Patent 'Death Squad' System Upheld by US Supreme Court (bloomberg.com)

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld an administrative review system that has helped Google, Apple and other companies invalidate hundreds of issued patents. From a report: The justices, voting 7-2, said Tuesday a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review board that critics call a patent "death squad" wasn't unconstitutionally wielding powers that belong to the courts. Silicon Valley companies have used the system as a less-expensive way to ward off demands for royalties, particularly from patent owners derided as "trolls" because they don't use their patents to make products. Drugmakers and independent inventors complain that it unfairly upends what they thought were established property rights. "It came down to this: Is the patent office fixing its own mistakes or is the government taking property?" said Wayne Stacy, a patent lawyer with Baker Botts. "They came down on the side of the patent office fixing its own mistakes." The ruling caused shares to drop in companies whose main source of revenue -- their patents -- are under threat from challenges. VirnetX, which is trying to protect almost $1 billion in damages it won against Apple, dropped as much as 12 percent. The patent office has said its patents are invalid in a case currently before an appeals court.

Comments

Anyway

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

If the patent shouldn't have been granted, then it isn't a taking of property because it was never properly instantiated as IP.

Maybe this addendum to the patent office operation is a bad idea, but that's a different issue. Write to your Congressman.

Here are some ideas;

1. If it is done without computers, migrating a process to computers is not patentable.

2. If it is done locally on a computer, distributing pieces over a network (internal to the computer or external, esp. over the Internet) is not patentable.

3. Doing something already being done, but now "Over the Internet!", is not patentable.

4. Creating a virtual machine similar to a real one is not patentable.

Re:Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I would add that naturally occurring substances, DNA sequences, genes, etc are not patentable.

Re:Anyway

[HornWumpus]

Before spending $10kUS (average cost to get a patent) the APPLICANT should consider if it's a smart way to spend money.

Spending money on shysters has no guaranteed ROI. Don't expect a god damn lawyer to tell you: 'I'll take your money, but it will be for nothing'. Rather the opposite, like asking your barber if you need a haircut, answer is always yes.

Getting the patent gets you a right to take it to court. Not a guarantee the patent is valid.

Invalidating a patent is no more taking a property than losing a appeal. Yes, you've spent money, but nobody ever told you it was the end of the process.

Re: Anyway

[Immerman]

Agreed. You pay to apply - there's no guarantee you'll be awarded the patent, and you don't pay any more if you are. Nor do you get a refund if it isn't.

Now, if you bought such a patent from someone else then you have paid for it. But perhaps you should have done more research to make sure it was a VALID patent first, instead of assuming that the patent office is infallible, or at least that any challengers would face such an expensive legal process that they'd rather let you fleece them than go through it. If you don't like it, take it up with whoever you bought the patent from.

Darn...

[sconeu]

I was hoping the Patent "Death Squad" actually hunted down patent trolls...

Re:ELI5

[king neckbeard]

A new process made it easier to invalidate patents by creating a process for the USPTO double check their homework when given money and evidence by a third party. Patent holders, particular trolls, cried like little babies about that, saying that the USPTO is stealing their property. The court ruled that it was never their property, because it was just double checking their homework.

Re:some tweaks to the system

[Pinky's Brain]

Just end patents, much easier.

Re:Will Google, Apple, et al lose patents, too?

[Xtifr]

This makes it easier for anyone to invalidate a patent, since there are now two methods for doing so: the traditional and expensive method (through the courts) and the new method (asking the PTO to reconsider their grant).

Basically, all that's happened is that the PTO is now allowed to admit they make mistakes. It doesn't require the courts to decide that they've made one.