August 2016 – American Inventors for Justice

‘makes the situation worse’

‘http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/293456-creates-act-would-only-create-more-lawsuits

‘sets out to tackle a specific problem and, in the end, makes the situation worse’

We believe the goal of Chinese and large multinational infringers never was to address abuses in the patent system. Instead their goal was to use overwrought or fictionalized accounts as pretense to pass measures that make it easier for them to rob and crush their small competitors. Don’t believe the lies of thieves and their Chinese style propaganda machine. Just because they call it ‘reform’ doesn’t mean it is.

For our position and the changes we advocate (the rest of the truth) to truly reform the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/category/our-position/
or, contact us at aifj@mail.com

On “abstract”

A present thorny or even disastrous problem for inventors and all patent holders is that the courts now in light of Alice review patent claims to decide if the invention claimed is “abstract”. Unfortunately, SCOTUS did not define or elaborate so it has left the door open wide and other courts have done the best they could to apply Alice in a manner which has often invalidated patents for inventions those inventors have spent their lives and life’s savings or staked the existence of their companies developing. These decisions are crushing inventors and allowing our large competitors to take our property with impunity.

We believe there is a better way. Initially, in our view even if an invention specified in a patent application has “abstract” elements to it which as the courts have noted all inventions do as all at the initial stage are based upon a novel abstract concept, so long as the invention adequately describes a manner of implementing or utilizing that concept then the invention no longer can be regarded as abstract. It is one thing to claim “fly to the moon”, but if the inventor teaches one skilled in the art how to actually do so then the invention ceases to be abstract and has by any reasonable test met reduction to practice. America crossed that hurdle over a century ago when working models were no longer required to be filed which as many know caused great problems at the PTO as they were running out of room to store them.

But we think there is a more fundamental issue involved here. As we have previously stated in our position statement and on our site over the course of time law evolves and occasionally rather than run true north we end up somewhere off course. We believe the best solution is to when in doubt or when error creeps in always return to the surveyor’s mark. That in this instance is the Constitution. The elegant and simple path the founders began us on so long ago is no less applicable now than it was nearly 250 years ago. Patents should be issued for ALL inventions that promote the ‘Progress of Science’, or are useful. Those are the best surveyor’s mark. We need to return to the original and stop working with imperfect and approximated copies. Eventually a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy becomes so blurry and useless that a masterpiece becomes a poor and crude imitation. As a result, the patent system has become unpredictable and inventor property rights as a practical matter barely exist as patents for us have become far too hard, expensive and slow to get and enforce. In reestablishing the proper test for patentability to be what the founders envisioned we will greatly simplify and improve the predictability and reliability of the patent system and give inventors a fighting chance by respecting their right to the “faculties of their minds”.

‘PAE study is the result of media coverage and Congressional pressure’

‘http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/16/ftc-report-paes-effect-patent-reform/id=71954/

‘PAE study is the result of media coverage and Congressional pressure’

plain English translation: the “study” is the result of concerted Chinese style propaganda by large multinational invention thieves

So if an inventor or small entity has to sell their patents to avoid fiscal collapse those who buy them cannot justly assert them?? How can we then get anything for our patents? How is that fair? If you sell your house should it then be wrong for the new owner to assert their rights to it? What on earth is the FTC thinking??!!

At first we we thought we would respond 1 by 1 to all the lies and distortions of invention thieves, but then in the interest of brevity we decided it would be far simpler and shorter to list their truths……..

See how much shorter that was. 🙂

‘Cotropia also pointed out that the number of filings has been falling’

‘http://setexasrecord.com/stories/510989172-academics-express-concern-about-pending-patent-reform

‘Cotropia also pointed out that the number of filings has been falling’

But it’s not about the number of filings which is largely irrelevant now post AIA. It’s about the number of parties sued.

‘predatory patent litigation’

As to Levy …

‘their points really don’t justify delaying venue reform’

For 200 years in America a plaintiff had a right to bring suit for a tort in any district where their rights were trespassed. That is due process and only fair. If they don’t want to be sued in TX or wherever, then don’t infringe there. Large multinationals have warped law to make us sue them in their backyards where they have an unfair advantage with their employees and relatives of on the jury and may have improper influence on the selection or election of judges. There we wait until hell freezes over to get a trial date and end up going out of business before we ever get there. That suits large multinational invention thieves just fine. Their goal is not fairness, it’s legalized theft so they can rob and crush their small competitors.

Don’t believe the lies of thieves. Just because they call it reform doesn’t mean it is.

For our position and the changes we advocate to truly reform the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/category/our-position/
or, contact us at aifj@mail.com

‘Detroit is afraid of patent trolls’

‘http://fortune.com/2016/08/08/gm-honda-patents/?iid=leftrail

‘Detroit is afraid of patent trolls’

Plain English translation: Tech and Detroit want to legalize invention theft so they can rob and crush their small competitors

This pseudo reporter routinely now publishes articles which completely lack balance. Is he part of the tech propaganda machine that has infiltrated large media? Does he work for invention thieves? That would explain why the article does not accept comments. Open public debate is something large multinational thieves and their partners in crime run from.

The patent system now teeters on the brink of lawlessness. Call it what you will…patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to stop or pay”. It’s a pure red herring by invention thieves and their paid puppets to obscure their theft. Their goal is now to legalize that theft. For the last several years they have been ransacking and looting small entities taking everything they can carry. The fact is, many of the large multinationals and their puppets who defame inventors in this way themselves make no products in the US or create any American jobs and it is their continued blatant theft which makes it impossible for the true creators to do so. Invention thieves well know few inventors have the resources to enforce their patent rights and the law is so watered down that they can steal at will. To infringers the only patents that are legitimate are their own -if they have any. Meanwhile, the huge multinationals ship more and more American jobs overseas.

‘their points really don’t justify delaying venue reform’

‘http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/04/opposition-venue-reform-misses-target/id=71619/

‘their points really don’t justify delaying venue reform’

So say large multinational invention thieves and their paid puppets.

From near the bottom of the “article”…

‘Matt Levy is Patent Counsel at the Computer and Communications Industry Association’

Inventors will tell you this trade group is just a front for large serial infringers. Don’t believe the lies of thieves. Just because they call it reform doesn’t mean it is. We have to ask, did they pay to publish this Chinese style propaganda?

For an honest assessment please see our position statement.

We also encourage you to read the letter by law professors in support of property rights at…

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2816062

It’s important to point out that of the competing list of academics in support of the venue bill, at least 1 according to that university web site has not been active with the university he is listed as being associated with since July of 2013 -David Levine. How many others are there who similarly may not have a current connection with the schools they are listed with? Are he and others listed with him moonlighting for large multinational infringers? Do they write and espouse the views they are paid to?

‘Patent Owners bear no burden for proving that challenged claims are not obvious’

‘http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/07/29/ptab-improperly-shifted-burden-proof/id=71409/

‘The Court’s ruling (i) clarifies that Patent Owners bear no burden for proving that challenged claims are not obvious in response to an instituted IPR Petition, and (ii) counsels that Petitioners must adequately develop arguments during trial to support burdens that the Petitioner alone bears.’

We applaud the court for another exemplary decision. Ignoring for a moment the question of the legality, impartiality and fairness of administrative review of issued patents, in a patent dispute whether in court or admin review the burden should always be on the requestor or defendant to prove that issued claims are invalid -not for the patent owner to prove that they are patentable as that is rarely possible as one can only prove invalidity by the existence of evidence or facts that show the invention was not new or useful when issued. The logical opposite of that to prove validity is to prove that documents for example do not exist and of course logically that is rarely if ever possible. One can only logically prove the existence, not the non existence.

That is one reason why patents are or should be presumed valid in court and why traditionally the decision of an examiner to allow a case is given full faith and credit at the PTO though in present post issue reviews they now ignore those earlier decisions and will even ignore the arguments of the requestor and come up with their own theories of invalidity. In essence, in these admin reviews the PTO becomes the prosecutor, judge and jury. The PTO has thereby breached their duty of impartiality by not placing the burden of proving invalidity on requestors which is where by any application of justice it should rightfully be placed -assuming admin review is legal which we argue it is not. These admin reviews and this practice which places the burden on patentees has given the PTO complete and supreme powers in all phases of an administrative pseudo trial and stood American traditions and jurisprudence on their heads. Until these issues and others we enumerate in our position statement have been Congressionally corrected, inventors and small entities will continue to be illegally and unjustly stripped of our property rights and invention theft will continue to be permitted, and even encouraged. Like Joan of Arc, all inventors are getting out of these administrative pseudo trials is a flaming stake.

‘there is also a public interest in the security of patent rights’

‘http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/07/29/reasonable-litigation-defenses-willful-infringement/id=71413/

‘The Federal Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in failing to issue a permanent injunction. While there is a public interest in safer generators, there is also a public interest in the security of patent rights.’

We agree and applaud the court for an exemplary decision. If inventors and small entities cannot enforce our property rights including the right to exclude competitors and all others from using our inventions without permission, we have no hope of commercializing the technologies we often risk all to develop and bring to market. This is a great step, but we still face many obstacles at the PTO and in some courts as overall it is far too hard, expensive and lengthy for us to get and enforce our patents as a result of the America Invents Act (known by inventors as the America STOPS Inventing Act, or ASIA for short as that is where it has sent all our jobs and in large measure why America can’t find a descent paying job) and various court decisions such as Alice which in our view illegally and unjustly strip us of Constitutionally acknowledged and protected property rights. Administrative review of issued patents for example, does not in our view square with fundamental and traditional property rights in America. To deny us access to the courts and American juries on questions of our most valuable property rights is unjust, unfair and in our view illegal. No one would have questions of their home ownership determined in an administrative review. Why then should we have our most valuable property rights determined so? There is good reason why Americans have for well over two centuries dating back to England claimed the right to a trial by a jury of our peers.

Still, this is certainly a step in the right direction. The court got it right and we greatly appreciate their support and integrity.

‘continue to be the fuel’

‘http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/07/27/patent-reform-catalyst-future-innovation/id=71268/

‘Will the U.S. patent system continue to be the fuel that fires genius, to paraphrase President Abraham Lincoln, or will the U.S. patent system continue to throw cold water on the spark of innovative entrepreneurism in America?’

We and many other practicing inventors and small entities will tell you America no longer provides ‘the fuel’ as for us US patents have become too hard, expensive and lengthy to obtain and enforce. That is the reality. We can no longer obtain contingent representation in the courts to enforce our patents and even on those few occasions where we now can we cannot risk going to trial in courts that with few exceptions have become lynching mobs for us. Defacto legalized theft of our inventions is now the rule, not the exception.

	staff on ‘loosening of patenting…
	staff on ‘misused as tools of agg…
	staff on As we have been saying.
	staff on “ruling on patents could…
	staff on “quietly acquired”