Appeals Court Agrees: Awful Patent Used To Shake Down Podcasters Is Invalid
from the good-news dept
Hey, a bit of good news! For years now we've covered the saga of Personal Audio, the "company" that claimed it held a patent (US Patent 8,112,504) that covered podcasting itself. The actual patent is about delivering news on audio cassettes, but give lawyers enough old patents and they'll twist them to be about anything. The company sent threat letters to a bunch of popular podcasts, and actually sued a few. EFF filed to invalidate the patent back in 2013 and finally succeeded in 2015. But... Personal Audio appealed.
But the company won't be getting what it wants, as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has gotten this one right: it's sided with EFF and said that the patent is invalid.
EFF had filed what's known as an Inter Partes Review (IPR) process, pointing out some prior art and arguing "obviousness" as well, and the Patent Office review board had agreed. Personal Audio tried to argue that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) misconstrued some of its claims, but the court notes that they're the freaking patent office, and they can construe claims however they want. Well, that's not quite how it was put, but:
The PTAB is authorized to construe the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation...
It then goes through and affirms all of how PTAB construed the various claims, saying they are perfectly reasonable constructions and then concludes, simply:
We have considered all of Personal Audio’s arguments, and affirm the PTAB’s conclusion that the challenged claims are anticipated by the Patrick/CBC reference, and alternatively that the claims are invalid as obvious in view of the Compton/CNN reference.
And thus, the patent is still invalid. Personal Audio can appeal to the Supreme Court (which seems unlikely to take such a straightforward case), but EFF says it's ready if it does go that far:
“Although we’re happy that this patent is still invalid, Personal Audio could seek review at the Supreme Court,” said Vera Ranieri, Staff Attorney at EFF. “We’ll be there if they do.”
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
Filed Under: cafc, patents, podcasting
Companies: personal audio
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now?
Tell me again how American inventors need patents?
MAGA indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now?
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/with-patents-or-without-black-inventors-reshaped-american-i ndustry-180962201/#FGKrYiRLiqEt8Ujg.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now?
Robert William Kearns (March 10, 1927 – February 9, 2005) was an American inventor who invented the intermittent windshield wiper systems used on most automobiles from 1969 to the present. His first patent for the invention was filed on December 1, 1964.
Kearns won one of the best known patent infringement cases against Ford Motor Company (1978–1990) and a case against Chrysler Corporation (1982–1992). Having invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism, which was useful in light rain or mist, he tried to interest the "Big Three" auto makers in licensing the technology. They all rejected his proposal, yet began to install (all 3 companies?) intermittent wipers in their cars, beginning in 1969.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: intermittent windshield wiper
And one I cite often to illustrate the insanity of our patent system.
The "invention" of the idea of running wipers slower. How can such a thing possibly pass the obviousness test?
Oh, right - there is no obviousness test.
But, he did win in court. And proceeded to shake down auto companies for their attempts to make safer cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: intermittent windshield wiper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: intermittent windshield wiper
My point being that 35 USC 103 is (and always has been) a dead letter, effectively ignored and unenforced by the USPTO. And, too often, the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: grant multiple patents for the same thing to different parties
They do. That's the problem.
Some poor bastard invests his life savings and those of his friends and family into a startup to make something new, and gets sued into oblivion for his efforts by one of those parties.
Even if he has a patent of his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: grant multiple patents for the same thing to different parties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: grant multiple patents for the same thing to different parties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now?
It boggles the mind that everyone at the USPTO is wholly unaware that radio and television news broadcasts are things that have existed for over a very, very long time now and are therefore prior art, but somehow they manage to keep missing those crucial facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One can only hope...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One can only hope...
Imagine that we teach all our children that their potential for accomplishment is unlimited, and one way to translate their ideas into limitless money is with patents. It's true, actually, here in the US, there are examples after examples, including me. We teach them to learn about something, anything they like, and figure out a better way to do it. Tell them they're smart, they're unique, and if they really apply themselves, they can accomplish something no one has ever accomplished before. And when they do, write it down as a patent, file it, and reap the benefits. Be the best, have the best ideas, improve upon everything that has ever been done before, and then be rewarded. Inspiring, no? That's how my grandfather explained the story to me, that story is still true today, and God Willing, will be true for future generations as well (despite Techdirt). Be the best, be the brightest, write it down and own it. That's the challenge that the US throws down to young people in the form of the patent system. Inspiring, no? Yes, blah blah blah, some attorneys abuse it, some attorneys abuse everything, so what, no way to prevent it. The patent system, as invented, and as practiced by the overwhelming majority of legitimate inventors, is a work of genius, designed to encourage geniuses, and we all benefit from that. It's a big part of what makes America America.
Disparage it at your peril. MAGA
What do you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One can only hope...
I think it has absolutely nothing to do with a patent dealing with cassette tapes being used to extract money from unrelated podcast providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One can only hope...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One can only hope...
I fear that I must decline, as the character and world you have invented for yourself to reside within far surpass anything I could invent for myself. Alas, I must remain here in the real world cursed with sanity, unable to follow you into your flights of fantasy and invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One can only hope...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One can only hope...
It was only when I read
that I realised that this comment was either parody or sarcasm. Well done and all the funnier now that I see your humour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One can only hope...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One can only hope...
I think you would defend existing patent law, no matter what, unless and until an abusive lawyer made you a victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One can only hope...
The fact that you feel some sort of kinship with 419 letter Nigerian princes is, perhaps, no surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One can only hope...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170705/10241437723/state-dept-enlists-hollywood-friends-to -start-fake-twitter-fight-over-intellectual-property.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]