Slashdot Mirror
Patent Cases Hurting Small Businesses
smudge writes "An Information Week article states that multiple small businesses with Web presence are being sued by PanIP LLC. The claims in these patents being asserted in the lawsuits refer to 'a
computerized system for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services' and 'an automatic data-processing system for processing business and financial transactions between entities from remote sites.'"
It seems that the disease that is PanIP has been spreading...
Please file a protest for patents 6,289,319 and 5,576,951
c /mpep/document s/0841.htm#sect1901.01
"1901.01 Who Can Protest
Any member of the public, including private persons, corporate entities, and government agencies, may file a protest under 37 CFR 1.291. A protest may be filed by an attorney or other representative on behalf of an unnamed principal since 37 CFR 1.291 does not require that the principal be identified."
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pa
Jason Lotito
So please don't put all the blame on the patent examiners; while there are plenty of idiot examiners, a lot of this also has to do with bureaucracy's normal functioning: higher-ups trying to cut corners and save a buck.
Actually, I checked out the patents, they do use the word plurality, however :) ...
They're retarded. Both require that the 'textual' and 'graphical' content of the site be from a 'CD-ROM' or 'optical device'. I know of very few sites that do this. Additionally, the first patent defines that the device which essentially serves contents require a device for displaying graphical content. I guess the patent doesn't take into affect that some people host their shiznit on boxes without a monitor.
So, fear not the whores.
(I hope the lawsuits backfire on that blasted company)
This in no way stops the little guy from suing - when he is in the right. It makes it easier because when he wins he has NO LEGAL BILLS to worry about. Of course, if you are sure you are going to win you think twice about starting, but that is a GOOD thing.
Big coprs still try SLAPP suits, but many jurisdictions have anti-SLAPP legislation. All in all, this system works very well, not just in Canada, but in many countires whose law is based on English Common Law.
Anarchists never rule
I forget the technical legal term
Writ of Mandate. aka Writ of Mandamus A court order to a government agency, including another court, to follow the law by correcting its prior actions or ceasing illegal acts.
(BTW, IANAL, but more details can be found here in a legal dictionary)
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
there are general divisions for chemical, electrical, mechianical, biotech and business methods. from there, there are breakdowns into specific technologies, such as sporting equipment, telephones, tyres etc, nearly every catergory of invention.
At least BS is requried, for some techonolgies, more is required for education/job experience.
the people who work at the PTO probably know far more than you do about a specific technology. The problem is you have to read how the claims are written. The claims define the actual invention. If the law firm does a good search prior to filing a patent, they can word the claims so that the examiner can't find it. Likewise after a non-final rejection, the attorney can ammend the claims to not read on the art the examiner cited.
"Imagine if people start claiming necessary carpentry skills like 'the process of putting a a variety of small steel spikes in a piece of wood' - that'll cover hammering, screwing, etc. Or 'method of subdividing wood into smaller pieces.' - sawing."
The article poster only quoted the preamble, not the actual invention, so the slashdot article is misleading. Likewise the passage from the above poster is inaccurate. That is called the preamble and is not the actual invention. The actual invention portion of the claim would likely read something like this:
1) A method if inserting small steel spikes in a piece of wood, wherein said wood is composed of pine. ETC with more and more detail AFTER the preamble portion
I'm pretty tired of slashdot people, who are entirely uneducated in the patent process, critizing a process which they don't even fully understand.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
IANAL - but IMHO there is prior art available that could turn these patents to where it belongs - /dev/null
IANAL either, but I do hold 12 patents and know a little about what prior art is.
Prior art simply is art that is in practice or was publically disclosed at the time the inventor claims he made the invention.
The fact that MiniVend was released in 1995 probably does not qualify it as prior art. The PanIP patent was ISSUED in 1996. The invention (and prior art) must occur BEFORE the original filing date which is in this case in 1984.
Unless you can come up with prior art in this time frame you aren't going to get anywhere.
Now what is particularly interesting in this case is the long string of CIP's. It would be rather interesting to learn what the expiration date of this patent is - it may be relatively soon since one of CIP's issued as a patent.
Anyone can challange an issued patent's validity without first being sued for infringement.
There are in fact expected changes to be implemented in this area of patent law that strengthens the ability to challenge patent validity (Its called an inter parties reexamination).
The main drawback to this approach is that if the patent is ruled valid as the result of an inter parties reexamination then the party that has requested the reexamination cannot challenge the patent's validity again in any subsequent infringement litigation.
President Bush is expected to soon sign legislation that contains fundamental changes to existing patent reexamination procedures. The legislation would allow reconsideration during a reexamination proceeding of prior art references cited in or considered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) during the original prosecution of the patent undergoing reexamination. The pending legislation would also allow third parties in inter partes reexamination proceedings to appeal adverse decisions to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
THE PENDING LEGISLATION
Recently, the Senate approved amendments to the patent laws, similar to amendments previously passed by the House of Representatives. The House and Senate versions of the patent law amendments were reconciled in conference, and attached to H.R. 2215, 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorizations Act. H.R. 2215 has been cleared by Congress to be forwarded to President Bush, and his signature on the bill is expected soon.1
RECONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUSLY CITED ART
The Patent Law allows any person, including a patent owner, to cite prior art patents and printed publications to the PTO that are believed to bear on the patentability of one or more claims of a patent, and to request that the PTO institute a reexamination of the patent.2 If it is decided that the cited prior art raises "a substantial new question of patentability," the Director of the PTO will order reexamination of the patent in question.3 During reexamination, some or all of the original claims of a patent can be declared invalid, patent claims can be narrowed to overcome the prior art, or the patentability of some or all of the original claims can be confirmed.
Currently, two decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court having exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases, limit the prior art that the PTO can consider in a reexamination proceeding.4 Prior art that was cited or considered during the original prosecution of a patent cannot alone form the basis for a substantial new question of patentability triggering the reexamination of that patent. Further, previously cited or considered prior art can only be considered by the PTO during a reexamination proceeding if combined with prior art not previously before the PTO. Thus, under the present law, a reexamination proceeding cannot be based on an argument that the PTO overlooked prior art cited during the original examination of a patent, or that the PTO was mistaken in its consideration of prior art during the original prosecution proceeding.
With the signing into law of H.R. 2215, patent validity challenges based on previously cited or considered prior art will be able to be made in the PTO in a reexamination proceeding.5 In such instances, this alternative to contesting patent validity by litigation in the federal courts may provide a less costly and more expeditious means of mounting a patent validity challenge.
RIGHT OF THIRD PARTY TO APPEAL AN ADVERSE REEXAMINATION DECISION
Presently under the law, the appeal rights of a third party who has instituted an inter partes reexamination proceeding against another's patent are limited. The third party can appeal an adverse decision by the PTO to the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). However, third parties are expressly prohibited from seeking court review of a decision rendered by the BPAI.6 Conversely, patent owners are allowed to seek judicial review of adverse decisions by the BPAI in reexamination proceedings by appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.7
H.R. 2215 provides that third parties in inter partes reexamination proceedings will have the same appeal rights as patent owners.8 Thus, once H.R. 2215 is signed by President Bush, a third party challenger will have resort to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to contest adverse decisions by the BPAI as well as to be party to any appeal to the Federal Circuit brought by a patent owner.
The inability of third parties in inter partes reexamination proceedings to seek judicial review of adverse decisions has been considered a major drawback by those challenging a patent's validity. The provisions of H.R. 2215 should make the inter partes reexamination procedure more attractive to anyone contemplating the challenge of a patent based upon prior art patents and printed publications.
For biotech patents on genes or proteins the USPTO requires you include a 'sequence listing' describing the sequence of the gene(s) or protein(s) you're patenting. This must be submitted in a very structured format that increases the vertical length of the submitted content by a great deal, especially for long sequences (so I imagine this 140k page application was a small app with a giant sequence listing trying to keep the claims as biologically broad as possible).
The PTO has finally gotten wise to the act of including everything but the kitchen sink in a patent listing (as was the industry's habit a few years ago) and now charges on a per-page basis for patent submissions. This ensures that if a company files a 140k page patent, they really mean it and are willing to pay for it.
One of the FEW good ideas out of the USPTO in a long time; let's hope there are others.
-j
For the majority of you who don't read the articles, they DO have contact info for PanIP at ;)
./ community can help on this one? Make our views known to rmercado37@yahoo.com and info@panip.com?
www.youmaybenext.com/who.html.
Unfortunately, their site seems to be removed (www.panip.com), though it gives you a directory listing. I'm surprised this site is still standing.
Also, is there any way that the
I wonder if the victims' organization takes donations to their defense fund? I'd throw them $10, how about the rest of you?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Agreed. According to the wording of the patent, it's specifying dialup terminals connecting directly to a private data processing center, not through any kind of common communications network (outside of telephones). There have been systems like that before (mid-80s probably), but for the most part they don't exist anymore since the Internet has taken off.
It seems like PanIP is just trying to rehash interpretations of their vague patents to apply them to technologies that they neither envisioned or invented (if indeed they thought of this in the late 80s) in order to line their pockets a little more.
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
the patent has an effective filing date of 1988!
Eh? What patents are you looking at? Either you are a troll or you didn't check them yourself:
Patent 5,576,951:
Inventors: Lockwood; Lawrence B. (5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037)
Appl. No.: 210301
Filed: March 16, 1994
Patent date November 19, 1996.
Patent 6,289,319:
Inventors: Lockwood; Lawrence B. (5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037)
Appl. No.: 347270
Filed: November 30, 1994,
Patent date September 11, 2001.
Where did you get the 1988? I am wondering if you are referring to the parent case text with abandoned applications that were referenced there? If so, the dates go back to 1984 and 1986. However, I am not aware of the rule that prior art has to pre-date any of the abandoned patent applications!
According to the rules (as I understand them), the only higher authority in the PTO is the Patent Office Appeal board - and the appeal board has a 6 month waiting list before they'll even tell us whether they'll take the case. (If anyone knowledgeable about difficulties with the Patent Office has any suggestions, I'll love to pass them on to my boss!)
Not only that, but we are technically winning each re-exam so we do not have the standing to take our case to the Appeals board, but then the examiner's supervisor keeps letting the big company submit "a little more" prior art (BS stuff which is easy to refute) to force a new re-exam, which lets them delay the court case for 4-8 months (the judge doesn't want to do anything until he gets a firm "patent is valid/not valid" indication from the Patent Office).
We are hoping that because this is the 5th re-exam (and four were in our favor), that the judge will decide that "enough is enough" and let the case go forward (in which case we're expecting to kick butt), but in the meantime we're just a small company with our IP in an uncertain status trying to stay afloat in a bad economy.