May 29, 2013
The USPTO supposedly grants patent rights based upon inventive merit, though historically that has sometimes been an impolite fiction. The chairs of the judiciary committees in Congress, Senator Patrick Leahy and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, would like to remove basic rights to trial that have been in place since the 19th century. These paid corporate hacks would repeal 35 USC § 145, which grants the right to trial against patent office abusive practices. The rationale, a logical non sequitur, is supposed abuse of patents by patent holders. Goodlatte: "Abusive patent litigation and specifically patent trolls have a significant impact on American competitiveness." Leahy: "Patent trolling activity casts a pall on the system because it hinders innovation." In short, Congressional abusers of basic fairness would like to let the patent office abuse patent applicants because they think that non-corporate patent holders abuse the patent system by practicing their basic rights of ownership.
May 26, 2013
Few federal judges are more than randomly competent, particularly with patent cases. Judges, never the brightest legal minds, mostly rely upon their instincts, trusting emotional bias, and in the finale wrapping legal window-dressing around their prejudicial rulings. Judge William M. Conley in the Western District of Wisconsin seems to fit the bill of the judicial collective. In Douglas Dynamics v. Buyers Products, he blew the claim construction, wrongly granted summary judgment of non-infringement on a claim, and denied a permanent injunction against a direct competitor (snow plow makers). The CAFC reversed (CAFC 2011-1291).
May 21, 2013
Going To Seed
In Bowman v. Monsanto, the Supreme Court creates a glaring exception to patent law as a boon to corporate power. Such plutocratic largesse is the norm, as is ignoring facts to rule by bias, while crafting law from the bench without respect to statute. The abject corruption of the courts in this country continues.
May 16, 2013
Down the Rabbit Hole
Alice, a corporation from Down Under, got a family of system and method patents that broadly claimed computerizing escrow as a way of mitigating settlement risk. CLS got spooked and got a summary declaratory judgment of invalidity via §101 without the judge bothering to construe the claims. In an en banc appeal, the CAFC, in affirmance, displays a profound ignorance of the law with a stunning absence of cogency.