This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2018/02/11/berkheimer-v-hp/.
Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 5:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The decision concerns presentation or availability of evidence (§ 101 being more of a ‘footnote’)
Summary: A case which isn’t inherently about § 101 but about the evidence backing rejection of a patent (see above) is being spun by patent maximalists, who also resort to bashing of judges, academics, and Justices (Supreme Court) in the process
THE patent microcosm isn’t used to being publicly challenged. It is not accustomed to refutation. It just pays money to dominate the news feeds and spread its delusional vision. The EPO does this in Europe (because Battistelli has no qualm about corrupting media), but in the US it’s not the USPTO but the patent microcosm which does all this. This post is a quick debunking.
“It’s not applicable just to § 101 and there is nothing extraordinary about it.”A lot of it started when Patently-O‘s Dennis Crouch wrote about “Underlying Questions of Fact”, quoting the following passage: “While patent eligibility is ultimately a question of law, the district court erred in concluding there are no underlying factual questions to the § 101 inquiry. Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.”
=> ↺ wrote about “Underlying Questions of Fact”
So that’s about it. It’s not applicable just to § 101 and there is nothing extraordinary about it. Here is the original decision rather than the ‘twist’ from the patent microcosm. Michael Loney (part of the patent microcosm’s media) wrote: “Important statement from the Federal Circuit on the factual underpinnings of the eligibility analysis, in Berkheimer v HP…”
=> ↺ the original decision | ↺ wrote
“The Federal Circuit is not the US Supreme Court, so whether that “sets new rules for fact finding” remains to be seen (in practice).”Important statement or important for the patent microcosm statement? Those two things aren’t the same.
As one patent-centric person put it: “FedCir vacates summary judgment of ineligibility on dependent claims due to representative treatment of independent. Court says eligibility is a question of fact. So… Rule 132 decs to traverse 101 rejections?”
=> ↺ put it
“They maliciously imply that the courts have thus far rejected facts. That’s how patent trolls and extremists prefer to think of it.”Professor Risch wrote about the same decision that the “Federal Circuit sets new rules for fact finding in patentable subject matter determinations. Underlying determinations of conventionality must be supported. I see this one going en banc.”
=> ↺ that
The Federal Circuit is not the US Supreme Court, so whether that “sets new rules for fact finding” remains to be seen (in practice). A patent maximalist wrote: “The Fed. Cir. Held Today that the PTAB Does Indeed Need Facts, Not Just Official Notice, to Make a 101 Case” (he links to a site of a literal patent troll).
“Then came (separately from the above) the patent trolls themselves, attacking academics like Brian J. Love and his colleagues, who has just released this new paper about PTAB.”Notice the above headline. They maliciously imply that the courts have thus far rejected facts. That’s how patent trolls and extremists prefer to think of it.
A different patent-centric person (more balanced) said: “Berkheimer v HP FedCir 2/8/18 affirms cl 1 not 101 eligible BUT vacates SJ re cls 4-7; fact q’s exist under Alice step 2. “Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.” Other cls indef.”
=> ↺ said
It’s all about that passage quoted in Patently-O. Another patent-centric person called it a “[m]omentous decision.” He said: “For the first time, FedCir vacated a SJ of patent ineligibility on ground that there is a genuine dispute of material fact underlying 101 determination. And, opinion holds that resolution requires meeting the clear and convincing standard for the defendant.”
=> ↺ called it
Then came a trolls-connected crank who likes to bash professors whom he does not agree with. He is attacking Professor Lemley again: “If Lemley were any more transparent he’d be Saran Wrap Every “principle,” every “well reasoned argument” spouted from his fraudulent lips about evils/benefits of patents is a farce, a charade whose only purpose is to generate more billings for firm by introducing uncertainty […] opinion holds that resolution requires meeting the clear and convincing standard for the defendant” Im embarrassed to say I didn’t even notice how important that is… so far the panels have been ducking the SOP, and this is also extremely useful […] Listening to oral argument in Berkheimer case: http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2017-1437.mp3 … Apparent that Moore, Stoll, think support in specification for technical advantage can create dispute of fact to defeat 101 – pray for them on your panel if you have a #patent Alice rejection case!”
=> bash professors whom he does not agree with | ↺ attacking Professor Lemley again | ↺ … | ↺ …
“And if that’s not bad enough (bashing academics you don’t agree with and claiming they’re not professors even though they are), then came bashing of SCOTUS…”Then came (separately from the above) the patent trolls themselves, attacking academics like Brian J. Love and his colleagues, who has just released this new paper about PTAB. The patent troll wrote: “How am I to take this “scholarly” paper seriously from a (co) author, an executive for Unified Patents & whose firm has a PTAB institution rate 33 points BELOW the industry average? And he knows “low quality patents”?”
=> ↺ this new paper about PTAB | ↺ wrote
The troll’s friend (who wrote pieces against the EFF for the troll’s site) dished some more dirt: “inter partes review is, as Congress intended, eliminating patents that appear to be of relatively low quality” papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… No, IPR=rigged game where patent owner given 1 yr to defend vs infringer who has 6 mo head start, like giving runner 50m head start in 100m race”
“What pretty much all the above have in common is that they make it about § 101, striving to almost cast it “irrelevant” and in need of deprecation.”And if that’s not bad enough (bashing academics you don’t agree with and claiming they’re not professors even though they are), then came bashing of SCOTUS: “don’t know if there were method claims in those patents, but to some extent, the attorney was 100% right; if you’re going to say use of one physical generic machine (computer) can be abstract, why can’t use of another physical machine be similar abstract? SCOTUS gave us this mess…”
No, SCOTUS belatedly (decades late) dealt with the issue and did the right thing. Sure, patent trolls aren’t happy about it, but nobody is happy about patent trolls, either.
He’s basically ranting about other things, still upset that PTAB eliminates many software patents. What we have here is a proponent of lawless patent trolls who use bogus patents (which PTAB tackles) for blackmail. There have been all sorts of other attacks on PTAB from his account this past week, e.g. [1, 2, 3], not to mention veiled advocacy of software patents. His online friend was all over Berkheimer v HP [1, 2], as well as another precedential new decision. What pretty much all the above have in common is that they make it about § 101, striving to almost cast it “irrelevant” and in need of deprecation.
=> ↺ 1 | ↺ 2 | ↺ 3 | ↺ veiled advocacy of software patents | ↺ 1 | ↺ 2 | ↺ another precedential new decision
“The Internet can oftentimes be like an echo chamber, especially so-called ‘social media’, so patent maximalists are likely exposed only to voices to people who already agree with them.”Go back to the source from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) (we have made this local copy, it’s 17 pages long, with § 101 mentioned about a dozen times, i.e. less than once per page) and read what was actually said. The Internet can oftentimes be like an echo chamber, especially so-called ‘social media’, so patent maximalists are likely exposed only to voices to people who already agree with them. █
=> ↺ Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) | ↺ this local copy
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 (ba2dc).