Last NTP Patent Tentatively Thrown Out 198
pcause writes "Reuters reports that the fifth NTP patent has been rejected. What does it say about the US Patent office and software patents that these patents have made it through trials, appeals, etc and only now has the Patent Office decided they weren't any good in the first place?" From the article: "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has sided with BlackBerry portable e-mail device maker Research in Motion Ltd. by issuing a non-final rejection of a fifth patent at the center of its legal battle with patent holding company NTP Inc. The decision means the patent agency has now issued non-final rejections of all five patents at issue in a BlackBerry patent-infringement case before a federal judge."
Easy to side with RIM (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to know several things. First, what WAS the last patent? The article doesn't say - I'm sure someone could dig it up, though. Also, why was it rejected, and if there was good cause to reject it, why did it survive so much previous scrutiny? While the USPTO will accept almost anything at first - they don't do rigorous review of everything submitted, until it is challenged - they start scrutinizing them once court cases come up. So how did it survive previously if it could not survive now? Could this perhaps be only a political decision? The USPTO bowing to administration pressure?
Under pressure... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a political decision, but related more to the US Senate/House than to the administration. I have been waiting for the politicos to stuff this one, and as the deadline for RIM drew near, they are doing so.
Now we can just hope that this has an effect on the USPTO beyond just the RIM case, extending to the other questionable patents they have approved...
Re:Under pressure... (Score:2)
I don't know - I can't tell if the checks and balances in the system are working or broken.
Will the USPTO learn the lesson to issue better patents, or will they learn the lesson to check with congress before they issue a patent?
NTP: A "Virtual Company" (Score:3, Insightful)
NTP is the one gaming the system here -- the NY Times called them a "virtual corporation" (according to Engadget [engadget.com]), and they're nothing but a holding company with a fat war chest set up to create landmine lawsuits over the patents that they hold.
In terms of patent abuse, these guys make Microsoft look like Mother Teresa. They don't make anything (except lawsuits), they don't do anything, and the only way they have of making money is by going after the '
Re:NTP: A "Virtual Company" (Score:2)
Re:NTP: A "Virtual Company" (Score:2)
and submitted that for the patents. If I told you to come up with
some way of doing e-mail over wireless, you would likely come up
with the same thing. In other words, it's obvious stuff, and
clearly should not have been granted a patent in the first place.
Re:NTP: A "Virtual Company" (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the most ideal solution for cases like this would be for the court to throw out the paten
Re:Under pressure... (Score:2)
Re:Under pressure... (Score:3, Informative)
Really, calling a non-final decision on these patents "politically motivated" is a stretch. If your conspiracy theory held any water, the USPTO would have issued final decisions, thereby removing any possibility that the patents may be upheld when NTP appeals the non-final decision. Yes, I know that hat of yours is telling you that the USPTO will control the review process and it will be a sham, however that theory overlooks the fact that NTP will be able to file
Re:Under pressure... (Score:2)
Re:Under pressure... (Score:2)
Re:Under pressure... (Score:2)
You and I both know that it won't be management paying for any legal fees. It'll be us taxpayers. So, no, I don't think the Feds should pay the fees. Now, if you could direct the fees to certain congressmen who have failed to improve the situation, *that* would be poetic justice.
Re:Under pressure... (Score:2)
They like to have disputes litigated in court. So the conciously let weak patents through, approving them on the idea that they will be litigated if it becomes "important".
This results in full employment for what? Lawyers, again.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees, settlements where litigation is too expensive, and all that comes with it, when what they should be doing is rejecting most of those ridiculous patent app
Re:Under pressure... (Score:2)
If RIM got shutdown, the outcry for patent reform would have been overwhelming. There are too many many powerful entities interested in preserving the current, broken, system.
The government couldn't care less if we have blackberries. It's the campaign contributions from companies with lots of bad patents that they're worried a
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:4, Informative)
The above article also indicates that other patents held by InPro where overturned by German and UK officials in the last week.
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:2)
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:4, Informative)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the district court specifically DOES NOT have any say on whether or not a patent is valid (they can only rely on the patents current status with the USPO. So the the USPO has granted a valid patent, the court doesn't do any scrutinizing on whether its valid or not, it just decides if it was infringed upon. The courts must rule based on the assumption the patent is valid cause it just ain't thier job to decide either way.
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:2)
This is Incorrect (Score:3)
The grandparent poster's question is valid. Perhaps an IP attorney can enlighten us?
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:2)
35 U.S.C. 282 Presumption of validity; defenses.
The following shall be defenses in any action involving the validity or infringement of a patent and shall be pleaded:
(1) Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement, or unenforceability,
(2)Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II of this title as a condition for patentability,
(3)Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:2)
You are wrong. A court may hold the patents invalid despite what the patent office may think. Odd, huh? A court may rule that the patents were obtained by fraud upon the patent office during prosecution. Or a court may find prior art renders a patent obvious. The patent office is granted deference, however. Obviousness arguments usually win if you come up with prior art that was NOT before the patent office. However, there is nothing preventing the court from invalidating the paten
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:2, Informative)
The previous challenge was in court which, as far as I know, came to the conclusion that RIM infringed the patents, not that the patents were valid. What seems to be happening is a race between the patent review process and the legal process.
The USPTO has a history of issuing patents for which there exists prior art both to "little guys" and "big guys." The resu
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:2)
None of the patents were "thrown out" (Score:5, Informative)
That isn't the case. The USPTO, on its own motion, placed these patents through a process called reexamination, in which each patent claim allowed is subject to review for subtantial new questions of patentability not previously considered by the office. So an examiner takes a new bite at the apple, based on new prior art, and reexamines te claims in view of the new art.
All that happened here, is that what is called an "iniitial official action" was issued, laying out the examiner's case that there existed new prior art that could invalidate the patent. First action rejection of all claims, which didn't happen in this case, is ROUTINE in ALMOST EVERY patent examination, and rarely indicates that the patent claims are in doubt. The next step is that the applicant files a response, either defending the claims as originally allowed, or introducing amendments or amended claims and defending them. It is then ROUTINE in MOST applications, that some or all patent claims are allowed to issue, either as originally filed or with some amendments.
So, if a single claim of a single patent survives unscathed, or allowed and amended claims are narrower but still infringed, nothing gets better for RIM.
The fact of initial rejections indicate nothing -- it is just another point of leverage for a settlement negotiation.
This is not the first time this has been pointed out in these letters.
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Easy to side with RIM (Score:2)
Of course they threw it out (Score:3, Funny)
Connections (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Connections (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Connections (Score:2)
the government can breach any IP law, trademark, patent etc it likes.
it's the government. (no really, it's written into the patent law statutes)
Not so (Score:2)
What government can do, of course, is to seize the patent, indeed ANY PROPERTY, all or in part through its power of eminent domain. Thus, no injunction can issue against the government. It's good to be the king.
The problem here
well (Score:5, Insightful)
It's About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's About Time (Score:2)
US patent law only covers the US... so I think your wish is granted.
Re:It's About Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's About Time (Score:2)
Indeed. Patently ridiculous.
Re:It's About Time (Score:2)
Re:It's About Time (Score:3, Insightful)
The interesting question is whether by connecting to a sever in Canada, a U.S. customer makes the Canadian server subject to U.S. patents.
This is somewhat similar to the arguement that by serving a web page in Canada you're subjct to the laws of every country where it is viewed.
--dave
Re:It's About Time (Score:2)
RIM needs to be hit on the head anyway (Score:4, Informative)
Re:RIM needs to be hit on the head anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely true, and RIM should be lambasted continually until they apologize for their unethical business behaviour.
But it is also important to remember that this is a victory for true technology companies, inventors, and innovators. While RIM did use the same tactics as NTP there is a core difference between RIM and NTP. RIM is a company that makes and sells a product, they have individuals within the company who in
My cold dead hands (Score:2, Funny)
It Says... (Score:5, Interesting)
It says that the USPTO has and will continue to issue bullshit patents on anything put in front of them, but that when a patent affects 25% of the government, regardless of validity, they will toss it out so they don't risk actual reform. No need to fret, however, any bullshit patents that only act as a cudgel for big businesses to kill or blackmail small businesses will remain inviolate.
Re:It Says... (Score:2)
how about all the BULLSHIT patents that rim holds and have been using to keep smaller companies from making a similar service?
This is not a win for anyone.
You can't be serious (Score:2)
All evidence is to the contrary. What is your basis for suggesting these patents are truly in trouble? A kazillion dollars were spent in defense of RIM at trial, including multi-kazillion dollars in an effort to identify real prior art to invalidate the claims of the pate
Re:You can't be serious (Score:2)
"RIM shares were up 9.42 percent to $73.89 in afternoon trading on the Nasdaq."
The market as a whole knows more about the law than you do (and much more than I do).
A kazillion dollars were spent in defense of RIM at trial, including multi-kazillion dollars in an effort to identify real prior art to invalidate the claims of the patents in suit. After that, a judge and jury, dealing with legal and factual que
Learn more before you guess. . . (Score:2)
My point was simply that the validity of the patents in view of the prior art considered by the Court has been fully litigated and reviewed on appeal.
, I would have to question whether the USPTO is answerable to courts regarding its decisions
Well, the USPTO appears to think so. Manual of Patent Examination Practice 2659 (decisions of federal courts binding during reexamination)
- because it is most certainly answerable to the whims of congress (my initial point
Re:It Says... (Score:2)
It wouldn't have to be technically feasible. It only needs to be good enough for (or far enough over the head of) the clerk that processes your application. It doesn't have to be technically feasible until someone sues you.
-Rick
Re:It Says... (Score:2)
You are so far offbase it'
Re:It Says... (Score:2)
Guys, it's the USPTO, not the USPO. The USPO is the United States Post Office. The USPTO is the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Congress, not the USPTO, are to blame (Score:2)
A system where their application fees actually WAS kept in a trust fund, would probably result in a much higher quality of patents. However -- and this is where I'll agree with the GP -- politicians are far too addicted to money for their pet bullshit projects to let that kind of income stream remain untouched.
Instead of being used to pay for
Re:Congress, not the USPTO, are to blame (Score:2)
Not just congress but also some of the courts. Of the courts there are two problems in seperate areas. The first is the courts that won't uphold ANY patent at all in serveral decades, even ones deserving of it. They have a very high percentage of their rulings overturned on appeal. The other are the ones that people go to to sue the USPTO to get them to accept a pa
Re:Congress, not the USPTO, are to blame (Score:2)
I'd be interested in seeing who controls who makes it onto the bench there; perhaps -- in the long term -- it would be something that the FOSS community would like to get more involved in politically, since it obviously has a large effect on the technology field (and probably more than that).
At the very least, it would be nice to shine some of the light of public attention on it.
Canadian Plot (Score:5, Funny)
I for one welcome our touque wearing overlords.
Re:Canadian Plot (Score:2)
Re:Canadian Plot (Score:2, Funny)
Smells fishy (Score:2)
http://www.commodore69.com/ [commodore69.com]
Re:Smells fishy (Score:2)
That being said, there would be a massive amount of expert testimony and testimony of those involved if it did come down to the judge to have to decide. I'm not sure why "this needs to be clarified" though - trials are not held to please the public's interpretation of them. If you want it clarified, go to court and watch the proceedings. And read the final decisions - those will tell you what the judge (at least expressly) based his decisions o
good things (Score:2)
That the PTO had its head up its collective @$$ on computer patents in the 1990s (which everyone here knew) and that there is the slim possibility that the PTO has now pulled its head back out (which most people don't believe yet).
All evidence to the contrary (Score:2)
At least in this case, all evidence is to the contrary. These patents have been super-litigated and held up. The PTO reexam is highly unlikely to change that result, and if it did, would be highly unlikely to survive an appeal. Think about it. If there really was killer art fo
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Drug companies beware (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Drug companies beware (Score:2)
USPTO Judgement (Score:2)
It's a rather bizarre thing, really, but the judge (at least based on what I've heard) at some point basically said that he wasn't going to get into the issue of the validity of the patents one way or the other, and that everything was going by the assumption that they were valid, because the USPTO issued them, and they were valid when the suit was filed.
I don't know whether there's some flexibility in th
Re:Drug companies beware (Score:2)
One the one hand, that's just wrong. I somehow doubt this is the first set of patents to ever be invalidated.
On the other hand, W00T! Software patents were just marked as really, really stupidly risky things to base a business
Very naive remarks (Score:2)
"We rubber stamp almost everything. You shouldn't build a business on a patent until it has been tried in the courts."
That's just plain silly, of course. The patents in this case have withstood intense scrutiny, and been affirmed by the trial court and the Federal Circuit. There is no indication yet that these patents issued, if at all, for failure to adequately examine them for the initial application fee.
A patent is supposed to be a guarantee - the due di
What does it say? (Score:2)
Still, look on the
Re:What does it say? (Score:3, Insightful)
They can start by eliminating (as I understand it) the use of patent fees to fund the USPTO. Those fees should go into the general fund and the USPTO should have a budget like everyone else. That way the USPTO isn't encouraged to allow every patent that c
It shows... (Score:3, Interesting)
What does it say about the US Patent office and software patents that these patents have made it through trials, appeals, etc and only now has the Patent Office decided they weren't any good in the first place?
Political pressure (Score:5, Funny)
And believe me, that was probably the only true BIPARTISAN delegation Washington DC has seen in 13 years.
sPh
Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, huh (Score:5, Insightful)
The five patents are 5,625,670 [uspto.gov], 5,631,946 [uspto.gov], 5,819,172 [uspto.gov],
6,067,451 [uspto.gov],
and 6,317,592 [uspto.gov].
Let's take a look at the first of these patents:
1. A system for transmitting information from one of a plurality of originating processors contained in an electronic mail system to at least one of a plurality of destination processors contained in an electronic mail system with the information including originated information originating from one of the plurality of originating processors and being transmitted by an RF information transmission network to at least one of the plurality of destination processors and other originated information originating from one of the originating processors is transmitted with the electronic mail system without using the RF information transmission network to at least one of the destination processors comprising:
at least one interface, one of the at least one interface connecting the electronic mail system containing the plurality of originating processors to the RF information transmission network; and wherein
the originated information is transmitted in association with an address of the one interface from the one of the plurality of originating processors to the one interface with the electronic mail system responding to the address of the one interface to direct the originated information from the one of the plurality of originating processors to the one interface; and
the originated information is transmitted from the one of the at least one interface to the RF information transmission network with an address of the at least one of the plurality of destination processors to receive the originated information being added at the originating processor originating the originated information, or by either the electronic mail system that contains the plurality of originating processors or the one interface.
So, basically, written as confusingly as possible, these turkeys have filed for a patent that covers any email system in which some information is sent via RF and some is not and the devices involved have addresses. The last is pretty much a given, and the first is pretty straightforward.
I'm serious. Advances in device development simply do not require patents. This is stupid. Why should anyone be granted a monopoly over this? Why does the production of RF devices require a patent at all? Say I'm an engineer. I want to send email from a mobile computer (hardly a stretch to envision). So I select a data transmission medium. Well, there's RF, IR, etc. These all have different properties. I choose the one that is most appropriate -- RF.
Yes, this patent got thrown out, but what I'm saying is that this is not a field in which patents -- guaranteed, time-limited government monopolies -- are necessary to produce advancements. The lifecycle of a new device is mayb
THAT's worth it (Score:2)
Now THAT process is worth patenting!
Re:Uh, huh (Score:4, Informative)
But, in the tail end is this little note:
So some work was really done to justify this patent as an invention.
Kill the Amazon "one Click" patent (Score:3, Interesting)
At least the US Gov. could have been a little more transparent about it.
"Go back to bed America, You are free to do what we tell you"
I vote (Score:2)
I vote to dismantle the patent office.
Who's with me?
Re:I vote (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the patent system should not be granted by a centralised and under-staffed authority like the patent office. Rather, patents should be peer reviewed. After all, granted patents become publicly disclosed anyways. The patent office simply acts like a program committee. The patent office receives patent applications and, depending on the domain of the patent, picks random reviewers from a pool. The reviews are returned and weighted differently depending on reviewer's association with the applying party. The patent office then chooses whether or not to grant a patent. All patent applications and their reviews are made public. Not perfect, but I think it's a good compromise.
First, companies or individuals can register as reviewers for specific categories of patents. They are then added to the pool of reviewers for said category. If patent applications are given to a pool of a dozen or so random reviewers, the odds are small that a small group of companies can collude to push their own stuff through.
Right now there's no penalty for companies to file a ton of patents. But a peer-review system ensures that anything they wish to patent will be pre-examined by their competitors. I think this will automatically push most things off the patent treadmill and into trade-secret territory.
Second, instead of patent clerks trying to digest the mangled legalese that most companies file, their competitors have a vested intrest in using their own lawyers to demangle and pick apart any application. The clerks then have access to a relatively clarified view of whether or not an application is valid.
What does it mean? (Score:2, Insightful)
That was a ridiculous question . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
This is ridiculous question. What do you think it says? The timing arises from a corrupt decision led by pure politics, driven by the U.S. Senate, caused the PTO to take up a Commissioner's reexamination, to protect a non-US company from an injunction.
Does it mean that the initial examination by the PTO was substandard? Of course not -- in fact, that very question was the point of the trial and two appeals. RIM, spending kazillions to search the world for prior art and multi-kazillions on lawyers to tear the patent and PTO to shreds, couldn't convince either a jury or the Federal Circuit that the patents were less than airtight. It was simply the economic and political fallout of a possible injunction that led to this "hail mary" pass.
Does this mean that the present rejections raise new doubt about the patents? Not necessarily, and probably not. It is ROUTINE for the PTO to initially reject all claims of a patent on an initial office action, and this may be nothing more than a perfunctory "through the paces" rejection. I don't really know how much trouble the patents are in (and not all claims were rejected by the way), because I have not studied the documents, but I find it astonishing that there would be any better prior art than was considered by the courts before. So much money was spent to defend RIM in this all-or-nothing case, it is hard to believe that any substantial new question of patentability could now arise. In any case, only time will tell. And even if there is a final rejection of each adjudicated infringed claim in each patent, there will be an administrative appeal, and then an appeal to the Federal Courts, which have so far been unimpressed by the claims of invaliidty.
Do not be surprised, however, if the patents reissue with the original claims (only one claim of many asserted is needed!), or claims not materially weaker than they began.
Do something 703-312-6600 (Score:2, Interesting)
Call your senators [senate.gov] and ask them to please gut the patent system.
But more directly, you can contact NTP. NTP is a legal fiction of a business invented by an author of legal fiction by the name of Donald Stout. He is a partner at Antonelli Terry Stout & Kraus, LLP [antonelli.com]. Their phone number is 703-312-6600.
A thousand polite calls will be more effective than a thousand rude ones. Though honestly a few dozen rude ones wouldn't start WWIII.
Once you call, ask for Don Stout and then say "Please stop abusing
Yay (Score:2)
what I'd like to know is ... (Score:2)
head have been declared NFG, yet NTP STILL is seeking an injunction agains RIM to
shut them down for infringement! Are they smoking crack? Is the judge trying the
infringement case on drugs? This should be a slam dunk get the F#$! out of my
courtroom verdict against NTP!
Non-final rejections aren't a big deal (Score:4, Interesting)
I went through this with a patent on game physics engines. The USPTO rejected some claims as an insufficent advance over prior art. So I sent in published reviews of games that didn't use my technology. "This game really sucked". "Worst game I ever played". "Game physics terrible". "Objects randomly flying off into space after a collision".
The USPTO then accepted the claims without any further argument. That's how you prove non-obviousness - show previous failure. If others tried and failed, but yours works, then you must have invented something.
Re:Washington is playing favorites (Score:5, Interesting)
What exactly did the little guy invent? Delivery of email via radio waves? Was a protocol designed? Distribution system designed?
Re:Washington is playing favorites (Score:2)
Re:Washington is playing favorites (Score:2)
Re:Washington is playing favorites (Score:2)
Re:Washington is playing favorites (Score:2)
Do you have a reference with a clear explanation? I'm just curious for more details. I tried to read the patents, but I can't make head or tail from what it is they are saying.
Re:Washington is playing favorites (Score:2)
What "little guy" (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, he didn't invent anything--he *patented* an obvious concept and waited for someone ELSE to invent something that used the concept, so he could sue them.
Re:What "little guy" (Score:2)
It could fail in the marketplace for a number of reasons, afterall. RIM either failed to do due diligence or thought tha
Excellent case (Score:3, Interesting)
We have 2 sides that aren't going to back down, one because they don't have anything to lose and the other because they feel they are on the moral high ground and should not lose. No one is going to quit the battlefield and run off with a settlement. Instead, some fundamental absurdities of the patent system are being exposed. An earlier article expressed incredulity over the fact that RIM could have settl
Re:There is No Little Guy Here...No Inventor Eithe (Score:2)
That's the problem with ignorance. It rears its head at the ugliest moments.
Re:can RIM sue the patent office? (Score:2)
Remember the FAT patent reviews??? (Score:4, Insightful)
So if experience is a teacher here, then this means nothing.
Re:Remember the FAT patent reviews??? (Score:2)
Of course! Its just about money. (Score:2)
Of course the Blackberry will stay online, perhaps with a brief glitch. Nobody, least of all the plaintiffs, wants to see the valuable resource shut down. The problem is that RIM has been totally unyielding -- much to their detriment -- in an effort to win by hard-lining and stonewalling. Now that their failure has been dismal