USPTO PPAC – Ready for Nominees

The Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) forms a board of advisors for the USPTO Director. Nine members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for three-year terms.  Although PPAC does not have formal power to take action, the USPTO Director is required to cooperate with the committee, provide it with access to information, and consider its advice.  Congress has declared that the committee should individuals representing both small and large entities, including at least independent inventor.  The committee should also include individuals “with substantial background and achievement in finance, management, labor relations, science, technology, and office automation.”

Dir. Vidal has announced that the USPTO is seeking nominations for three new  PPAC members. Due by July 1, 2022.  For more information, contact Cordelia Zecher, Acting Chief of Staff for Director Vidal at 571-272-8600.

My four issues for this year:

  1. Outreach and cultivate the US as a flourishing innovative society rather than one that relies upon others to provide answers. 
  2. Ensure that the USPTO maintains highest quality examination practices post-COVID. 
  3. Work to transform intellectual property laws in ways that promote US investment in innovation in key industries.
  4. Manage the balance between patents and trade secrecy protection–especially as more companies have substantially shifted toward trade secrets.

Submit your nominees here [USPTO Link Currently Not Working].

67 thoughts on “USPTO PPAC – Ready for Nominees

  1. 6

    Kind of surprised that there is nothing up yet about Arthrex.

    1. 6.1

      quickly gunned through it – and its jump to the case “that controls” is A W E F U L (as well as the case did NOT appear to delve into the fact that the Patent Office had violated all norms of “temporary” that MAY have lent some credence.

    2. 6.2

      Just enjoy a glass of Stevie and Genie’s tears, Greg. Of course, you needn’t rush that either.

    3. 6.3

      Greg, you mean the Friday Fed. Cir. Arthrex decision on remand from the Supremes, affirming the Board’s IPR claim anticipation decision AND shooting down in great detail* the legal and constitutional arguments by some IPR losers and bloggers on the legality or constitutionality of having Commissioner for Patents Hirschfeld review the reconsideration motion from that [and other] Board decision[s], even though there were vacancies in the positions of Director and Deputy Director of the PTO at that time?
      *No doubt Dennis will need some time to analyze that for us. I also assume that legal issue is now academic, since who could do executive reconsideration in a case rendered moot by a Fed. Cir. unpatentability decision seems highly unlikely to get a second Sup. Ct. cert. granted in the same case?

      1. 6.3.1

        BTW, I must partially join the Arthrex-crow-eaters for having guessed that the Fed. Cir. would delay and completely avoid making this decision until after the new PTO director reconsidered and affirmed the reconsideration decisions of Commissioner for Patents Hirschfeld. Perhaps they wanted to clear their docket of pending, or any further, such appeals?

        1. 6.3.1.1

          As previously noted (and not just by me), “and affirmed the reconsideration decisions of Commissioner for Patents Hirschfeld” is legal error.

          1. 6.3.1.1.1

            Actually, that is precisely what the Federal Circuit just did here. They affirmed it themselves, so the new Director no longer need to.

            1. 6.3.1.1.1.1

              [T]he Federal Circuit just… affirmed it themselves, so the new Director no longer need to.

              At the risk of being painfully literal, I do not think that this is what happened. The acting director already had reviewed this case, which is why the new director no longer need to.

              It would not be enough, however, just for the CAFC to review the disposition without the interposition of review by the director (or acting-as-director). Absent that acting-as-director review, the case would not have been ripe for the CAFC’s review.

              1. 6.3.1.1.1.1.1

                At the risk of being painfully literal

                The risk is NOT being painfully literal.

                It is in drawing a wrong conclusion of law based on an outcome that in no way supports the conclusion of law.

                Paul is in such a cheerleading hurry, that he cannot be bothered with understanding that the law (even with the CAFC errors) is just not how he suggested.

                Let’s call this yet another Ends Justifies the Means way of “critical thinking.”

      2. 6.3.2

        [Y]ou mean the Friday Fed. Cir. Arthrex decision… shooting down… constitutional arguments by some IPR losers and bloggers on the legality or constitutionality of having… Hirschfeld review the reconsideration motion…?

        That is the one I meant, yes. I confess that I had found Ron Katznelson’s arguments on this point very persuasive (as usual). In the final analysis, however, Chief Judge Moore’s opinion won me over.

        It looks like the acting director is empowered to do these reviews when the directorship is vacant. This will not matter much, of course, because the times when there is a director are greater than the times when there is no director. Nevertheless, it is good to know. It is also good to know that the director can delegate this review.

      3. 6.3.3

        What the decision misses (and misses badly) is that the “more than a century old” case is NOT on all fours with the current Administrative Law — in regards to temporary authority.

        This TOO was previously noted by more than I.

        The CAFC gets (yet another) case wrong.

        Let’s NOT mirror the erroneous genuflection that often is bestowed upon the Supreme Court and act as if a decision “must be right” because it has been the decision that has been rendered.

  2. 5

    Slightly off-topic (but with a tangent), I often give 6 a difficult time based on the Examiner’s Union, and what (if anything) they may be good for.

    This comment on another blog ( link to ipwatchdog.com ) really sets out some serious STINK of the union. What say you, 6? (or any of the other usual examiner suspects like Ben and Random)….

    1. 5.1

      I’m not even sure what you’re asking. The comment there seems entirely unremarkable. Some sort of reorg shakeup happened, who cares? I get the feeling that the comment is supposed to be about rqas’s or some such critters previously “being management and being empowered to set aside the examiner’s decision” and then later not being as empowered (during pre-appeals). Maybe, maybe not. Also I’m not sure how this affects popa being useless or not. From the comment POPA simply agreed that those positions were either properly “mgmt roles” or properly considered “working class and covered by POPA” roles. That seems entirely proper.

      1. 5.1.1

        Neither of “you don’t want to” OR “you can’t” see the stink is a good sign for your understanding of the issues of your own union.

    2. 5.2

      I seriously doubt there were or are “several hundred” people overseeing the quality of issued applications, nor do I necessarily draw a link between the quality of issued applications and whether a given rejection made is error. Those are simply not the same thing. Moreover, the comment either misapprehends or mispresents the QAS as being someone who can champion the applicant and cause an allowance to occur. That simply is not the function of the panel, is not the function of the appellate process, and is not true.

      I tend to think that people who notice changes in the office tend to ascribe meanings to things based upon the pieces that they see rather than the whole picture. In short, while I don’t know for sure, it is incredibly unlikely that there was some sort of secret malicious attempt to lower standards for appeals as they simply aren’t important enough to warrant secret malicious action. Cutting QAS out of the room doesn’t create more allowances.

      I will tell you that my preappeal conferences and my appeal conferences are largely the same, that there is no QAS requirement for either, and that I have largely picked my own panels which have done as I have asked for the past couple of years. But that’s because my success rate at the board has been exceedingly high (much to anon’s concern I’m sure). For nonprimaries my supervisor always sits on their panels, but they get to pick their people as well. Who they pick is largely irrelevant when there is a SPE present as its not a voting democracy – the other panel members exist to inform the SPE.

      When I sit on other’s appeal conferences I tend to do a soft adversary kind of tactic where I use a Socratic method to see how the examiner will respond to what I consider to be likely iterations on the arguments presented. Then I make a judgment on whether the examiner will be upheld. For this and only this reason I would advise everyone to always file a pre-appeal brief and to faithfully present the arguments that will be presented in the brief in a truncated fashion. I view it as a no-downside proposition for both sides.

      I view the function of the preappeal/appeal conference to be if I think we’ll waste the Board’s time. It’s not my function to substitute my judgment for the other examiner or decide that they could have done a better job. It’s a one-threshold test of if at least one ground of rejection is proper to each claim based upon what has actually occurred.

      I assume this rubs some applicants the wrong way, as it is clear at least some view appeal conferences as some sort of appellate review from the examiner on the question of allowance. They are almost never that, and are never that when the examiner being appealed is a primary. Notably, the panel’s function is to determine whether to reopen prosecution, not whether to allow, despite what the form filled out says. It is true that when the examiner being appealed is not a primary and their signer (who is usually the SPE but will certainly be involved with the panel if not) sits, the signer may become convinced *in their signing capacity* (as opposed to their panel review capacity) that the claims are allowable, which is the purpose of that line on the preappeal response form. But if a primary decides the claims should be rejected the most a panel can do is force reopening to give the primary a chance to make a different rejection.

      The same is true all throughout the appellate process. The only person who can ever give an allowance is the signing examiner. The question is never “would I allow these claims if I was the examiner?” The question is “Does this rejection exhibit error?” So the second advice I would give is that arguments directed to the question of allowance are irrelevant.

      1. 5.2.1

        “as they simply aren’t important enough to warrant secret malicious action. ”

        Underrated comment. As if there are people irl who think that appeals are the beezneez. Other than kinda maybe the people on the board itself, and with even them understanding their role (only reviewing the issues in front of them) fair well nowadays.

        1. 5.2.1.1

          As under-rated as the denials that SAWS existed….?

          Yeah, we all see how THAT turned out, eh?

          1. 5.2.1.1.1

            Saws is overblown in your mind. The fact that you still even think about it is pathetic.

          2. 5.2.1.1.2

            Sa ws is overb lo wn in your mi nd. The fac t that you still even think about it is path etic.

            1. 5.2.1.1.2.1

              6 – same George Carlin filter, I presume….

              Your comment is awaiting moderation.

              May 31, 2022 at 8:23 pm

              LOL – it’s not a matter of “being
              o
              v
              e
              r

              b
              l
              o
              w
              n” – it’s a perfect example of the Office violating 37 CFR 1.2, attempting to deny it, getting busted, and THEN admitting that SAWS was but ONE of such programs.

              That’s the type of historical mistake that NEVER loses its power to make the point.

              1. 5.2.1.1.2.1.1

                In other words, according to you, your fantasy about internal review of work inside the office being a supposed violation of a regulation (imposed by the office lol) having to do with how business should should should should be transacted outside the office and what the office will make take its action on is like a total good justification for you to keep thinking about it for decades.

                Also, you’re not ment ally il l. At all. Nope nope nope.

                1. LOL – maybe try again – use punctuation (even for the internet, your response cannot be parsed).

      2. 5.2.2

        What RandomGuy says above is definitely not the case in all TC’s at the USPTO.

      3. 5.2.3

        Well, I circled back to Random’s long-winded reply and got to stop at his blatant strawman of “e comment either misapprehends or mispresents the QAS as being someone who can champion the applicant and cause an allowance to occur.

        It’s NOT about “championing the applicant,” never was, and no one ever asserted such.

        It IS about widening the pool to include neutral people because the examiner and applicant have reached an impasse and the path was explicitly put in place TO give a cheaper route for stubborn examiners to be corrected. Does this need rise to “corrected to achieve allowance?” Clearly not – but it IS meant to have someone NOT in the Examiner’s cadre to rubber stamp what has already been shown to be an impasse WITH that Examiner.

        Such a blatant error stopped my reading of Random’s response.

        Someone tell me – did it get any better?

        1. 5.2.3.1

          It IS about widening the pool to include neutral people because the examiner and applicant have reached an impasse and the path was explicitly put in place TO give a cheaper route for stubborn examiners to be corrected.

          But again, the path of least resistance is always an allowance. If I was in the tank for another examiner my response would always be that it is appropriate to allow, because at every point along the trail the allowance is the most credit for the least work.

          Only someone who has NO experience with the situation could possibly say that the “Examiner’s cadre” would choose 8 hours of credit for more than 8 hours of looking up MPEP sections, reviewing the application history and responding to argument when the same 8 hours of credit could be had for about five minutes of writing and maybe 30 minutes of form filling + an interference search. If I wanted the path of least resistance I could issue an allowance in less time than it takes me to even READ the appeal brief.

          Choosing to go forward with the appeal is a statement that the work is appropriate, not that they like the examiner.

          neutral people

          And even if you had no experience and thought differently, who do you think these “neutral” people are? Either you’re confused about how many QAS they are (hint: not enough to be sitting in on even a significant fraction of appeal conferences) or you think the SPEs are pulling random people they don’t know to inform them? Why would anyone pick a random person, possibly with inappropriate expertise, to advise their decision? The SPEs pick from the same dozen primaries in the art unit that the examiner does.

          It makes about as much sense to say a primary can’t neutrally judge their friend’s rejection as it does to say a judge can’t neutrally judge an objection made by a prosecutor who appears in their courtroom every day.

          for stubborn examiners to be corrected…to rubber stamp what has already been shown to be an impasse WITH that Examiner.

          I’ve told you this before, but once more – I don’t much care about you, and neither does any other examiner. Out of the hundreds of apps I’ve settled I can count on one hand the number of counsels who were worthy of personal scorn. Never mind scorn on a level that I would do extra work of any amount (let alone an appeal brief) just to stick it to them. I see thousands of claims a year, and when I’m done arguing about yours I reach into a stack that is infinitely large and pull out different claims to argue about with someone else. We don’t “win” or “lose” based on rejections or allowances. You’re not some sort of special argumentative snowflake, so you’re not important to us, so we’re not out to get you, so unsurprisingly we are not concocting rigged panels to rubber stamp our nefarious plots. An examiner with 50 open applications has 50 counsels who think the examiner is stubborn – take a number.

          Either the rejection is proper or it isn’t. An examiner not withdrawing a proper rejection is the correct course of action no matter how “stubborn” they are about it and no matter how much the applicant views it as an “impasse.”

          to rubber stamp what has already been shown to be an impasse WITH that Examiner.

          A SPE is informed of all appeals and gets judged based on their art unit’s appellate percentages. If an examiner creates negative statistics for their SPE the SPE can certainly sit themselves and force a reopen, and they are motivated to do so. If an applicant picks a fight with an examiner who routinely gets upheld on appeal they shouldn’t be surprised that the examiner is going to be allowed to go to the board.

          1. 5.2.3.1.1

            Again, not all TCs handle appeals the same way. A QAS of some sort sits in on *every* pre-appeal and appeal conference in my TC, and the selection of that QAS is random (though you can request the same one if you get both a pre-appeal and an appeal conference on the same app).

        2. 5.2.3.2

          You say “But again, the path of least resistance is always an allowance.” as if that has any proper legal meaning.

          It does not.

          Do your F N job — that just does NOT mean “path of least resistance.”

          and STOP confusing your internal metrics with what my clients have paid for.

        3. 5.2.3.3

          ” to include neutral people ”

          The examiner and spe themselves are the ones that are supposed to be neutral as it is bro. If all your bsing about this is about lack of neutrality, then you should take that up with the director(s) and them not getting their people to be neutral at the outset.

          “and the path was explicitly put in place TO give a cheaper route for stubborn examiners to be corrected. ”

          Not actually correct. The office never said that. At all. That was your fantasy bro, probably put in your mind by some other attorneys.

          “but it IS meant to have someone NOT in the Examiner’s cadre to rubber stamp what has already been shown to be an impasse WITH that Examiner.”

          Wut? You do know that the appeals guys will, fair often, be in the spe’s/primaries “cadre” right? Double especially that will be the case after a lot of appeals with the same guy lol. Again, this is fantasy thinking from you.

          1. 5.2.3.3.1

            Not fantasy at all 6 – and clearly evident from the initial period of its implementation (before people internal to the Office took their eye off the ball and created the problems discussed in the linked article).

            1. 5.2.3.3.1.1

              “Not fantasy at all 6 – ”

              Tell me when the official proclamation that it was “the path was explicitly put in place TO give a cheaper route for stubborn examiners to be corrected. “, or to “have neutrals sit in”, was made. Links if possible and tell me which director etc. made that proclamation. All the official word I’ve ever read about it failed to mention either of those. It’s your fantasy bro.

              “and clearly evident from the initial period of its implementation”

              You mean they maybe, possibly, and arguably by you, they accidentally implemented it incorrectly at first such that those things you mentioned above were incorrectly done in some cases. Later they corrected it. Great. It was never meant to be those things and if it accidentally became that, hopefully it is now corrected. That’s a good thing btw.

              1. 5.2.3.3.1.1.1

                Tell me when the official proclamation that it was “the path was explicitly put in place TO give a cheaper route for stubborn examiners to be corrected

                See the written record in the words of Congress — or the gazillions of posts since then referencing that situation.

                I am not the one in fantasy land here, 6 – that be you.

                (apologies for the late reply – looks like Crouch was doing some “sarah” cleaning and saw this one hung up in the buffer)

  3. 4

    What are the odds of any regular Joe IP person getting one of those slots?

    1. 4.1

      Zero. Like any other board, the selector wants known entities with known/predictable positions.

  4. 3

    One of the more currently controversial of PTO activities that the PPAC should logically be dealing with is Fintiv refusals to initiate IPRs irrespective of the strength of the prior art asserted. Especially for patent suits in Waco WDTX, based on unrealistic court-projected trial dates. [Stays for IPRs are also regularly denied in that one-judge district, contrary to many other district courts.] There was an interesting recent unintended admission by Judge Albright himself. In an Order dated May 16th, Judge Albright, in denying a venue transfer, noted that the actual average WDTX time to trial [from a decision in 2020] was even then 25.3 months – more than 2 years. But he also noted that those statistics were from “before .. the full impact of halting trials due to COVID-19..’’ [which he did not deny had also further delayed his own actual trial dates.]

    1. 3.1

      [T]he PPAC should logically be dealing with… Fintiv refusals to initiate IPRs irrespective of the strength of the prior art asserted.

      Hard disagree. The whole point of an IPR is to provide a faster and cheaper alternative to litigation. If the district court makes clear that it is going to proceed in a parallel track regardless of the existence of an IPR, then it becomes—ipso facto—impossible for the IPR to be anything other than an additional feature of litigation, rather than an alternative to litigation, as it was meant to be.

      To my mind, the Congress should have made the stay on court proceedings mandatory following an IPR institution. Indeed, it is not too late for Congress to do so. As it happens, however, the Congress did not make the stay mandatory, so it remains the case that a judge can choose to grant a stay or not. Obviously, most judges prefer to stay the case in the hope that the IPR can settle all relevant issues without the court’s efforts. Where, however, the PTAB knows that a judge will not be staying the district court case, it is entirely rational and consistent with the intended purpose of IPRs for the PTAB to exercise its discretion to take a pass.

      1. 3.1.1

        Also, if the PTAB is going to have a policy of taking a pass (as rationally they should) when the district court indicates that it will not stay its own process, then it is all to the best that the PTO but upfront and open about that policy. Based on the public candor about this policy, hopefully some defendants will realize that it is a waste of resources for them to lodge a petition that will never be instituted.

      2. 3.1.2

        Greg, if an actual trial date is more than two years away, there is no way any validity issue based solely on prior patents or publications is going to get considered earlier by that court than by an IPR. Furthermore, the vast majority of patent suits get settled before any trial, on non-infringement or litigation cost avoidance, and thus do not ever decide any patent validity issues. SJ on prior art invalidity is rare. Leaving the patent owner free to keep on suing other companies on the same un-reexamined-validity patents unless they file an IPR in advance of being sued.

        1. 3.1.2.1

          So? What I am hearing in your post is that Fintiv does not work well for the defense bar. I do not see anything there that speaks to the idea of Fintiv not working well for the system as a whole. We do not run the patent system for the specific benefit of the patent defense bar, any more than we run it for the specific benefit of the plaintiffs’ bar. What is the complaint about Fintiv that society as a whole should find aggrieving?

          1. 3.1.2.1.1

            Re: “what is the complaint about Fintiv that society as as a whole should find aggravating.” OK, before responding, note that such arguments made against PTO Fintiv refusals to institute otherwise fully appropriate IPRs were not invented by me, or are in any particular order of importance or validity here, so that any personal rants are miss-directed. The arguments include, first, that this defeats another Congressional intent for IPRs – to reduce patent trolling. Then there is the answer is in last sentence of 3.1.2. above. [Noting that companies rarely file an IPR in advance of being sued]. Thirdly, that suppressing public knowledge of prior art that will invalidate a patent* suppress or discourages business or public usage of that patented invention. Fourthly, that preventing IPRs increases litigation costs on the many other issues in patent litigation with higher discovery costs, like infringement, damages, apportionment, etc., and also increases litigation settlement costs. Many business managers seem to think that litigation costs in general are publicly undesirable and avoidable economic burdens on business which mostly just enriches litigation lawyers. Then, last but not least in some minds, and raised in lawsuits, is that the PTAB improperly adopted the Fintiv “rules” with no public input or public discussion, no formal rulemaking, etc.
            *which easily happens when litigation is settled before trial with no IPR filed.

            1. 3.1.2.1.1.1

              Taking these in order:

              (1) The arguments include, first, that this defeats another Congressional intent for IPRs – to reduce patent trolling.

              I just do not see the connection between the premise and the putative conclusion. How would reversing Fintiv lessen trolling?

              2) [C]ompanies rarely file an IPR in advance of being sued].

              And? How is this an answer to my question.

              3) [S]uppressing public knowledge of prior art that will invalidate a patent* suppress or discourages business or public usage of that patented invention.

              Seems like there is a citation missing here. What is the evidence for this assertion? This may sound like a theoretically sound assertion, but it is actually an empirical assertion. Are there empirical data to support it?

              4) [P]reventing IPRs increases litigation costs on the many other issues in patent litigation with higher discovery costs, like infringement, damages, apportionment, etc., and also increases litigation settlement costs.

              If one does an IPR in place of court litigation, then the IPR can reduce cost. If the IPR runs as a parallel process, however, then it just creates another layer of cost and complication. This is an argument in favor of Fintiv, not against.

              5) Many business managers seem to think that litigation costs in general are publicly undesirable and avoidable economic burdens on business which mostly just enriches litigation lawyers.

              But this is another gripe of the defense bar, not of society as a whole. Some litigation is an undesirable burden, some is a necessary part of an ordered society. It is pointless to ask the folks footing the bills into what bucket their litigation falls. Of course, they will say that their litigation is undesirable robbery. What of it?

              6) [T]he PTAB improperly adopted the Fintiv “rules” with no… formal rulemaking…

              Fair enough. This is the first solid point I have seen in the list. Would you feel better if Fintiv were taken through the notice and comment process. I suppose that it would be a good idea to do so. Somehow, however, I doubt that Unified Patents would be any better pleased if we arrived at the same endpoint with a tidier process.

              1. 3.1.2.1.1.1.1

                Greg, as noted, since I did not generate those arguments I have no need to defend them. But you cannot ignore or deny the thousands of IPR decisions to date, sustained on appeal, eliminating their underlying patent suits, and that many of those patent suits were by PAEs. This is also contrary to unsupported allegations by some that IPRs have not reduced overall patent litigation costs. IPRs eliminate almost all litigation costs in the many such lawsuits that are stayed for IPRs.
                Furthermore, as noted several times here, and the whole point of the start of this thread, a major complaint about Fintiv decisions is APJs avoiding IPRs based entirely on false, unreal, projected trial dates, mostly from one particular source, and expressly refusing to look at actual time to trial statistics of the forum. There is really no good excuse for the latter, and I do expect it to get changed. This strange PTAB practice variant of a “rule” that was never even properly adopted as a rule is easy to change, and there is pressure to do so. The number of Fintiv IPR denials have already decreased.

                1. I definitely agree that the data are clear that total patent litigation spend has decreased (not just grown more slowly, but actually decreased) since IPRs came online. This makes the assertion hard to sustain—more a willful belief in the face of evidence rather than a rational conclusion flowing from the evidence—that IPRs are increasing litigation costs.

                  That is a far cry, however, from the assertion that Fintiv is undoing that good work of cost containment. From where I am standing, that assertion looks as flimsy and unsupported as Josh Malone’s lament that IPRs increase total costs.

                2. Greg, re your note below, nobody I am aware of has suggested that the number of Fintiv denials of IPRs based on alleged early trial dates so far has been significant enough overall to affect overall patent litigation costs. But if Fintiv and stay denials are a major factor in the 2021 drawing of 1,548 filings – 25% of all new U.S. patent suits – to that one WDTC Waco judge, that effect could logically increase.

                3. What a (typical) F N c0ward….

                  Greg, as noted, since I did not generate those arguments I have no need to defend them

                  The Shill cannot be bothered to “defend” anything — maybe he is only paid to shill and not ‘defend’….

      3. 3.1.3

        This:

        the Congress should have made the stay on court proceedings mandatory following an IPR institution.

        May have run into Separation of Powers issues by inverting the Article III supremacy, given that the Phase I portion in the non-Article III forum was chosen to not require Article III standing.

        Removing from the Judicial Branch HAD to remain a choice of the Judicial Branch.

    2. 3.2

      based on unrealistic court-projected trial dates

      Same old Efficient Infringer Hobby Horse claptrap….

      Paul, we already have you on record that MANY of those future calendared items settle out so that your assertion of “unrealistic” simply cannot wash.

      Those “actuals” you reference are just NOT the full story – and is nothing more than MISinformation.

      Funny how ALL of your posts like this align with Efficient Infringer benefits, eh?

      1. 3.2.1

        A patent suit that is settled before trial does not decide patent claim validity, or change the unreality of the projected trial date to decide validity that was used by the PTAB to prevent any IPR decision on patent claim validity.

        1. 3.2.1.1

          Paul,

          This type of MISinformation is simply shameful:

          or change the unreality of the projected trial date

          Clearly, settlements PRIOR to any set trial date (no matter your FEELINGS) must have an effective acceleration effect on any computing of dates on said docketing calendar.

          Your quite evident Efficient Infringer shilling does not come close to passing the smell test.

          Further, in your whining with Greg above, the fact that you slip to the “0h N0es Tr011s” mantra also betrays you, as you full well know that there is no such thing as “must make” to properly bring suit.

    3. 3.3

      Agree. Here is the only proper, reasonable, and equitable policy –
      Unless the court in a first filed case involving the patent and the petitioner, privy, or real party in interest stays the case, the petition shall be denied.

      1. 3.3.1

        How does a “real party in interest” stay a case?

        Do you perhaps mean that the Article III Judge (granting a request from a real party in interest) stays a case…

  5. 2

    We 1,000’s of of independent American inventors nominate anon, Wandering through, and Night Writer.

    We concurrently nominate them to the CAFC and SCOTUS.

    What’s good for us is also good for the country.

    Very, very good indeed.

    1. 2.1

      Thank you for the kind words — but public office is not for me.

      I will continue to blaze forth in the niche that I have.

    2. 2.2

      anon’s style of persuasion is exactly what the patent system deserves.

      1. 2.2.1

        NS II – you confuse (still) the forums upon which we partake.

        Persuasion in this forum is LESS “gee, I am convinced and will let go of all my preconceived notions and lack of engaging on the merits because I only want to get up on a pedestal and speak my side) and MORE: “anon’s counter points DEVASTATE my preconceived notions and WHAT I got up on my pedestal to speak about.”

        HERE – the application of John Maynard Keynes is far more valuable.

        Just take a look at who I tangle with.

        1. 2.2.1.1

          Tangling with you is an exercise in futility because no one can dispute your evaluation of the strength of your counter points, That is why you are such a persuasive commentator. You have convinced me of such much about you. Please share your gift with the public.

          1. 2.2.1.1.1

            Your response is simply incongruent with itself.

            You seem to want to provide a compliment (which would be valid), but you insert an invalid snark that makes your effort
            F
            A
            I
            L

            You really are just not that good at this.

            1. 2.2.1.1.1.1

              Which part was invalid? I want to understand how I fail in your eyes.

              1. 2.2.1.1.1.1.1

                Do you?

                Do you really?

                That is beyond doubtful (given the relative frequency of who your comments are aimed at — but how badly they are aimed).

                One part that is not valid is “exercise in futility

                Just because my arguments are sound and I typically show the better understanding of law, does not mean “tangling with me” is futile. YOU might actually learn something.

                1. Thank you for confirming my suspicion that no one understands the strength of your arguments better than you.

                2. Nice strawman – are you done bea t1ng that?

                  (There is a world of difference from YOUR opportunity to learn and “no one understands” — unless you are elevating yourself to be the sayer of what everyone could understand — is that the view from your Peak of Mount S?)

                3. Are you aware of anyone that is more impressed with your arguments than you?

                4. Sure – LOTS of people.

                  You seem to want to errantly imply that any level of me “being impressed” with my own arguments is somehow in error.

                  I do not argue to impress myself – my arguments MAY be impressive because they are nearly always the best ones on the board.

                  Don’t like it? Provide better ones.

                  You do not.

                5. Sure – LOTS of people.

                  How can I argue with “LOTS of people”? You say that you win all arguments, and I won’t try to convince you otherwise. As I said, it would be futile, but don’t take my word for it. LOTS of people feel the same way.

                6. Your strawmanning continues – the assertion by you that “I win all arguments” is NOT a valid spin of my statements.

                  As I said – if you have better arguments, make them.

                  You do not.

      2. 2.2.2

        It is hilarious that NS II cannot be bothered with anyone else’s “style of persuasion”….

        Well, not really – it is less funny and simply more telling.

  6. 1

    I will make a note on my calendar to prepare a nomination packet for Martin.

    1. 1.1

      Lol – oh, please do so — with the shambles of your reputation, that nomination packet will see the (appropriate) circular file pronto.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture