Patent Loving Court Strikes Again: CAFC Orders USPTO To Reconsider NTP Patents It Had Rejected
from the amazing dept
We have discussed at great lengths the problems of the US setting up a specialized appeals court that handles patent cases, known as CAFC or the court of appeals for the federal circuit. That court has tended to lean increasingly "pro-patent" over the years, presiding over the greatest judicial-driven expansion of the patent system and what it covers. For a few years, the Supreme Court had started smacking down the massive overreach of CAFC, but in the past two years, it's started to back down and let CAFC do its thing again.If there was a "poster child" for the ridiculous excesses of the patent system, it was NTP, the results of a company that completely flopped in the marketplace (because it couldn't execute) that then successfully used the patent system to pressure RIM -- a company who successfully executed where NTP failed -- to hand over an astounding $612.5 million, even as the USPTO had made it clear that it found NTP's patents unlikely to be valid.
Despite NTP and its small group of investors making out like bandits on the RIM case, they continued to sue a lot more companies. Unlike in the RIM case, where the judge put tremendous pressure on RIM to settle, even as the USPTO had made it clear that it was likely to reject NTP's patents, in these other cases, the judges wisely decided to wait for the USPTO, who did, in fact, invalidate many NTP patent claims.
And, of course, NTP appealed the USPTO's reasoning... and along comes CAFC to say that the USPTO got it wrong, and it needs to reconsider its invalidation of claims in seven of NTP's patents, meaning that NTP has, yet again, been given new life. And, of course, thanks to the somewhat idiotic and dangerous "presumption of validity," this means that the courts need to treat those patents as valid while the USPTO reviews them yet again.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Patent Loving Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Loving Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patent Loving Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Patent Loving Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OSI Model As Obviousness.
The same principle of course applies to other systems. For example, in mass storage, there is the long established stack of Database/ Unix-Style_Mount-Un-Mount_System/ File_System/ Block_Device. This would affect the validity of certain patents covering particular uses of Flash-storage devices, for example.
From my personal library, I can produce any number of old copies of Byte, Dr. Dobbs' Journal, etc., in which various and sundry computer systems are presented in terms of illustrated layer/stack diagrams. One can debate about the level of inventiveness involved in establishing a layer/stack system, ab initio, for a particular class of computer systems, but there was surely no striking originality in using one which had already been popularized.
What we want the Supreme Court to hold is that the widespread publication of a "general partitioning model" creates a framework of obviousness, in which it is obvious to see if a known component can be plugged into one of the compartments, and used with whatever is already plugged into the framework.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*shuffles some papers*
Nope, didn't miss a damn thing. These patents are still made of shit and the person who granted them should be fired.
That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EPIC WTF?
Perhaps the court doesn't understand what the "P" in USPTO stands for? I am now wondering how the courts would react if patent examiners began doubting judges' interpretation of the law and having cases retried that have already been determined.
Seriously, how much of that RIM settlement has gone into the pocket of that judge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EPIC WTF?
A taxpayer-funded message from the Judicial Council, on the US Courts government website, “Federal Judicial Pay Increase Fact Sheet”:
Federal judges say: "I CAN HAS MOAR MONEY?”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what about......
So they win....later comes out they're full of shit (so technically they lose), but they still come out ahead?
That works.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If their material is invalid, someone will prove it in a court of law. You cannot assume that every patent is bad and requires the patent holder to prove it, because they have already proven it enough to get the patent. Once achieved, they reach the "innocent until proven guilty", aka "presumption of validity".
Mike, you really make me shake my head this week, you seem to be going all over your own stands just to try to call patent owners out, and to try to cut down their rights. Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can I have a cookie?
No
Can I have a cookie?
No
Can I have a cookie?
No
Can I have a cookie?
No
Can I have a cookie?
Alllllright - here you go, now leave me alone!
Seems there ought to be a limit, possibly a requirement to appeal to a higher court or STFU.
Also it would make sense that if one wins a suit which alleged infringement of a patent they can no longer be sued relative to that particular accusation.
I suppose this asking too much.
Oh yeah ... "presumption of validity" is not "innocent until proven guilty". Why would you make such a ridiculous statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hey, lets apply that reasoning to criminal cases too: "They have already been proven guilty enough to get charged." Then make them prove their innocence! Great idea, huh? That's the way it is in some countries. I bet you admire those countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it's the opposite. It's guilty until proven innocent when you presume the patent is legit. Just as with copyright cases, where the burden is on the person filing for infringement to prove that the copyright is valid, it seems reasonable for the patent holder to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
until proven guilty at work"
Um...no. The one we should presume to be innocent, in this case, is RIM.
NTP is the accuser, RIM the defendant. Presumption of Validity, therefore, is equivalent to assumption of guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It means placing the burden of proof on the prosecuting party rather than the party that would be punished, so as to minimize the probability of erroneous punishment. Presumption of validity shifts the burden of proof to the party that would be punished, so as to maximize the probability of erroneous punishment.
Presumption of validity is the presumption that the district attorney is right, and the accused is guilty - the polar opposite of presumption of innocence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how much..
Judges are just as likely to be corrupt as the politicians these days. Even SCOTUS has some rulings that make one wonder if they are biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Presumption of validity
It would be silly to presume that a patent is INvalid. Imagine this being used with other government documents. "Yes, you have a driver's license there, but we're going to presume that it's invalid. You need to prove that the license is valid." Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Presumption of validity
Just look at the study that found 30% of patents covered by other older patents. That 30% are clearly invalid (in whole, our at least in part), yet they were still issued by the supposedly infallible USPTO.
I don't mind the presumption of validity, as long as that presumption is grounded in reality. That's clearly no longer the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CAFC
Or haven't you heard how idiotic it is to tell someone to do something, then assume they did it wrong? Not just demoralizing, IDIOTIC!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
propaganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]