In the eye of patent lawyer, more patent means more business, and more business means more personal wealth. But at whose expense? Where does the capital come from and where is the value of creation? We are talking about a vicious war between the interest of law firm and interest of industry at large. HE following thoughts and corresponding articles are about the US, but lessons from these are equally applicable to the EPO, where the quality of patents is totally out of control (number of patents granted allegedly rose 40% in just one year!).
Granting too many Patents does not make one Powerhouse
This whole article is colossal mess and quite bluntly nonsensical. Granting lots of crappy patents does not make one powerhouse but a fool who serves the patent microcosm. The only reason the patent microcosm in the west keeps mentioning China – a retreat or reduction of all argument to just China. The notion that companies need to stockpile patent is typically promoted by people whose occupation is just that. They try to justify their own existenceand rationalize their never ending salary. Uber which is sued by Google must be foolish enough to believe that stockpiling parents by purchasing is a good idea.
The notion of stockpiling patent is promoted by people doing it
Following AIA the United States went from attempting to maximize patent and litigation trying to reduce them. This means invalidating in bulk a lot of existing patents and discouraging litigation primarily but not limited to troll litigation. Suffice to say the patent industry is up in arms over it. It spreads malicious rumors about officials who are responsible for it, it creates task force to lobby, and it misleads politicians.
Invalidation of patents by PTAB
Currently, the USPTO measures decision outcomes of ex parte appeals in three different ways: affirmed, affirmed-in-part, or reversed. This is highlighted by the USPTO’s recently released statistics on outcomes of ex parte appeals for FY2017. These stats show that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) very frequently upholds Examiners on appeal, with a 55% affirmance rate. This rate is consistent with previous years’ affirmance rates. These affirmed rates suggest a job “well done” by the USPTO. However, the way the USPTO counts affirmances yields counterintuitive and misleading results, especially with cases involving multiple grounds of rejection. Indeed for accountability purposes, this way of measuring appeals cloaks the USPTO’s Examining Corps failures.
It’s being masked as “improvement” (to quote: “By adopting these improvements to the IPR process the system will become fairer, afford patent owners more due process, and protect patent owners from harassment and hardship while still fulfilling the statutory mandate to provide an alternative forum for administrative resolution of validity challenges.”), but it’s actually the very opposite of improvement. The Shire case, a famous PTAB case, is recalled in another blog of the patent microcosm and the USPTO is then accused of misleading about PTAB numbers, as if PTAB’s justice should be measured by the percentage of cases affirmed or reversed