decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

To read comments to this article, go here
BREAKING: Why the Obama Administrationís Actions Against Patent Trolls Should Make a Difference ~ Matt Levy
Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:26 PM EDT

Why the Obama Administrationís Actions Against Patent Trolls Should Make a Difference
by Matt Levy (Cross-Posted on and on DisCo.)

This is a very big day: the Obama Administration has just entered the fray to help deal with patent trolls, and itís taking steps that have the potential to be a major part of the solution to the patent troll problem.

The early press reports on the Administrationís efforts have missed the real story: the President and the Administration are publicly recognizing that the problem with patent trolls stems from the problems with software patents. You cannot deal with patent trolls without dealing with software patents.

The Presidentís Executive action to tighten functional claiming does exactly that. It recognizes that in order to stop issuing bad and overbroad patents that wind up in the hands of patent trolls, we need to specifically address software patent applications.

Functional patent claims are the claims that drive us all crazy, where a patent just claims a general idea, like, say, filtering files that might be spam, or scanning documents and sending by email, or backing up your computer over a network.

As an example, suppose I came up with an idea for a car with a gas-electric hybrid engine, but where the battery for the engine is recharged by a passenger pedaling a built-in stationary bicycle. But my patent claim is broader than that; I claim ďA motor vehicle with a gas-electric hybrid engine comprising a storage battery, wherein the storage battery is recharged using a mechanically-powered generator.Ē Itís an accurate description, although it doesnít include the specifics of what I invented. By describing the invention in terms of its functions, that is, its general features, my patent omits what should be an important limiting detail: my invention is impractically pedal-powered.

As a result, this hypothetical patent would cover nearly all hybrid cars, even though I only invented one (fairly silly) type of hybrid car, because all commercially available hybrids recharge the battery using some sort of mechanical generator. I could make a fortune suing car manufacturers, even though I wasnít the first to come up with a hybrid car, and my design is totally impractical. Thatís because the patent system strongly favors patent owners; once a patent issues, itís very difficult to prove the patent is invalid. And once a company is sued for patent infringement, itís nearly impossible to get out of the case quickly and cheaply, no matter how bad the patent is.

The hybrid car patent I described is ridiculous. And yet thatís exactly what has happened with software patents for years.

No more. The Administration is going to work with the PTO to develop guidelines for examiners to make sure that inventors canít claim more than they invented, focusing on computer-implemented (that is, software) patents. The flow of crazy software patents should stop at last, or at least slow to a trickle.

The Administration deserves huge praise for this ó many of us have been pushing for just this change for a long time. Obviously, it will take time to implement, but it is clear that the Administration is committed to making this commonsense reform happen.

We have to work with the Administration and Congress in a bipartisan way to get this done right, because there will be naysayers among certain legacy special interests.

But Wait, Thereís More!

If that were the only thing the Administration announced, it would still make my day. But there is also a newly-released study, four more Executive Actions, and legislative proposals, and thereís a lot of good stuff included.

First, the White House has released a study showing patent trolls are a huge problem that wreak damage to the economy. Not a big surprise, but itís nice to have data backing us up.

In addition to the action on functional claiming, hereís a quick summary of the other four Executive Actions announced today:

  • There will be no more hiding who owns a patent from the PTO. The real party of interest will have to be disclosed on every application and when maintenance fees are paid.

  • End users, who have been the most vulnerable victims, will get support from the PTO to help deal with demand letters.

  • There will be more academic experts brought into the PTO to study and research patent troll litigation.

  • And finally, the Administration is going to work to better enforce exclusion orders issued by the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC has the power to issue an exclusion order barring importation of goods that infringe a U.S. patent, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) carries out the order. The problem is that even if a company redesigns its product to get around a patent, exclusion orders can be so broad that CBP bars the redesigned product as well. The Administration is going to work with the ITC and CBP to try to fix this problem.
The President is also calling on Congress to pass legislation to address patent trolls. There are a few proposals he makes that are particularly good:
  • Expand the Covered Business Method patent review program ó The Administration is proposing to expand the Covered Business Method post grant review. This seems to be along the lines of Senator Schumerís bill, and itís a very good idea.

  • Protect end users ó The Administration is proposing some sort of immunity or reduced liability if a consumer or company buys a product and uses it as intended. There would also be an automatic stay of infringement suits against end users if thereís also an infringement suit against an upstream (e.g., the manufacturer) company. We need to see the details, but this looks promising.

  • Fee shifting ó Another important piece that CCIA has long supported is shifting the defendantís legal fees to the plaintiff in troll patent litigations. The Administration is supporting a type of fee-shifting similar to what is done in copyright now; basically, a judge would have the discretion to award fees to the winner. This doesnít go as far as the SHIELD ACT, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.
Overall, we are very pleased with the Administrationís announcement. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration and with Congress on addressing the patent troll problem.

Matt Levy is Patent Counsel at the Computer and Communications Industry Association, where he handles legal, policy advocacy, and regulatory matters related to patents and is lead blogger for CCIAís Patent Progress.

© 2013 Computer & Communications Industry Association, All Rights Reserved

  View Printable Version

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )