‘full possession’

A recent comment on the property rights of inventions…

“Once that individual conceives the invention, they are in full possession of that property right”

We are in full agreement. A patent only acknowledges that natural right. It doesn’t create it. It’s just part of the process of quantifying and enforcing.

Madison in the federalist is very clear that all ‘faculties of the mind’ are property and its protection is THE principal aim of government.

‘patent prosecution’

By the nature of patent prosecution the PTO’s role is to act as a quasi prosecutor (thus the name ‘patent prosecution’). So the patent application process is by definition adversarial. The PTO is therefore NOT impartial and to permit them to after issue be judge, jury and prosecutor of property rights for in a post issue review would be an egregious violation of due process and any invalidation resulting would be an illegal taking of private property.

‘businesses that accumulate patents’

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4696&context=clr

from page 815: ‘Indeed, “patent trolls,” or (more courteously) “patent assertion entities,” i.e., businesses that accumulate patents in order to extract royalties, settlements, or verdicts rather than developing products…’

We believe there are multiple if not many problems with these phrases and their definitions. First, even if there was anything wrong with only licensing and not commercializing, the problem is all these changes in patent law affect ALL patentees, not just those who prefer to only license. Second, not every inventor has the capital to commercialize or has the means to do so as without a court ordered injunction which is rarely available to us now thanks to the SCOTUS eBay decision we have no fair chance to commercialize against our large multinational competitors who are free to use our inventions and have all the cash they will ever need to grind us into dust. This is despite the Constitution acknowledging and declaring that inventors have ‘exclusive rights’. Pardon our candor SCOTUS, but hell fire…what were you thinking!? You have done us irreparable harm. You have taken our inventions from so many of us,  ruining us and our families.

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 large invention thieves and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. As Mark Twain said, ‘truth is not hard to kill, and (that) a lie well told is immortal’.

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

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
or, contact us at aifj@mail.com

‘calls for legislative venue reform’

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/12/14/supreme-court-patent-venue-case-patent-reform-implications/id=75751/

‘calls for legislative venue reform’

plain English translation: calls to further weaken and destroy invention rights so large multinationals can finish off their small competitors

It has been tradition in America since its founding and in western society for centuries before, and a fundamental axiom, that when a right such as a property right is trespassed the party damaged has a right to sue in any reasonable venue, such as where the crime was committed. To deny inventors the right to bring suit where they are infringed (robbed) and where the infringer has a meaningful tie deprives them of longstanding and traditional American property rights. No doubt our large infringers would rather have their small competitors travel to a distant venue to considerably increase our legal expenses and where their employees or relatives of are on the jury and where they have substantial sway on local courts such as by judge selection. If so, then stay where you are and don’t infringe outside of your home venue. But when your infringement wanders outside that limited boundary then you deserve what you get. When thieves win America loses. 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
or, contact us at aifj@mail.com

Congressman Rohrabacher

Below is an address Congressman Rohrabacher gave in the House recently. We applaud him for his understanding and recognition of the mess the patent system has become.

Show us a country with weak or ineffective property rights and we’ll show you a country with a weak economy and high unemployment. This in part explains why America can’t find a good paying full time job.

Even inventors who wish to commercialize their inventions are unable to as a result of all the recent changes dating back to the SCOTUS eBay decision. Adding to that other decisions, PTO perceived if not actual bias, and AIA -all these changes have done is legalize theft of our inventions and helped our large infringers rob and crush us while shipping more and more American jobs overseas. When they cant export jobs they import workers that displace Americans. Don’t buy the Chinese style propaganda of large multinational infringers (thieves). It’s time to stop ‘reforming’ the patent system and restore -completing the vision of America’s founders.

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
or, contact us at aifj@mail.com

 

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2016/12/08/CREC-2016-12-08-pt1-PgE1656-3.pdf

 

ASSAULTING PROPERTY RIGHTS TO ONE’S INVENTIONS

______
                                 

                         HON. DANA ROHRABACHER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, December 8, 2016
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to call to the attention of my colleagues an
analysis of our recent government actions to-
ward intellectual property rights titled ‘‘Assault-
ing Property Rights to One’s Inventions,’’
which shows how we are undermining our po-
sition as the world leader in innovation and
preventing the creation of new wealth.
For a country with a momentous beginning,
whose intellectual-property-rights approach
produced the most iconic inventors and inven-
tions in the world, recent changes to Amer-
ica’s patent system should be alarming.
Mark Twain wrote, ‘‘[A] country without a
patent office and good patent laws was just a
crab and couldn’t travel any way but sideways
or backwards.’’
America made writing ‘‘good patent laws’’
that secure intellectual property rights a high
priority. The Founders enumerated the Patent
Clause in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitu-
tion—the only individual right named in the
Constitution itself.
The Founders moved quickly to implement
this property right. The Patent Act of 1790 was
the third law enacted by the first Congress.
What did the Founders regard as ‘‘good pat-
ent law?’’ Deeding newly created property to
its creator. One that democratized the property
right to one’s inventions. The 1790 law
achieved this by awarding a patent to the ‘‘first
and true inventor.’’
But lately, Congress, the courts and the ad-
ministrative branch have diverted America to-
ward the way of the crab. Our own govern-
ment has whittled away at our patent system,
degraded patent rights, devalued patents and
IP and diminished inherent property rights.
What would inventors like Thomas Edison,
the Wright Brothers and Alexander Graham
Bell think about this new direction? Or Found-
ers such as James Madison?
In recent years, Congress has shifted patent
terms to 20 years from when a patent is ap-
plied for, though the average patent applica-
tion pendency is 36 months—far longer for so-
phisticated inventions.
Congress changed the law to require vir-
tually all patent applications to be published
18 months after filing, even if no patent has
issued. That’s a problem because it gives IP
thieves a head start by providing them an in-
vention’s blueprints early. If a patent doesn’t
issue, disclosure makes the invention ‘‘prior
art’’ and unpatentable.
Congress enacted the antiproperty-rights
‘‘America Invents Act.’’ AIA denies inventors
de novo judicial review if the patent office in-
validates a patent. AIA also lets patent infring-
ers off the hook if they used someone’s pat-
ented invention for a year before a patent was
filed. It seriously disrupts the one-year grace
period, when inventors could discuss their
ideas with investors and partners, improve
their details and make a stronger patent appli-
cation.
The AIA allows third parties to anonymously
submit ‘‘prior art’’ while a patent application is
being considered. Use of an invention any-
where in the world now makes an invention
subject to being invalidated here.
[[Page E1657]]
AIA changed from a first-to-invent to a first-
to-file basis for winning the patent. This runs
counter to the American principle of a property
right to one’s ideas
AIA also put the post-grant challenge proc-
ess, started in 1999, on steroids. Now anyone,
with or without standing, may ask the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board to invalidate an issued
patent, with a low burden of proof. Infringers,
hedge fund sharks or anyone can bring patent
holders into double-jeopardy-like patent reex-
amination in this quasi-judicial administrative
setting. Judge Randal Rader has called the
PTAB a ‘‘patent death squad’’ because it re-
vokes patents 80 percent of the time.
Courts are making it harder to secure a pat-
ent, in rulings like KSR v. Teleflex, Bilski v.
Kappos and Mayo v. Prometheus. Judicial rul-
ings have also raised the bar for patent own-
ers to win infringement, in such cases as
Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB, Abbott Labs
v. Sandoz and Quanta Computer v. LG.
Even if an inventor gets a patent, then
proves someone is infringing the patent,
courts have put permanent injunction against
infringers out of reach under eBay v.
MercExchange. A patent is supposed to en-
sure exclusive rights, but if you can’t stop in-
fringers from making, using or selling your in-
vention even when you’ve proven IP theft,
where is the private property right to exclu-
sivity?
Agencies like the Federal Trade Commis-
sion, myopically fixated on antitrust and
unproven theories of patent litigation abuse,
miss the core constitutional goal of patents,
namely to vest in individual inventors enforce-
able property rights, which include the right to
sell or license that intellectual property. The
FTC’s recent ‘‘study’’ of certain patent asser-
tion entities, or PAEs, paints with such a
broad brush; it sheds little light on this area of
patent litigation.
The FTC lacks sufficient data to draw con-
clusions, especially with an unrepresentative
sample of 22 firms and no data on the poten-
tially abusive practices of large infringers.
Making sweeping policy recommendations on
such a thin foundation only picks sides in a
manner that hurts inventors who have no in-
terest in setting up manufacturing plants and
threatens property rights, including the right to
buy or license IP.
Meanwhile, countries like China, South
Korea and Taiwan take advantage of the
FTC’s and U.S. Justice Department’s efforts to
weaken the rights and remedies of American
patent owners.
These foreign governments enable their
countries’ businesses’ theft of U.S. IP. How?
By depriving American firms of due process,
equating exclusive patent rights with
‘‘anticompetitiveness,’’ and running judicial
proceedings based on predetermined out-
comes favoring domestic players, rather than
the rule of law.
In Federalist 43, Madison explained that the
right to inventions belongs to their inventors,
and ‘‘the claims of individuals’’ to their IP
rights ‘‘fully [coincide]’’ with the ‘‘public good.’’
The exclusive property right benefits society
while inventors enjoy the fruits of their cre-
ativity. It worked exceptionally well for about
200 years.
But today, our property rights-centered pat-
ent regime is shifting. These changes to
America’s once-world-class patent system
must be reversed and our course righted if we
are to continue as the world leader in inven-
tion and creation of new wealth.

USPTO innerworkings

An inventor recently had an experience with the USPTO we thought would help shed light on just how bad things are for us there. In this instance the inventor had a case which had been pending for several years -more than 8. The case was taken up by the Board which affirmed all rejections of the Examiner while intentionally ignoring the arguments and evidence of the applicant.  This reminds us of the experiences of laser inventor Gordon Gould with the PTO back in the 50’s-80’s. His story is recounted in N Taylor ‘s “Laser”. Here is a link to a Wiki post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gould

“The legal battles continued, as the laser industry sought to not only prevent the Patent Office from issuing Gould’s remaining patents, but also to have the already-issued ones revoked. ”

As Taylor writes near page 246 in his book, it didn’t matter what Gould and his attorneys said, the PTO examiner always responded “Gould’s arguments are unpersuasive”. That type of PTO chicanery is still being practiced by the present PTO regime. So it gives every appearance the secret SAWS program at the PTO is alive and flourishing. Are large infringers still manipulating, directing and/or and influencing PTO management? The PTO has proven over decades that it cannot be trusted with determining patentability once a controversy has arisen. This is why we have separation of powers in the federal government -to provide independent oversight. To give any department or subdivision of government the power to both acknowledge and revoke a property right is like a one legged dog -one in which the master will through outside influence peddling be forever in substantial question.

In this present and recent administrations the office in select cases obstructs us from obtaining and enforcing our patents, forcing us to sue or go away quietly. Is it the Patent Office, or the Patent Rejection Office? Large multinationals obtain their patents routinely in under 2 years while our applications languish only to await eventual final rejection and trigger finger abandonment. But few inventors have the means to sue the PTO as did Gould so they are ground into dust. The behavior of these PTO administrations is not surprising when one considers that in recent history directors are frequently appointed who are former employees of large infringers (thieves). We have to ask, who are they working for? To give the PTO not only the power to award patents, but the power to revoke as with post issue administrative review is not only an egregious denial of our constitutionally recognized right to a trial by jury, but violates any separation of powers and is devoid of independent oversight. PTO post issue review MUST end.

Meanwhile, those same large infringers who appear to be pulling the strings at the PTO continue to ship more and more American jobs offshore. When they can’t export jobs they import workers.

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
or, contact us at aifj@mail.com

‘ensure fairness’

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/307943-5-ways-trump-can-protect-inventors-hard-work

‘The USPTO should assess rules surrounding review proceedings to ensure fairness to applicants and petitioners.’

Better yet, respect their rights. We believe a far better solution which respects the inalienable rights of all Americans to a trial by jury is to completely remove any post issue review from the PTO which has historically been managed and dominated by former employees of some of the worlds largest infringers. In our view all they protect is the market dominance of their former (some will tell you still present) employers by obstructing the issuance and enforcement of patents for their small would be competitors. The secret PTO SAWS program which secretly blocks issuance of targeted patents is conclusive evidence -the PTO is not impartial. Post issue admin reviews of our patents have worked about as well for inventors as an admin trial did for Joan of Arc. There is a fundamental  reason why America’s founders demanded the right to a trial by jury and claimed it as an inalienable right. How can any government which does not respect the rights of its citizens expect to be respected?

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
or, contact us at aifj@mail.com