This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2018/06/12/iam-lobbying-opportunity/.

● 06.12.18

●● IPBC, a Patent Trolls-Funded Event of IAM, is Advancing the Attacks on Section 101/Alice

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 1:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Agenda up for sale

Summary: Andrei Iancu preaches to the litigation ‘industry’ in an event (lobbying opportunity) organised by the patent trolls’ lobby, IAM

THE patent trolls’ lobby, IAM, has received plenty of money from patent trolls (in Europe as well, e.g. Sisvel among others). It’s all right there in the “Sponsors” page for IPBC. Even Microsoft and several of its trolls and/or front groups (we can count at least six right there) are paying IAM. Just remember that IAM’s authors have their hands tied; they know where the money comes from and what to deliver in return, e.g. in terms of bias or agenda.

=> ↺ the “Sponsors” page for IPBC

So when USPTO Director Iancu goes to speak at IPBC we more or less know the audience he speaks to. He too knows the audience. Yesterday morning Joff Wild (IAM’s editor) said:

=> ↺ USPTO | ↺ said

In a couple of hours, the educational part of the event begins with a keynote presentation from USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. That will be followed by a debate on the motion “This house believes that despite recent negative developments, the United States remains and will continue to be the driving force of the global patent market”.

Iancu’s talk was mentioned by Watchtroll last night and Mr. Lloyd (IAM), who has been lobbying Iancu, helps the bashing of Section 101. From the event’s rather long report:

=> ↺ last night | has been lobbying Iancu | ↺ event’s rather long report

Iancu on dysfunctional 101 – For his keynote speech to open this year’s IPBC Global, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu addressed one of the meatiest and most problematic issues facing the US patent system. As any market observer knows, determining what is patentable under section 101 of the US statute has been the focus of constant review by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Both, according to many stakeholders, have only added uncertainty to the eligibility debate. Iancu has hinted a number of times in public before that he thinks there are major issues with 101 and eligibility. Today, though, he put his cards squarely on the table and made clear that he does not believe the current state of affairs is sustainable. In tackling the issue head on Iancu asked whether Thomas Edison’s original phonograph would have survived the kind of patentability analysis that applications are today subject to at the USPTO itself and in the courts. Although Edison’s truly ground-breaking invention did receive a patent back in 1878 and in less than three months, Iancu suggested that fast-forward to today and similarly disruptive technology might have trouble getting through the two-step Alice test. “For many modern technologies,” he said, “we are nowadays going through a tortured exercise that asks as a threshold question: Do we want to prevent a patent even if the invention is perhaps entirely novel, completely nonobvious, enabled and well-claimed?” He went on to point out that that question is proving extremely difficult to answer: “Inventors and their lawyers, examiners, district court judges and Federal Circuit judges are all struggling on a daily basis trying to figure out what is in and what is out.” To help solve some of their struggles, Iancu suggested that the approach should be simplified. “In the end, as we go through the process under the current statute, we should not over-complicate, and we ought not to twist ourselves into a pretzel on every single case,” he insisted. While much of the recent focus by the courts and stakeholders has been on the state of 101, Iancu pointed out that there were other sections of the statute – namely sections 102, 103 and 112 – which were designed to filter out questionable patent applications. To that end, he suggested that the patentability analysis return to its original filter: “Is the patent merely on a defined building block of scientific or technological work, or is it instead on a practical application of it?” To help make his point he referred back to Justice Thomas’s decision in the Alice case which urged that the Supreme Court’s ruling should be narrowly construed “lest it swallow of all of patent law”. While there are growing calls for Congressional action to re-write section 101 – and several IP groups including IPO, AIPLA and the ABA’s IP section – have proposed possible changes to the statute, it was notable that Iancu used his speech to emphasise that the tools to fix the problem already exist. It was a message that met with many nodding heads among the delegates and meant that this year’s IPBC started with an undoubted buzz about a shift in the US patent market. (RL)

In short, as we expected all along, Iancu is like a ‘mole’ of the patent litigation ‘industry’ (which he himself came from). But he’s not a judge and he does not decide on law or even caselaw. Iancu can badmouth Section 101 all he wants, but if he waters it down and courts then invalidate an even greater proportion of patents granted by the USPTO, the Office will simply doom itself and Iancu be viewed as an utter failure.

Curiously enough, IAM does not mention Battistelli who was supposed to be a keynote speaker, promoting software patents at the EPO. We might soon know what’s going on. He’s still listed as a speaker in the “Speakers” page, but maybe he opens the last day’s session (i.e. today). We’ll say more about this corrupt thug in our next post. █

=> was supposed to be a keynote speaker | ↺ EPO

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.