"Software Inventions" is #uspto copying corrupt #epo - calling #swpats something else to dodge the courts/justice. But this merely discredits the @uspto and harms the legitimacy of ALL US #patents
"New USPTO Guidance for Software Inventions - Foreshadowing a New Kind of Rejection?: On January 7th, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance https://t.co/qZsWRhZnQ6 " pic.twitter.com/x5Cu15XtaJ
"Google has been the financial and intellectual muscle behind much of the destruction of the U.S. patent system, from being the money behind the EFF’s Jihad against software patents," I would not count money as a main driver for @EFFhttps://t.co/BUqi3AcxWf
Three articles coming shortly: #microsoft #epo and then #uspto (just working out the stories' sequence to optimise readability). Having DNS issues on the server side again, due to configs/cache, they're being overriden.
Unified Patents is again growing its legal department, and is seeking experienced, registered, patent attorneys. Applicants must have at least 3 years of law firm or other relevant experience at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and post-grant petition (IPR, PGR, and CBM), reexamination, and
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will be offering the next webinar in its Patent Quality Chat webinar series from 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET) on January 10, 2019. In the latest webinar, on the "Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," USPTO Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Bob Bahr and Senior Legal Advisor Matthew Sked will discuss the revised guidance and the changes it makes to how USPTO personnel apply the first step of the Supreme Court's Alice/Mayo test (Step 2A in Office guidance) for subject matter eligibility, and specifically, how the revised guidance creates a new inquiry in Step...
By Michael Borella -- On January 4, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published updated examination guidance regarding the subject matter eligibility of inventions involving abstract ideas. The guidance went into effect on January 7, upon its publication in the Federal Register. In substance, the new guidance falls in line with statements made previously by USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. But at first blush, it does not appear to be a radical departure from substantive USPTO examination practice despite raising a few additional procedural hurdles that examiners are to overcome before rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Further, the guidance...
IBM was the US patent leader for the 26th year in a row in 2018 while China was the only major patenting country to show a net increase in US grants, according to IFI CLAIMS Patent Services’ new ranking
"invalidating on summary judgment claims directed to methods for isolating cell-free fetal #DNA from maternal DNA on the grounds that they are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101." bogus US #patents again. #uspto
By Kevin E. Noonan -- U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston stuck again on Christmas Eve, giving the biotech patent community a rhetorical lump of coal in their stocking by invalidating on summary judgment claims directed to methods for isolating cell-free fetal DNA from maternal DNA on the grounds that they are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The author of the Ariosa v. Sequenom decision a few years ago, Judge Illston has rarely seen a patent she likes (or is not willing to invalidate), and the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit's recent § 101 jurisprudence has given district...
Wringing out the old year (2018). Marco (12/28); Affirm PTO rejection of app. claims under 101. Abstract idea of playing dice game; only inventive concept: marking on dice (but that was "printed matter"). Chen opinion. Mayer, concurring: no facts in 101.
Patent extremists prefer talking about Mayo but not Alice when it comes to 35 U.S.C. § 101; Broadcom is meanwhile going on a 'fishing expedition', looking to profit from patents by calling for embargo through the ITC
The patent maximalists are celebrating overgranting; the USPTO, failing to heed the warning from patent courts, continues issuing far too many patents and a new paper from Mark Lemley and Robin Feldman offers a dose of sobering reality
PTO is sending Patent SES (David Wiley) back to Patents and bringing another (Debbie Stephens) to serve as the DCIO for a couple of months, this sounds odd? Rumors are flying about a new CIO selection but nothing official. Wiley seemed to be well thought of, Stephens not sure?
35 U.S.C. § 101 still squashes a lot of software patents, reducing confidence in US patents; the only way to correct this is to reduce patent filings and file fewer lawsuits, judging their merit in advance based on precedents from higher courts
Auditory roles which help ascertain high quality of patents (or invalidate low-quality patents, at least those pointed out by petitions) are being smeared, demonised as "death squads" and worked around using dirty tricks that are widely described as "scams"
Having spread surrogate terms like “4IR” (somewhat of a 'mask' for software patents, by the EPO's own admission in the Gazette), the EPO continues with several more terms like “ICT” and now we’re grappling with terms like “AI”, which the media endlessly perpetuates these days (in relation to patents
If heard by usual PTAB panel suspects this patent is 100% dead under §101: rejection of "managing access to a partition of another airline's flight-inventory database" is reversed! https://t.co/t6ae4Dng9K Apparently these judges didnt get "kill everything as abstract idea" memo
The EFF's Daniel Nazer, as well as TechDirt's founder Mike Masnick, won't tolerate Google's misuse of Jarek Duda's work; the USPTO should generally reject all applications for software patents -- something which a former Commissioner for Patents at the USPTO seems to be accepting now (that such pate
Software/abstract patents, as per § 101 (Section 101) which relates to Alice Corp v CLS Bank at the US Supreme Court, are not valid in the United States, albeit one typically has to pay a fortune for a court battle to show it because the patent office (USPTO) is still far too lenient and careless
The anti-PTAB lobby (which is basically the pro-troll or pro-litigation lobby) continues to belittle and insult PTAB, having repeatedly failed to dismantle it; in the meantime PTAB is disarming several more patent trolls and removing from the system patents which were granted in error (as well as th