“A ridiculous and absurd argument that only someone who knows nothing about patent law and patent practice, and how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office enforces both, would ignore the claims at issue. You can to be. Alice A patent will suddenly be obtained. That's not true. ”
Efforts by tech companies to undermine both the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 and the Economically Significant Promoting and Respecting American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act intensified this week, with many tech companies filing a lawsuit against the Senate Judiciary. A joint letter was sent to the Committee. The campaign was launched by industry groups on Monday and yesterday by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
PERA was introduced in June 2023 by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Delaware) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), and PREVAIL was introduced on the same day by Sen. Coons, Tillis, and their colleagues. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Maisie Hirono (D-HI). PERA eliminates all judicially created exceptions to U.S. patent eligibility law, and PREVAIL makes a number of changes aimed at reforming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
The joint letter was signed by groups including the Alliance of High-Tech Inventors, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Apps Association, and United for Patent Reform. The report told Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that PERA would “upend the U.S. patent system and remove patent rights from their historic moorings.” “It would cut off even technological improvements,” he said, calling on PERA not to proceed. The letter also predicted a “wave of devastating lawsuits against America's manufacturers, innovative technology companies, and Main Street businesses.” To illustrate the harm, a large number of claims are invalid under Section 101, but which the authors argue are permissible under PERA, and which they argue “significantly harms the U.S. innovation economy.” Listed patents.
As expected, EFF's campaign revived the “patent troll” narrative and urged the public to tell Congress to repeal the two bills. Among other claims, EFF stated that PERA allows the patents at issue. Alice v. CLS Bank Along with other “outrageous” patents.
Who are the trolls?
The patent troll story has always been a big lie and continues to be so. Those who continue to use derogatory labels are playing tricks to hide the obvious. The policies they have championed for the past 15 years have destroyed America's innovation ecosystem and given China and Europe an advantage in cutting-edge fields such as artificial intelligence.
It is true, of course, that there are bad actors in the patent litigation ecosystem, some of whom engage in so-called efficient infringement (i.e., the perception that it is ultimately cheaper to steal than to pay for what was taken). This includes those who bully innovators. ). As Apple is on record to say before the International Trade Commission, some effective infringers proudly declare that they will never obtain a license until they spend hundreds of millions of dollars fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court. Some do.
Of course, EFF and many media outlets have never called Apple a patent troll. why? Apple used design patents alone to hold Samsung back, after years of crying that Samsung should be ordered to pay billions of dollars just because Samsung made a phone that looked like the iPhone. And Apple doesn't produce anything in the U.S., importing everything from overseas and has even been linked to sweatshops in China over the past decade.
Apple and the many other companies that most vocally call out patent owners should either be labeled trolls themselves or rescind this derogatory label. Because only in an Orwellian world full of doublespeak can such true villains slip free and innovators be unfairly vilified as villains.
PERA will not suddenly make bad patents patentable.
And when it comes to both the letter's and EFF's claims that dozens of bad patents will suddenly be allowed under PERA, those claims simply because they have successfully overcome Section 101's exclusion to patent eligibility. It is a bridge too far to say that the term is allowed. Other parts of the Act must also be met for a claim to be accepted, such as Section 102 on novelty, Section 103 on obviousness, and Section 112 on adequate description of the invention. And actually has an invention. Therefore, all PERA does is revert to previous Supreme Court law. Alice and mayowhen the Supreme Court stated: diamond vs deal Decision makers are prohibited from shoehorning the entire patentability search into Section 101, instead allowing the rest of the statute to do the work for which it was written and designed. It won't happen. To tell the truth, Alice and mayo The Supreme Court has departed from a very long series of cases that have all decided the exact opposite, and PERA will only return to the status quo that has existed for over 200 years.
And only someone who knows nothing about patent law and patent practice, and how the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) operates both, would be able to discuss such ridiculous arguments as patent claims at issue. You can to be. Alice A patent will suddenly be obtained. That's not true. The claims do not teach any invention and basically just wave about the involvement of a machine, without even mentioning a machine or device, just stating that electronic communication takes place. only. Presumably, when you think of “electronic communications,” you imagine some kind of machine out there somewhere, but speculative claims of this kind without concrete support or explanation require extraordinary explanation and detail to satisfy Section 112. Now that it's needed, it simply won't be allowed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Hurdles to obtaining a patent.
Image Source: Deposit Photo
Author: Kicker Dark
Image ID: 118819276
