IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Posts Tagged: "biased"

PolarityTE stock tumbles, harassed by activist short seller misrepresenting Public PAIR data

Whether the Citron report is intentionally wrong for the purpose of causing PolarityTE stock to tumble, which it has, or whether it is recklessly wrong, or just ignorant is impossible to tell. But what Citron says can without question be characterized as absolutely incorrect… Citron says that the non-final rejection was made known to PolarityTE on March 31, 2017, which they find to be conclusive proof of fraud because PolarityTE closed a transaction with shareholders on April 7, 2017. The problem, however, is the non-final rejection was mailed by the USPTO and sent to the law firm representing PolarityTE on April 7, 2017… Citron also claims that PolarityTE has engaged in fraud because they received a final rejection from the patent examiner and did not notify shareholders. Again, only those who are completely unfamiliar with patent practice and procedure could possibly make such an erroneous claim. A final rejection is anything but final in the everyday meaning of the word.

Is Brookings Pushing an Efficient Infringer Narrative with Biased Panel Discussion?

Unfortunately, there’s every indication that today’s event at Brookings will feature more of the same kind of misguided rhetoric on perceived issues with the patent system which don’t truly exist. The evidence for this starts with the moderator for the day’s final roundtable discussion, titled Realigning Incentives to Increase Patent Quality. The moderator for this discussion will be Tim Lee, senior reporter of tech policy for Ars Technica. Lee has written in the past on the effects of “ridiculous patent litigation” and has given space to viewpoints which want to limit patentability in certain sectors, such as in business methods. Lee has also been very critical of appellate court decisions in patent cases in recent years to the point that assertions he’s made on case law regarding the patentability of software inventions border on the ridiculously absurd. This individual, who has a clearly anti-patent viewpoint, will be controlling the discussion during the final panel roundtable on patent policy.

Misrepresentations in Service to Efficient Infringer Lobby

The world of intellectual property law has been abuzz in recent months leading up to oral arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, a case which will determine whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) operates in violation of both Article III of the U.S. Constitution and…

Gary Shapiro takes self-righteous stand against patent trolls despite obvious bias in favor of infringers

It is difficult to witness people like Gary Shapiro self-righteously railing against the patent system when they stand to gain from weakened patent rights… Shapiro continues on his defense of the PTAB by noting similarities between patent validity challenges and trials: “Lawyers make their case to the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB), and three highly qualified administrative patent judges hear their case and come to a decision.” Highly qualified or not, there is at least one administrative patent judge (APJ) who has sat on panels issuing final written decisions on trials petitioned by a former employer, a situation which would require a sua sponte recusal in district court to answer any concerns over potential conflicts of interests. Furthermore, the Patent Office has admitted to stacking PTAB panels so that cases are decided in the manner desired by the Director, which is as difficult to believe as it is stunning. Clearly, the PTAB is not an independent tribunal that exercises decisional independence. The PTAB has also removed pro-patent decisions from its database, refused to consider timely submitted evidence, fundamentally misappled the law of obviousness, determined that an MRI machine is an abstract idea, and blatantly ignoring the law with respect to CBM patents. Shapiro paints a picture of a PTAB that defies experience and simply is not realistic.