This one is brought by Intellectual Ventures against Motorola in Florida. Here's the complaint [PDF]. They are already suing Motorola in Delaware. Why not just add them to the Delaware case, if it needs shoring up? Maybe because this way, they get two tries at the golden ring on this merry-go-round, and if Google tries to consolidate the cases, they have to pay lawyers for that extra work, and if the effort fails, they have to pay two teams of lawyers to go to two different states to protect Motorola. Lawyers do know how to be annoying if they want to be. If the goal is to sue someone, like Google, let's just say, until they scream Uncle and pay up, they might just do so. Not that Google ever does. It has a fabulous record of success in patent defense, and they have done it repeatedly even without counterclaims, so in that sense, part of the benefit expected from using a troll to go after Google is probably lost.

And you will not believe the seven patents that are being used this time. One is for linking urls in an email. Yes. Really. Ever do that? Did you know you should be paying IV because the USPTO gave it ownership of that functionality? Actually it's less direct and IV keeps it a little bit murky, but I'll show you the details.

I want the USPTO to explain how this is even possible, that a patent could ever have issued on something like that.

And guess where IV got these patents? Not *directly* from the USPTO. I'll give you a big hint. Some of them, from what I'm seeing, are from working companies. Don't they call that privateering, when active companies outsource their patents to trolls to do their dirty work? Why yes. Yes, they do.

Can you guess one company in this picture? Someone helping Microsoft in its anticompetitive attack on Android and Linux, you say? Yes, one of the companies that seems to have transferred two patents to IV for its holy quest is Nokia, Microsoft's 'partner in crime', as I like to think of them.

I know. You are shocked, shocked to know that patents are being used anticompetitively in a court of law.

Novell requests a copy of the oral argument recording so that it may be transcribed and referenced during the future course of Novell’s dispute with Appellee Microsoft Corp.

I have done it as text for you from the Washington Post's embedded copy, because I know you are interested in what happens, and I wanted to point out one small correction. Well, it's probably not small to The Guardian.

1. SCO must file a brief statement identifying the claims it agrees are foreclosed by the SCO v. Novell judgment, the one that found that Novell did not transfer the UNIX copyrights to SCO in 1995. That wiped out all of SCO's claims, IBM asserts; SCO says it has two left.
2. IBM can then object to that list, which I'm sure it will.
3. IBM can then, by July 15, file a new motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims and counterclaims. This is what SCO did *not* want to happen.
4. After that motion is decided, there will be a process and schedule set up for the parties to respond to the court's request that they identify summary judgment motions filed before the current judge was assigned that they still want to be decided, which this judge will then do.

Here's what *could* happen: The whole thing could be over after step number 3.

... Myriad did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention. Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry.

Myriad’s patent descriptions highlight the problem with its claims: They detail the extensive process of discovery, but extensive effort alone is insufficient to satisfy §101’s demands.

The Court held that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but manmade cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.

What does it mean? Our genes belong to us. Here's what Dan Ravicher tweeted when he heard the news:

Diagnostic genetic testing is now free from any patent threat, forever, and the poor can now have their genes tested as freely as the rich.

It would be a great time to donate to PubPat, to show appreciation for all it does. It's community supported, and could there be a better time? There were patent lawyers who mocked them for even bringing the case. Remember?

As to the denial of any injunctive relief to Motorola, the district court set forth a seemingly categorical rule against injunctions for infringement of essential patents whose holders commit to SDOs to offer licenses on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND” or “RAND”) terms. Under this rule, the district court declined to examine Apple’s refusal to accept a license over years of infringing use. That ruling requires this Court’s reversal, because the district court’s automatic rule that injunctions are never available for SEPs is contrary to the Patent Act, which provides injunctions as a statutory remedy; to the equitable principles of eBay; and to Motorola’s FRAND commitments to the SDOs at issue here, which did not waive its rights to injunctive relief. Subject to the terms of the FRAND commitments at issue, the same injunction rules should apply to SEPs as to all other patents, and while the traditional factors reaffirmed in eBay set a high bar, Motorola should be given the chance to surmount it.

The Essential Patent Blog has the filing [PDF]. The article tells us that Microsoft claims it just cares about ensuring that standards are implemented for the benefit of the public:

Last week, the Federal Circuit granted a motion by Microsoft for permission to file an amicus brief in the Apple-Motorola appeal (No. 12-1548, Judge Posner edition). Microsoft then filed its amicus brief, becoming the latest in a long time of companies (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here) to weigh in on the case. Today, the public version of Microsoft’s brief became available. In it, Microsoft supports Apple and Judge Posner, but cautions the Federal Circuit against making an overly broad ruling and deciding issues related to standard-essential patents and RAND licensing obligations that are not present before the court.

Microsoft pulls no punches — it argues at the outset that Motorola’s positions “are wrong as a legal matter and terrible as a policy matter.” That should come as no surprise, given Microsoft’s current litigation disputes with Motorola (as well as ongoing competition with its parent company, Google). But Microsoft claims that its interest in this case goes far beyond its adversarial relationship with Motorola, arguing that as an active participant in many SSOs and implementer of many standards, Microsoft wants to ensure that standards are broadly implemented for the benefit of the public.

Perhaps recognizing that the Federal Circuit could rule in a way that might conflict with various district court rulings on similar standard-essential patent issues (i.e., Judge Robart’s RAND-setting decision), Microsoft seems to want the court to tread lightly here. It asserts first that because Judge Posner generally based his decisions on damages and injunction relief without doing deep dives into issues unique to standard-essential patents, the Federal Circuit could resolve this appeal without making sweeping pronouncements regarding RAND or SEP issues.

Rizzolo is very polite, but I'll translate the Microsoft legalese into my own plainer English: Microsoft doesn't want the appeals court to dig too deeply into standards because it loves the no-injunctions-allowed ruling it got in its own backyard from a Seattle judge recently. It would like it to be the last word. It totally doesn't want a higher court to come out with a conflicting ruling, because the higher court ruling would trump a district court. So that's why it is asking the court not to rule on any of that.

It will not surprise you that SCO doesn't like IBM's suggestions on how the case should go forward. IBM suggested a couple of rounds of a process, first tossing out whatever both sides agree are mooted claims, due to the Novell victory over SCO, then IBM would bring a summary judgment motion on the rest, and that would require briefing, IBM suggested, because there are new cases decided in the interim that are relevant.

SCO's argument in opposition goes like this, its list of three reasons it thinks IBM's proposal of further briefing and the summary judgement motion is improper -- 1) the parties already briefed the court on the effect of the Novell judgment, so just look it up; 2) if there are new cases, let IBM file a notice of supplemental authorities; and 3) SCO can't afford to wait while all that briefing goes on. Its cash supply is such, it's now or never. It wants a quick ruling on the pending 5-year-old motions, and then it wants a trial on whatever claims survive. Ah. A trial. The perpetual dream that it can get a jury to see it SCO's way. This case is its final asset, SCO whines, so the Court, it argues, "should proceed to adjudicate the pending summary judgment motions without the need for the improper rounds of additional briefing that IBM proposes."

However, judges don't decide matters based on how long one side can hold out. If the judge thinks IBM's proposal makes further briefing the way to go, it will happen. You are supposed to plan appropriately when you initiate litigation.

SCO complains of delay in the case, but the delay was caused entirely by SCO, who filed for bankruptcy and then just floated around on its back a leisurely long while in the pool, as all its money flowed out in rivers to lawyers, accountants, and other "helpers" for years, while it pretended to reorganize, which in the end never happened, as indeed was predictable from the start. Meanwhile, IBM was blocked by law from going forward. Hence the "delay". So the judge's heart strings may not be touched in quite the way SCO hopes by its tale of prejudice if there is a delay.

If one deliberately shoots oneself in the foot, complaining about pain in one's foot may cause onlookers to suggest not shooting oneself in the foot next time.

EFF asked the government for a copy of "any written opinion or order" of the FISA court in which the court held that the surveillance conducted under the FISA Amendments Act (2008 version) "was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment" or had "circumvented the spirit of the law." After some of the usual back and forth in discovery, the government revealed that it had found one such [!], but it refused to provide it on the grounds that it had no authority under FISC rules "to release FISC opinions to a FOIA requester or any other member of the public without a FISC order." So that's why EFF is now approaching the court itself, asking for a ruling that the government is allowed to provide it. The ACLU asked, and was denied, once before for the same relief it now is asking for, but now, after the latest events and the President's encouragement of public debate saying it's healthy for a democracy, it is renewing its request.

The three filings being public give us a window into the secretive court that we would not otherwise have.

The purpose is two-fold: first, to make it possible for folks on mobiles to arrive and get to the two themes that are best suited for mobiles, the themes titled Mobile and Grokporate. Both should be better suited for small screens and I'm hoping for anyone using screen readers. Feedback welcome.

And second, we have a new one now for tired eyes, especially mine, called Woodnight, with a black background and cream text. We're still working on Grokporate and Woodnight, and Woodnight in particular still has really rough edges, but we wanted to go live so we can incorporate feedback.

That part is likely true, unless a lot of folks contact their representative and raise the roof. But I thought I'd explain why it doesn't matter, even if Congress proves the cynics right. Because one executive action on the list has the capability to make a real difference, and it doesn't require Congressional approval or action at all. That's the beauty of executive actions.

The President has absorbed and accepted Professor Mark Lemley's suggestion that the USPTO look at functional claims more closely and make sure patent applications are for something specific, not claiming broad functions instead of specific implementations.

You can't build a better mousetrap if someone has already gotten a patent on "trapping mice", regardless of how or what device is used.