.
   1. 1.1

      But we are to believe this is “scholarship.”
   2. 1.2

      The tyranny of the established corporations and the notion of “but we make products” — which is all the more reason for actual scholarship emphasizing the negative nature of the patent right.
      1. 1.2.1

         We may see Lemley lobbying for stronger patents!

         This world has become truly insane. Thanks Stanford.
         1. 1.2.1.1

            “stronger patents” ONLY of a specific kind (think Pharma) ….

            Divide and Conquer is the watch phrase.
            1. 1.2.1.1.1

               I know. Should be interesting –and horrific–to watch as Lemley tries to bend and squeeze this through. He must be raking it in. My guess rather than 10’s of millions his price is 100 million.
   3. 1.3

      You missed the best line: “Functional claiming can lead to overbroad patents that stifle future innovation, as it has done in the software industries.”
      1. 1.3.1

         Yeah – that false narrative of “stifled future innovation” – an unfalsifiable FUTURE projection (and has ties to the ultra vires nature of the Supreme Court’s “concerns” – given that ANY such future projections necessarily would be merely of the nature of an advisory opinion because the future (harm) has not happened yet.
      2. 1.3.2

         BobM: yes it will be interesting to see Lemley try to strengthen and weaken patents at the same time and ignore the reality that functional claiming is used in all the AUs.

Comments are closed.