This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2017/04/11/ptab-vs-influence-access/.
Posted in America, Patents at 6:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Making justice less just and “just about business”…
Summary: Covert activities and lobbying by the patent microcosm, e.g. to promote the resurgence of software patents, as seen in yesterday’s news
THE Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) added to the USPTO an important mechanism of quality control — similar to that which Battistelli at the EPO gradually abolishes.
=> ↺ USPTO | ↺ EPO | gradually abolishes
Using PTAB, for example, one person went against a patent of the Big Pharma/Medicine Cartel (think of overpricing, price gouging etc. against poor, ill people) and last night there were many articles about it, for he claimed that he had lost to a “cabal”.
=> ↺ one person went against a patent of the Big Pharma/Medicine Cartel
“So basically, for a fee (a very fee high most probably, quite frankly as usual) patent maximalists can rub shoulders with PTAB judges who can invalidate a lot of patents.”“In the end, lobbying and special interests pay,” he said. “Medicare and U.S. consumers pay the ultimate price for the evergreening of bad patents by the pharma cabal.”
As a bit of background: “While Bass still has one case pending at the U.S. Patent and Appeal Board that he filed under his own name, it appears he’s given up. The coalition hasn’t filed a new case in 18 months and he shuttered the fund overseeing it, the Credes Master Fund, last year.”
PTAB, however, is not too well known for going after medical patents. It typically goes after abstract patents, notably software patents. Published by Managing IP yesterday, a site with pro-UPC and patent maximalism agenda (not just the paywall), was this announcement that said: “Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges had some advice for attendees at two Managing IP US Patent Forum events in Silicon Valley and Washington DC in March.”
=> typically goes after abstract patents, notably software patents | ↺ this announcement that said
“It serves to reinforce what Bass said above.”So basically, for a fee (a very fee high most probably, quite frankly as usual*) patent maximalists can rub shoulders with PTAB judges who can invalidate a lot of patents. Isn’t there an ethical issue here? It serves to reinforce what Bass said above.
Watch Fenwick & West still lobbying for software patents (yesterday) and David Crouch, a foe of PTAB and a proponent of software patents, still poking fun at Alice (also yesterday).
=> ↺ still lobbying for software patents | foe of PTAB | ↺ still poking fun at Alice
“There are special interests and lobbying whose purpose it to crush Alice, make PTAB toothless, and even oust the Director of the USPTO, as we shall show later.”As for Managing IP, yesterday it advertised this event dominated by those trying to thwart Alice/Section 101. “Steve Lieberman,” it said, “partner at Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck, has some advice for those looking to file patents and avoid rejections under Section 101.”
Also outside the paywall: “Speakers at a recent Managing IP event suggested US patents can be drafted to direct them into an art unit that will minimise the risks of 101 rejections.”
Well, make no mistake about it. There are special interests and lobbying whose purpose it to crush Alice, make PTAB toothless, and even oust the Director of the USPTO, as we shall show later. █ ____* These are in effect payments for “access” (in the lobbying sense) or for influence, sometimes for a speaking position too (preaching to decision-makers, pushing agenda).
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).