Paul Allen's Lawsuit Patents To Be Reexamined

eldavojohn writes "Last year Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen filed suit against eleven tech companies citing patent infringement on four of his patents. Groklaw has followed up with some interesting documents that reveal three out of the four have already been granted a reexamination by the USPTO with the fourth still pending."

Comments

Re:Grawklaw? Aren't they DEAD?

[Samantha Wright]

You missed a story. All is well and accounted for.

Anon Patent examiner here

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't get too excited yet. Of the three that have had re-exam ordered only one has had the next step, a non-final rejection. After the non-final rejection the patent owner then gets to respond with arguments, evidence showing non-obviousness (inventor affidavits), or amending claims. The reexam examiner can then if unconvinced Finally reject the claims. Even this is pretty meaningless because the examiners decision will be appealed to The Board of patent Appeals.

Of the 190 appeals revived from re-exam about 20%of Final rejections are overturned in full and another 20% are overturned in part.

http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/stats/receipts/fy2011_apr_e.jsp

If the patent is still rejected after this the patantee can appeal to the CAFC. Then to CAFC en banc and then finally to the Supreme Court (en banc and Supreme Court are obviously (no patent pun intended) not guaranteed).

So basically a Non-final action meas Jack and shit and Jack quit the patent office last week.

Re:Anon Patent examiner here

[thunderdanp]

The real problem is that patent examiners start off with the assumption that having more patents in existance are better. If you would like to reply (and be held credible) please also explain why the swinging on a swing patent was granted, and why we had to waste our tax dollars getting it invalidated. (Answer: It was easier to get the dumb idea through the system, than to get it invalidated.)

In my experience prosecuting patents, I have found examiners are quite willing to bend over backwards to make an obviousness rejection, combining references in such a way that sometimes I have to sit back at a loss for words.

As to the issuance of any one patent that is objectively ridiculous and should never have been otherwise issued, like the swinging on a swing, humans are imperfect and that seems to be a case of an examiner being limited by the bounds of its search. Of course, the challenge for you is to find a reference that invalidates the patent :)

Re:Anon Patent examiner here

[thunderdanp]

Aren't your statistics saying 60% of final rejections are affirmed in full and 80% are affirmed at least in part? Seems like more than jack to me.

A real shame

[Man On Pink Corner]

Paul Allen has done a lot of great stuff (and some not so great stuff) for the Seattle area, but on the whole he's definitely made a positive contribution. Now, at a time in his life when he might have looked to the Gates Foundation or other global interests to occupy his time, he decided instead to buy up a bunch of bullshit software patents and go trolling.

So fuck off, Paul. You could've made a difference, but you decided to enrich a gang of lawyers instead.

Re:A real shame

[Man On Pink Corner]

The Cinerama restoration and KEXP's migration beyond college radio come to mind. Other people would cite EMP, although I'm not a fan of that one. He has also funded some interesting (if abortive) scientific projects like the Allen Telescope Array.

I don't live there so I don't know anything about his various South Lake Union ventures and schemes, but I will say that my impression of Allen was generally positive prior to what he's doing now. Not that he gives much of a hoot what some random people on Slashdot think about him.

Re:A real shame

[Man On Pink Corner]

So what's his angle? Why is someone with that kind of reputation stooping to patent trolling? Do you think that's what Allen wants to be remembered for?

I don't disagree with you about his many positive contributions (and I believe I made that very clear), but this is like Bill Gates waking up one morning and deciding to go club seals with a video crew tagging along. Is it profitable? Not likely. Is it a good PR move? Of course not. Is it a masterstroke of respectable villainy, worthy of history's all-time great evil overlords? No. It just doesn't make any sense.

For one thing, if I were that wealthy and didn't care about my legacy or public image, I'd get more serious about my evil-doing. I wouldn't fart around with a bunch of chickenshit patent suits. I'd build a vast island fortress in the desert and staff it with robotic underage hookers or something.

Anything but engage in this sort of penny-ante legal lameness, which does nothing but tarnish my reputation among informed, technologically-literate people.

Definition of non-patentable

[Mike_K]

Isn't one rule of "novelty" for a patent that just about any expert in the field wouldn't be able to come up with the same solution to the problem? Because IIRC, his company basically gets experts to sit together with lawyers and speculate about the future. And that would pretty much mean to me that any expert in the field can come up with the same solution to the problems these patents describe. Which would make these solutions, well, non-patentable and the patents invalid.

m

Re:USPTO reexam means game over for these IV paten

[cthulhu11]

The people who post here show clear and decisive understanding of the issues We demand rigidly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!