With changes in the USA-PTO service to Inventors, by employing new computing capabilities they have chosen, the problem of HOSTILE EXAMINERS to small entity inventors is now a new negative risk for inventors, not including the costs of employing legal agents to help process new applications.
Small entity inventors can not risk such examinations which major monopolies can process by the special needed skills for issuing a new patent in the PTAB era of the USA-PTO.
How the USAPTO is supporting Monopolies and not Inventors and Innovations
Here is a recording, where an honest Senator is losing to the sad political destruction of the USAPTO as to its original mandated objectives. Politically Selecting USAPTO Directors
About PTAB
“US Inventors” has made slow and steady progress over the past years to restore the rights of inventors to enable entrepreneurs to compete. Unfortunately, many lawmakers continue to refuse to correct the mistakes of the past. Like the PTAB that was created in 2011 ostensibly to help small businesses defend against frivolous lawsuits. Instead, the USPTO patent invalidation program has been weaponized by large multinational and foreign corporations to steal technology from smaller competitors. Contrary to the stated purpose, the PTAB has turned out to increase the time and expense of patent litigation and dramatically increase the likelihood of invalidation as compared to a regular court.
In addition to the PTAB, the Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings weakening patent rights. Ebay (2006), KSR (2007), Alice (2014), TC Heartland (2017), Oil States (2018), Arthrex (2021) – all made it harder for inventors to and undermined the Constitutional requirement of securing to inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries.
Some lawmakers are listening, and will soon introduce legislation to level the playing field. Stay tuned for that.
“US Inventors” are launching a 2022 campaign to make innovation a top priority for every contested House and Senate seat. “US Inventors” are expanding our staff, adding resources, and hitting the campaign trail.
See This Video:—> What Inventors are saying
My original proposed modern innovation of the Global Patent System had been partly accepted but mostly ignored under the pressures of the very high demand of USA-PTO workloads and political/selfish interests of USA monopolies registering yet new focus on “Sizzling” innovations classed as HighTech — plus, the selfish USA-PTO focus for employing such new computing and related automation evolution as solutions for its self serving interest. Furthermore, under the selfish pressures of major USA PTO clients (Global USA Monopolies) few had caused the USA PTO to miss by far the opportunity to also redesign itself as a modern Global innovation service according to my original proposal — and the actual big loss is to inventors and the industry which has evolved back into major monopoly driven economy, against monopoly laws, and is not naturally expending into the “Super Economy” as in my proposal.
Please note, that what made the USA PTO an important patent registration office is the USA Market itself and not American innovators alone or the patent system concept which was devised almost half a century ago, even before the USA was created. Inventors worldwide seek the USA market before all other Global Markets.
For my company, we stay in the winning position because only part of my proposal was incorporated into the modern USAPTO system, and because we are still holding on to our original choice of being 1st to invent and 1st to file and 1st Not To Publish till we find the proper suited commercial partner(s) so no one can steal or copy our work and employ PTAB type of strategy against us. From time to time, we also employ the Preliminary Patent Option, which is not really the originally proposed (IPR Intellectual Properties Registry) Pre-Patent registration and enjoy the reduced fees we had proposed many years ago as well.
The “Prepatent Prepartnering” option is the wisdom for the metaphor of our thinking, that “The mother of the invention is seeking the proper/suitable father of the invention for its highly valued brainchild, so they all can swim safely in shakes eating sharks waters”.
My original idea came to me in 1960, but only by 1974 I was able and free to start my private Research and innovate my discovery to new knowhow by 1979. Because of the vast potential impact on the boating and shipping industries I had first tested the USAPTO system with another related innovation as well as developing the best business strategy plan for our project, and started looking at the market and how to serve it. The point here is that even now, in 2021, we are in the leading position in the art mostly because we have not published a patent before we are able to protect it beyond a patent and a patent insurance.
The reality is that major corporations are not wise to search for opportunities like we have, and are still in the realm of stealing, copying, infringing, or at best taking-over smaller new innovations with vast market values. So, we stay wise and keep trying to prepartner with a wise honorable corporation capable of collaboration in our project, posted modestly at http://superiorhulls.com and Surfins.ca/Hull Speeds also at Flying-Boats.
US Citizens, you can act now
The groups of “US Inventor” is urging you to co-sponsor or at least support inventors by contacting your representative to help bring the initiative H.R. 5874 the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act.
More information is here: https://usinventor.org/massie-innovation-act/
The return of large patent infringement
| Over the last several years we have seen the return of large patent infringement verdicts, and verdicts that have also enhanced damages for willful infringement. These cases have not yet made their way to a final resolution at the Federal Circuit, but in at least one high-profile matter the patents that were the subject of a $2 billion verdict are now being challenged at the PTAB. Since its inception, the PTAB has always been viewed by patent owners as a first hurdle to monetization, and now in the wake of the OpenSky saga – where Director Vidal allowed the IPR to continue despite being started for the purpose of extorting the patent owner – the PTAB is becoming a final blockade to monetization. So: How is this landscape changing the way patent owners are evaluating and formulating assertion and monetization strategies? How are patent litigation funders evaluating risks? Is it better from a funders perspective to already have an IPR instituted? When does an IPR look like too much of a risk? What size patent portfolio is necessary to begin to minimize the risk profile? How do you pick which companies to target first with an assertion campaign? In other words, how is the PTAB affecting assertion and monetization strategies circa 2022 and into 2023 One of the first tasks for counsel for the petitioner is to consider the grounds for invalidity, the number of references, and which references to use. Like, would you ever consider including a reference disclosed in an IDS? How many grounds for invalidity is too many grounds? How many references is too many? How does estoppel factor into selection of grounds and/or references? Should you use printed publications, or doesn’t it matter anymore? With the death of Fintiv litigation teams feel more comfortable waiting longer to file inter partes review (IPR) challenges, which allows for more careful consideration and preparation of the petition, but not everything is easy for challengers after the demise of discretionary denials. While it is early, and the sample size is small, one new issue facing petitioners since the death of discretionary denials seems to be an increase in denials as the result of insufficient motivation to combine. Notwithstanding, the problems facing petitioners, and the non-appealability of institution decisions, Director Vidal has recently suggested the possibility of an error review panel to review denials of institution. So: What is the proper use and content for the expert declaration? What should you include in the petition versus the expert declaration? How much colour should you add to the expert declaration? Is it appropriate to incorporate by reference from the declaration into the petition, and if so, what is the right balance? Is there a downside to staking out a position on indefiniteness that may come back to bite you later during litigation, particularly when dealing with means plus function limitations? These questions are facing petitioners now, both for the short-term and long-term. |
You must be logged in to post a comment.