A Plea to All IP Stakeholders: Support Director Iancu’s Efforts to Restore the Value of U.S. Patents

By Mark Marrello
March 5, 2019

“Director Iancu needs us to support him with positive public comments as justification for his Section 101 guidance and to suggest improvements to his guidance for its final/future version(s) and its implementation.”

PatentedUSPTO Director Andrei Iancu’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance promises to virtually eliminate the greatest patent problem of our time. If implemented properly by the examiners and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges, the guidance could solve the 101 mayhem and the incredible harm that it has done to inventors of computer implemented inventions. The guidance will also increase the value of patents, since strategic infringers will not be able to use the PTAB as the killing ground for patents using subject matter eligibility.

Director Iancu needs us to support him with positive public comments as justification for his guidance and, very importantly, to suggest improvements to his guidance for its final/future version(s) and its implementation.

Please send the following text with any of your edits to Eligibility2019@uspto.gov by the March 8, 2019 deadline.

Director Iancu:

I would like to thank you for your initiative to resolve the 101 mayhem. Your subject matter eligibility guidance will help with most of the 101 problems if interpreted and implemented properly by the examiners and PTAB judges. Therefore, the highest risk to your subject matter eligibility guidance is the interpretation and implementation by the examiners and PTAB judges. The following are suggestions on how to further improve the guidance and how to ensure its correct interpretation and implementation.

1.  In the article https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/01/28/director-iancu-training-101-guidance/id=105649/, an “examiner wrongly thought that the new guidance created a new ‘practical application’ burden that needed to be met by an applicant to overcome an existing Section 101 rejection. This is contrary to the guidance actually identifying an alternative path to establishing that a claim is patentable under Section 101 ‘if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception.’” This shows how easily confused some examiners can be. Hence, it is critically important to include in the guidance or its training material the purpose of the guidance. For example: “In addition to predictability, the purpose of the guidance is to provide alternative paths to patent eligibility, thereby substantially reducing the number of 101 rejections”.

This high-level clarification right in the general purpose of the guidance will set a clear tone for the guidance and avoid confusion such as described in the referenced article.

2.  The guidance states that a claim is patent eligible if it does not recite an abstract idea (i.e. mathematical concept, etc.) “on its own or per se”. For computer implemented inventions, it is a real possibility, and even likelihood, that some examiners will ignore the “on its own or per se” requirement and will interpret this as a claim being patent ineligible if it recites an element that uses a mathematical concept. All computer implemented inventions include elements that use mathematical concepts at some level. Therefore, some examiners will wrongly continue issuing 101 rejections for computer implemented inventions, whereas, this is clearly not the intent of the guidance.

It is critically important that the guidance or its training material provides at least one example of a claim for a computer implemented invention that recites only a mathematical concept that is not patent eligible (i.e. a method comprising adding A and B to  result in C). It is further critically important that the guidance or its training material provides at least one example of a claim for a computer implemented invention that recites elements that use mathematical concepts, but do not recite mathematical concepts “on their own or per se”, that is patent eligible (i.e. a method comprising: receiving or generating a, b, and c using some process or analysis; generating data structure A including a, b, and c; accessing data structure B in a memory of a computer; evaluating data structure A and data structure B to determine at least partial match; causing the computer or a device controlled by the computer to perform some operation based on the determination).

3. The guidance mentions that:

“a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application: … [if it] merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea”.

This language is clearly directed to fundamental business practices, organizing human activities, and other well-established human practices that use a computer merely as a tool (see the Supreme Court opinion in Alice v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). This language is clearly not directed to computer implemented inventions (i.e. artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous vehicles and devices, image processing, databases, computer/video games, computer simulations, content processing, and many more) that arise out of or are inherently implemented on a computer. It is unimaginably irrational to attempt to make computer implemented inventions that arise out of or are inherently implemented on a computer patent ineligible simply because they are implemented on a computer.

Therefore, it is critically important to include in the new guidance or its training material an explanation that the language stating that “a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application: … [if it] merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” applies only to fundamental business practices, organizing human activities, and other well-established human practices that use a computer merely as a tool and that computer implemented inventions (i.e. artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous vehicles and devices, image processing, databases, computer/video games, computer simulations, content processing, and many more) that arise out of or are inherently implemented on a computer are patent eligible as the patent law explicitly states.

4.  It has been a long trend that many examiners routinely label all non-hardware elements of a computer implemented invention as abstract ideas with no, marginal, or incomplete analysis and label all hardware elements as “additional elements”. The examiners then merely state that the “additional elements” are well-known and do not add anything to the abstract ideas. This initial misclassification of abstract ideas and “additional elements” then prevents examiners from ever analyzing whether non-hardware elements are well understood, routine, or conventional as required in step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, since the analysis of whether an element is well understood, routine, or conventional applies only to the “additional elements”. This is an irresponsible practice and examiners who practice this should be identified and educated to correct their practice. It is critically important to clearly state in the guidance or its training material that only non-hardware elements that recite an abstract idea “on its own or per se” are abstract ideas and all other non-hardware elements are “additional elements”.

5.  It is often the case in computer implemented inventions that a data structure, combination of data structures, element including a data structure, process that operates on a data structure, process that uses a data structure, or other element related to a data structure provides crucial novelty and enables a novel system. It has been a long trend that many examiners routinely label data structures or anything related to data structures as abstract ideas with no, marginal, or incomplete analysis. Since many computer implemented inventions use data structures, these inventions were unjustly doomed to patent ineligibility right from the start.

In the guidance’s groupings of abstract ideas, the only one that has any relation to data structures is “Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations”. Since a data structure IS an arrangement—often very complex —of data stored in memory, a data structure IS NOT a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula or equation, or mathematical calculation. Hence, a data structure is not an abstract idea. Further, many data structures – especially complex ones such as trees, graphs, neural networks, variously linked nodes, variously linked data structures, etc.—are embodiments of a practical application described under prong 2 of the guidance as patent eligible. Therefore, it is critically important to clearly state in the guidance or its training material that data structures are not abstract ideas and that inventions reciting data structures are patent eligible.

6.  It has been a recent trend to issue blanket 101 rejections with no, marginal, or incomplete analysis in art units dealing with artificial intelligence inventions. This is an irresponsible practice and examiners who practice this should be identified and educated to correct their practice. It is beyond belief that the United States would cripple itself by limiting innovation in a crucial field such as AI, especially in view of the heated global race for dominance in this field. It is critically important to clearly state in the guidance or its training material that artificial intelligence inventions are patent eligible.

 

The Author

Mark Marrello

Mark Marrello is a partner at Imperium Patent Works, LLP. While earning his M.S. and B.S. in Electrical Engineering, Mark worked at Qualcomm Incorporated as a Senior Radio Frequency Integrated Circuit Engineer. Mark’s responsibilities included the design, test, and production ramp up of cutting edge multi-mode and multi-band communication devices. After attaining his M.S. in Electrical Engineering, Mark transitioned to Qualcomm’s in-house legal department and began attending law school in the evening. Upon attaining his J.D., Mark became the second attorney at Bridgelux Incorporated where he singularly managed all intellectual property matters including building a broad patent and trademark portfolio, managing litigation issues, negotiating licensing agreements, drafting business and employee contracts, and advising the executive team on a variety of strategic initiatives. Mark is admitted to practice before the United States Patent & Trademark Office, all California State Courts, and the United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of California.

For more information or to contact Mark, please visit his Firm Profile Page.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 25 Comments comments.

  1. Anon March 5, 2019 9:27 am

    While I do not want to take away from the rather excellent article here, I do want to provide at least two points that truly need consideration for any view of Director Iancu’s efforts.

    The first point is concerned with the legitimacy of an Executive Branch effort to create (rather than strictly enforce) a uniquely Legislative function. To the extent that even the Judicial Branch has noted that every application of the current tool of the Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo (“Gist/Abstract”) test is an application of Common Law law writing. To that end, we continue down a path of not recognizing an overall ultra vires action (beyond – but directly due to – the ultra vires nature imposed by the Supreme Court itself). ADDITIONALLY, one must at least recognize that these protocols may well be TOO infected with substantive rights (as opposed to procedural or administrative matters) and may well be outside of the limitations of the Patent Office (vis a vis Tafas).

    The second point is no less important, and actually impacts many of the attempted points of the article: Director Iancu was explicit in noting that the current state of the law (to be enforced) – the state as brought about by the reckless Supreme Court – has created a Gordian Knot of conflicting Common Law case law. Unfortunately, rather than cutting that knot, Director Iancu attempts a multi-level “off-ramping” but critically attempts to incorporate ALL of the case law – thereby guaranteeing failure because he incorporates the very contradictions that he explicitly points out.

    While I have in the past outlined my “Dream” response of the Executive Branch, I would advance that the Executive Branch is the LEAST apt branch to resolve the current morass. Not only would any action of the Executive Branch carry no weight in Article III actions (as we have already seen), it is simply NOT their role to do so.

    Rather, the most logical branch is the Legislative Branch, with the best action to be a direct repudiation of the Supreme Court’s tinkering accompanied by Congress using their Constitutional power of jurisdiction stripping and removing the Supreme Court from the non-original jurisdiction of hearing patent case appeals (coupled with a reset of a proper Article III court of review).

    I would also point out that the creator of the mess may also take a new tact and eliminate it themselves. See my recent posts on the Kavanaugh Scissors as to how the Court itself could take action to cut the Gordian Knot.

  2. Independent Inventor March 5, 2019 2:20 pm

    There is no such thing as a perfect solution. However, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is definitely on the right path. As an individual inventor, I do support this guidance. Corporations have weakened the US Patent System in order to take advantage of it. Small inventors are getting crushed by these corporations and it’s about time to change that. We also need to take notice of the fact that the same corporations are now paying off small inventors to vote against such guidance. USPTO and in particular Director Andrei Iancu knows this and are already doing their part. What are you doing?

    I personally thank Director Andrei Iancu and his team at USPTO. They are definitely on the right side. I hope Congress and the legislative branch will follow suit to make the US Patent System strong again.

    To all those naysayers that are NOT influenced by the corporate money yet, take note of the fact that this guidance has made the large multi-national corporations nervous (very telling). Please have trust and vote yes to this change.

  3. angry dude March 5, 2019 4:40 pm

    Too little, too late… with all due respect to Iancu.. it’s not up to him to make any substantial changes to US Patent system at this (very late in the game) point

    Restoring US Patent system means restoring injunctions

    Restoring the value of US patents today means crashing stock market… no less

    Big tech (publicly traded) corps have been stealing patented inventions from small (private) entities for well over a decade

    Now what ? Do you really think Iancu or anyone else for that matter (including Trump himself) can tell them to stop doing this and pay back royalties ?

    Get real, dude

    To the morgue…

  4. Ternary March 5, 2019 6:29 pm

    I like what Director Iancu is doing. But here is the point. There is absolutely no Constitutional basis to determine that “inventions directed to an abstract idea” are not patent eligible. We only have the word of SCOTUS on this. And we still have no idea what this “directed to an abstract idea” actually means.

    Director Iancu’s solution to check if “the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception” is in direct conflict with the Alice decision. The original Alice patent 5,970,479 integrates the “abstract concept” of “risk management” into a practical application, being a data processing system that processes data that facilitates in managing financial risk. That is a practical application that did not remotely exist 40 years ago even in a science fiction sense. Director Iancu cannot overcome that decision. An electronic calculator that enables the rapid calculation of a sum of an addend added to an augend is directed to the abstract idea of doing arithmetical calculations. Is it “more practical” than the Alice invention?

    While the Iancu Memo can help in getting a patent, it actually increases uncertainty about the value of a patent. The only way to resolve this for once and for all is by Congress.

  5. The Time Is Now To Act March 6, 2019 1:00 am

    It has been said in other circles, and should be stated here, these well reasoned comments re legislative fix to 101 should absolutely be sent in printed letter form, via parcel delivery, to the office of Senator Coons. Follow up phone calls to get the Senator on the line would also be very helpful.

    Said a different way, we should, as able, mobilize and act as amici to the legislators. They need to consider specifics re a 101 fix and we have much needed expertise to bring to bear.

    Be certain the infringer lobby is getting in front of lawmakers. This time around let’s beat them at their own game.

  6. concerned March 6, 2019 5:21 am

    Ternary:

    I am hoping that “practical application” will win my appeal at the PTAB and be sustained in front of other courts.

    In Alice, risk management was being performed since 1898 and performed without a computer. A computer was just a tool to perform the same function manually done previously for decades. The experts and professionals already had this solution, just not on a computer.

    In my process, I have 2 university studies proving my solution or concrete steps were never performed, manually or by a computer. It was a solution, or practical application, long sought by experts and professionals in my field to solve the problem and the experts and professionals said as much in the university studies.

    While practical application has no weight of law, practical application makes sense in my case regardless of how the problem is solved, with or without computers. As an aside, the problem is rooted in computers, therefore, a computer solution is needed. If computers did not exists, my concrete steps would still solve the 62 year old problem manually and would be novel and non-obvious.

    What makes no sense is the patent examiners rejection which said rejection is not truthful, not logical and not factual. A solution or concrete steps never performed by anyone on Earth cannot be well understood, conventional or routine. The patent examiner writing as much does not change the truth or facts, nor did he provide any proof to sustain his argument. He just said so.

  7. Ternary March 6, 2019 10:10 am

    Concerned. Your invention should be patent eligible, because it is a practical application. The Alice invention should be patent eligible, because it is a practical application. Perhaps, Alice is not patentable, because the claims are obvious or anticipated. But there is no doubt that the invention is a practical application of a computer.

    A computer is not a human and cannot do what a human does. A computer is a large electronic circuit/device that processes signals. That places the device firmly in the realm of useful physical devices, when the signals are meaningful or useful.

    Director Iancu’s Guidance is the logical consequence of the purpose and constitutional intent of the patent system. He is absolutely correct. The Guidance also provides a common sense/engineering type of acceptance of what a patent should cover. Though applied common sense is often not what it should be, as arguments in Alice cases show.

    However, (and that is the issue here), the Alice decision is in direct conflict with the “practical application” approach. Which may have as a consequence that a patent, correctly and validly obtained in the USPTO, may be invalidated based on Alice later in the Courts.

    That is why Director Iancu’s Guidance is an excellent first step. However, Congress should take measures to resolve the mess.

    That is why I agree with TTINTA, and we all should send a message to Senator Coons, Tills and others on the Subcommittee for IP. Here is the complete list of other members on the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property: Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), John Cornyn (R-TX), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Mike Lee (R-UT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

  8. Jason Lee March 6, 2019 11:21 am

    We need to see a reverse in eBay and Alice and bring back injunctive relieve to the US, and questions about what can be done to undo the suggestion in the Oil States case that patents are government franchises and no longer property rights. Small patent holders need the rule of law to work for them, small patent holders must not be held outside just because they do not have deep pockets like Amazon Apple and Google to fight for the patent protection from patent thieves like Apple. Its time patent holders get paid!!

  9. Independent Inventor March 6, 2019 11:30 am

    Congress needs experts in order to be able to change the laws. Unfortunately, back in 2010/2011/2012, Congress relied on the wrong experts, mainly those that were paid by the same Big Tech companies that wanted a weak patent system. Congress no longer trusts the same Big Tech companies and therefore has no choice but to rely on other experts, including those at the USPTO. USPTO has taken a number of impactful first steps. Congress will catch up and will change the laws sooner than later. The biggest challenge Congress has is with those congressmen and women who are primarily representing the same Big Tech companies in the name of representing Americans. The good news is that there are plenty other good and smart congressmen and women that working harder than ever to combat the influences of these Big Tech companies.

    In 2012, Big Tech companies installed Michelle Lee as the director of the Silicon Valley Patent & Trademark Office. In 2014, she was installed at USPTO as the Director to make sure that the PTAB becomes the “death squad” of valuable and viable patents. Since then, the market share of these Big Tech companies increased substantially. We are waiting to see how Michelle Lee, the new board member at Alarm.com, will be rewarded for her work at the USPTO.

    Director Andrei Iancu is not Michelle Lee. Director Iancu is an independent leader, who cares more about the U.S. Patent System than siding with the Big Tech companies. We need to recognize and appreciate the fact that going against the Big Tech companies is the greatest risk one can take. We believe that Director Iancu will be successful in his journey and we all support him wholeheartedly.

    I suggest reading the following articles again, which shed light on what Big Tech companies together with their accomplices have done to our patent system and to America’s Decline in Global Competitiveness:

    1) http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/03/21/how-google-and-big-tech-killed-the-u-s-patent-system/id=95080/

    2) http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/03/01/u-s-patent-system-americas-decline-competitiveness/id=94249/

  10. Jason Lee March 6, 2019 11:45 am

    @angry dude

    >”Too little, too late… with all due respect to Iancu.. it’s not up to him to make any substantial changes to US Patent system at this (very late in the game) point

    Restoring US Patent system means restoring injunctions

    Restoring the value of US patents today means crashing stock market… no less

    Big tech (publicly traded) corps have been stealing patented inventions from small (private) entities for well over a decade

    Now what ? Do you really think Iancu or anyone else for that matter (including Trump himself) can tell them to stop doing this and pay back royalties ?

    Get real, dude

    To the morgue”<

    If America does not fix the patent system at home, China and Germany will surpass America and attract the inventors and provide protection for their IP, and yes I agree Silicon Valley have been having a free all you can eat on small patent holders for over 10yrs. Its time they paid back the inventors and yes their stock price is going to get hammered, theft is theft and the rule of law must prevail or America's greed will kill it self and the one thing that made them great and that was protecting inventors patents from theft and being rewarded when someone did steal their IP. Currently there is no deterrent in stealing a patent in America if you are a big company thanks to eBay,Alice,101. This must change if it does not Germany and China will overthrow America's standing as the supper power. Its game over if they do not wake up! Apple,Google and Amazon do not really care what happens to America they no longer need them. America needs to snap out of it and shake off the special interest groups money and fight for the rule of law that has kept them at the top since inception. We will see what happens….

  11. Night Writer March 6, 2019 2:14 pm

    We really need Iancu to be appointed to the CAFC after leaving the USPTO.

    I hope Trump can swing it. Maybe a few of the current judges at the CAFC that are not qualified to sit on the CAFC would agree to resign.

  12. Eric Berend March 6, 2019 4:12 pm

    The time to make a united stand is now.

    ‘Independent Inventor’ @9., makes an important point: it is indeed possible that ‘BigTech’ influencers no longer enjoy the unsullied trust of members of the U.S. Congress in general.

    Perhaps, the advent of massive data breaches encompassing millions of ordinary Americans, the apparent complicity of BigTech in possible Russian interference with the 2016 U.S. national election and the intransigence of BigTech leaders such as Mark Zuckerman when called to Congress to explain, has served as something of a wake up call?

    Politicians are ever, creatures of perceived public opinion. If this turn is, in fact, a lull in the illicit storm of fabricated patent antagonism destroying the economic interests of small to medium enterprises and inventors reliant on U.S. patents – then, there needs be no hesitation in embracing the opportunity at hand.

    Take it from a genius milnerd sitting on a $10 billion invention who has as much or more to lose than anyone, in the IP space.

    Add to that, some experience in motion practice where I have a 4-0 record against the ‘Society of the Esquires’ (and closing in on a fifth, quite possibly, with a Motion For Partial Summary Judgment about to be served upon a current adversary), along with a favorable decision from a NYS bureaucrat in DEC which can be notoriously stubborn – all, in real property law where the analogies to IP are, of course, quite strong.

    That ‘military history nerd’ aspect? My limited, but relevant ‘in the trenches’ legal experience? All, tells me to not ignore this strategic opportunity.

    This time, I strongly disagree with ‘angry dude’. Love ya, man, but not feeling the burn, this time around.

    CONCLUSION: do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

    With little left to lose, and a political opening beckoning, as has not been seen in at least a decade on Capitol Hill, now is a very good time to rally to this cause. All hands on deck!

  13. Curious March 6, 2019 4:36 pm

    NW@11

    I don’t think any judge at the CAFC would agree to resign. To touch upon one of Anon’s dreams, I don’t think Congress is going to strip SCOTUS of their ability to be the last say when it comes to patent law. However, Congress is where this mess is going to get fixed.

    Aside from rewriting 35 USC 101 with strong language that essentially says — “no exceptions except for those WE identify … period” one thing that could be addressed is the splitting of the CAFC into intellectual property cases/non IP cases with the current judges reassigned based upon their respective expertise.

    The splitting of the CAFC should be fairly non-controversial.

  14. angry dude March 6, 2019 8:37 pm

    Eric Berend @12

    “All hands on deck!”

    Sigh..and how many hands do we have combined ? not too many I guess
    The general lemming population could not care less about US patents
    yet they will care if some household tech product stops selling because… well, it infringes too many US patents
    guess which side lemmings will be on ?

    The reason I’m so angry is because I filed for patent before all this mess started – in 2002 and my patent was issued right after Ebay in 2006
    I am fine with trade secrets if that’s what they want
    Alas… too late for that one.. and it ruined my incentives too

  15. Jeff Lindsay March 6, 2019 9:15 pm

    I sent my own version of the letter in. Thank you for the suggestion and the useful points and information.

    While I fully agree that Congress needs to enact measures to reverse the unconstitutional damage done by a reckless Supreme Court, I welcome the efforts of Director Iancu to limit the damage of the SCOTUS IP virus through USPTO quarantines which may cut the fatality rate significantly. But the virus needs antibodies to be created by Congress to wipe it out.

  16. Mike March 7, 2019 2:22 am

    angry dude says “The reason I’m so angry is because I filed for patent before all this mess started…” [and then he had misfortune].

    I’ve said this previously to angry dude on this website: Stop intentionally spreading your infection/negative sentiments around. It does no good to anyone except satisfy your negative emotions.

    Real change can happen. The way it happens is for people to get out from behind their keyboards and talk to their local inventors and their reporesentatives. This is what I have started doing, and things are happening. One genuine inventor/stakeholder who speaks up to his/her representative can make more change than any third-party lobbyist, even with $1M backing. If you need help or direction in what positive steps you can make, reach out to me here in the comments or go to usinventor.org and contact someone there.


    A question was once asked by a man to his friend who had wanted a tree in his yard for some shade.

    The man asked: “Do you know when is the best time to plant this tree?”

    His friend replied sarcastically: “15 years ago.”

    The man then asked: “OK, well then, when is the next best time to plant this tree?”

    His friend paused for a moment, took off his hat, and scratched his head. He put his hat back on, looked up sharply and said sternly: “Right now!”


    If someone else’s tree falls, that’s not your tree. If you want a tree, get up, get your shovel and plant one. I guarantee that you will never have your own planted tree in 15 years if you don’t actually get up and plant one yourself today.

  17. angry dude March 7, 2019 8:57 am

    Mike @16

    I wish you best of luck, dude, seriously

    But I myself can’t bet my family’s future on US patent system
    I don’t think the damage can be even partially undone in the next 5-10 years in the best case scenario and by then my patent will expire anyway

    Needless to say, there won’t be any more patent filings from me – if you’ve done this yourself you should know how much hassle (and money) it is to push your patent app through the PTO all the way to allowance

    “Fool me once – shame on you, fool me twice – shame on me”

    good luck to you but I can’t wait another 15 years – I am already in my 50s

  18. Anon March 7, 2019 10:06 am

    angry dude at 17,

    You are missing the point presented by Mike (and presented by myself on numerous occasions).

    I am sure that I would not be amiss if I speak for Mike (along with myself) and reflect that you very well may have been a victim of the anti-patent Efficient Infringer propaganda machine, and that we feel for your unfortunate happenstance.

    That does NOT change the fact that you letting your emotion overcome ANY sense of reason and you nigh constantly spouting a “just give up” mantra plays directly into what the Efficient Infringers want. The larger battle here is simply more than just about you and your feelings.

  19. Eric Berend March 7, 2019 12:21 pm

    ‘Anon’ @18:

    Precisely so. I make no claims of which I am not in complete knowledge of the truth involved. The common interest of all inventors of any size or relative economic presence has been under attack for some time now. When the intent, planning and execution is predatory rather than competitive, military analogies become particularly apt.

  20. independent Inventor March 7, 2019 1:59 pm

    Dear Commentators…it is all good that we add and read the comments here, but please remember that tomorrow is the deadline. I submitted mine on Monday. Please do the same if you have not done so already. Thank You!

    Eligibility2019@uspto.gov

  21. Pro Say March 7, 2019 4:41 pm

    All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing.

    Time for us all to stand up and be counted by providing our comments in support of our hard-fighting Director and his like-minded colleagues.

    Which I’m doing today.

  22. Mike March 7, 2019 7:42 pm

    @independent inventor

    Yes, I sent my comments to the USPTO as well. Thanks for reminding everyone.

    It is my hope that Congress doesn’t see this effort by Iancu as a reason to ignore our requests for a statutorial remedy, not only to just 101, but to ALL the issues caused by the Courts, the AIA, and the efficient infringers. Iancu’s guidance is not binding on the Courts, so Congress does need to act, and in doing so, involve the inventors in the legislation — we are the primary stakeholders here. And we’ve been left out of the discussion for too long.

    Every day is time to act!

  23. Anon March 9, 2019 5:03 pm

    I will grant that Mark Marrello may have filed a comment with the USPTO (as may have many others that often comment here).

    I will note that the link at the USPTO does NOT reflect any such comments.

    Through this morning, there were ZERO comments in any category outside of the “Individual” category, and for that category only 119 total comments being shown, with the last comment dated February 13.

    NOT an auspicious “reach out” by the Office.

    Further, of those 119, only ELEVEN were received prior to an organized effort, reflecting a most definitely NOT “Individual Effort” from one of the notable Efficient Infringer fronts. That effort provided a pre-penned letter and delivery mechanism for associated members to merely “copy” the form letter and submit under their own name.

    Having checked each of the 119, I am saddened to say that a full 101 of the 119 are of the nature of the association form letter**. At least two of the form letters are actually duplicates of the form by a same person. Of the 101, a small handful bothered at all to add or attempt to personalize comments, and most of those show an absolutely abysmal understanding of BOTH law and technical sides of the discussion.

    At least two others had multiple (but different content) letters.

    This leaves outside of the form letter, a de minimis twelve original thoughts, and many of those are not worth repeating.

    ** anyone bothering with percentages, 85% of the already tiny feedback shown is tainted with a organization’s hand.

    Given the utter lack of touch with tech and law foundations, I would advise the Patent Office to simply seek out informed opinions.

  24. Pro Say March 11, 2019 3:36 pm

    Anon — a slew of new comments have now been posted. Many more — including mine — soon to come.

    To no surprise (or value), many mindless, thoughtless, repetitive copy-and-paste “comments” utilizing the inventor’s enemy the EFF merit-less verbiage.

  25. Anon March 11, 2019 8:35 pm

    Agreed, Pro Say.

    Mr. Quinn has additional words in a new post.

    I will note that while I agree there with the overall thrust, I do not agree with all of his comments (as I would emphasize the inanity of the Alice decision itself as being NOT capable of generating any sense of consistent or reliance aspects as key terms were simply left undefined — on top of a whole host of Constitutional infirmities of the Court’s Common Law law writing approach.