Source: http://techrights.org/2018/09/25/uspto-not-for-innovators/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:01:11+00:00

Document:
THE EPO was run by a corrupt tyrant for 8 years; he left his loyal compatriot in charge. At the USPTO, by contrast, a technical person (Michelle Lee) ran the Office for a number of years, undoing decades of injustice. Unlike lawyers or politicians or bankers (Iancu, Battistelli and Campinos, respectively), she persistently backed the appeal boards, which at the US are known as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a relatively new construct that deals with inter partes reviews (IPRs), typically invalidating bogus patents using 35 U.S.C. § 101, inspired by the highest court in the United States.
“Unlike lawyers or politicians or bankers (Iancu, Battistelli and Campinos, respectively), she persistently backed the appeal boards, which at the US are known as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a relatively new construct that deals with inter partes reviews (IPRs), typically invalidating bogus patents using 35 U.S.C. § 101, inspired by the highest court in the United States.”Michelle Lee got pushed out, partly by a mob of patent maximalists. When a replacement was found for her IAM pressured him to crush PTAB and now it’s jubilant to say “PTAB reforms latest move by PTO to tackle Board’s “perception problem”” (whose perception?).
“After proposed change in claim construction standard, new procedures may lessen need for Congressional action,” it says. No, there was no need for Congressional action; those who asked for Congressional action are crazed patent maximalists who know no boundaries to patent law.
Well, that will mean nothing to courts; in fact, this would further widen the gap between USPTO determinations and courts’ decisions. How is that beneficial? Maybe that’s fine for law firms because they profit from litigation no matter if it’s entirely frivolous. Bogus patents, bogus lawsuits… what do they care? They just do the billing. Their finance department is happy.
Ouellette seems a tad concerned by Iancu’s plan, which is trying to bypass the law and the Supreme Court. Iancu is Trump’s “swamp” material (his firm had worked for Trump before he got this job), so this does not exactly shock us.
In remarks at the annual IPO meeting today, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu said “the USPTO cannot wait” for “uncertain” legislation on patentable subject matter and is “contemplating revised guidance” to help examiners apply this doctrine. Few are likely to object to his general goal of “increased clarity,” but the USPTO should be sure that any new guidance is consistent with precedent from the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit.
As most readers of this blog are well aware, the Supreme Court’s recent patentable-subject-matter cases—Bilski (2010), Mayo (2012), Myriad (2013), and Alice (2014)—have made it far easier to invalidate patent claims that fall under the “implicit exception” to § 101 for “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Since Alice, the Federal Circuit has held patents challenged on patentable-subject-matter grounds to be invalid in over 90% of appeals, and the court has struggled to provide clear guidance on the contours of the doctrine. Proponents of this shift call it a necessary tool in the fight against “patent trolls”; critics claim it creates needless uncertainty in patent rights and makes it too difficult to patent important innovations in areas such as medical diagnostics. In June, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018, which would amend § 101 to largely undo these changes—following a joint proposal of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)—but Govtrack gives it a 2% chance of being enacted and Patently-O says 0%.
In the absence of legislation, can the USPTO step in? In his IPO speech today, Director Iancu decries “recent § 101 case law” for “mush[ing]” patentable subject matter with the other patentability criteria under §§ 102, 103, and 112, and he proposes new guidance for patent examiners because this mushing “must end.” The problem is that the USPTO cannot overrule recent § 101 case law. It does not have rulemaking authority over substantive patent law criteria, so it must follow Federal Circuit and Supreme Court guidance on this doctrine, mushy though it might be.
It’s not clear how Iancu thinks or why Iancu believes this will improve things. It will only further exacerbate things as he does not control the courts (nor should he). But it’s all about law firms, not science and technology.
This morning we saw this article titled “Patent 101: Patent Process FAQs For Inventors” (not about Section 101).
So yesterday too he carried on with strawman arguments as headlines. Of course the answer to this rhetorical question is “no”.
This morning, Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Director Iancu gave remarks at the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Annual Meeting. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given IPO’s efforts to legislatively overturn the Supreme Court’s recent cases reinforcing the bar on patents on products of nature and abstract ideas, Director Iancu’s remarks focused on patentable subject matter—§ 101.
“At the end of the day, these people may be dooming their own patent system by looking to broaden patent scope at the Office even though courts push back, leaving patent holders in a limbo, uncertain of the validity or value (if any) of their patent/s.”Dennis Crouch has meanwhile gone ahead and put a dollar sign ($) in “USPTO” to better explain what USPTO is about: it’s all about greed. But he actually made/used the image for other reasons (“SUCCESS ACT”).
The initial speaker was Mr. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director United States Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Iancu took the audience back to the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair and Chicago Columbian Exposition, which in his words ushered in the modern world of technology. His focus was on the race over who would provide the lighting for the event? On the one hand, there was Thomas A. Edison and his invention of direct electrical current, on the other, the development of alternating current, by Nikola Tesla (the inventor, not the car), supported by George Westinghouse. As noted by Mr. Iancu, Westinghouse (and Tesla) won the bid.
For Mr. Iancu, what we learn from this story is that the patent system both encourages invention as well as patent design around, both of which are integral parts. But in today’s world, the outcome of the war over electrical currents and the role of patent protection in that contest, are not enough. Now, the USPTO is equally(?) focused on how to incentivize invention (read: innovation), although specifics offered were few, other than to emphasize the role of education.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has revised its standard operating procedures (SOPs) on panelling of matters (SOP1) and precedential and informative decisions (SOP2).

References: § 101
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101