It's nice to see the USPTO strike down trivial patents, but it would be a whole lot nicer if it were done before millions of dollars in court costs were wasted.
> Bad patents can get submited as many times as the holder wants, but the USPTO can only mistake a bad patent for a good one once, and it's granted.
The problem is that the USPTO doesn't even seem to want to make the decision that early in the process. They seem to take a stance of "unless it is blatant crap, grant it, and let the courts sort it out and/or wait for enough complaints".
I think its just a matter of man power, they don't seem to be able to dedicate the time/talent up front to do a thorough job. Instead they make a bet that most patents are meaningless anyway so grant liberally and only put in the real time when/if a patent becomes an issue.
The problem with this is that it strikes a firm blow to one of the key goals of the patent system, to protect the 'little guy'. Making a patent a big enough issue to draw review is prohibitively expensive for most little guys. It seems like it takes two or more behemoth companies locking multi-million dollar horns to draw their attention.
I think its just a matter of man power, they don't seem to be able to dedicate the time/talent up front to do a thorough job.
That's pretty much it. Congress sees the USPTO as a revenue source, so they aren't even allowed to keep all the money they collect in fees (and they aren't allowed to raise their fees either). And they aren't allowed to develop a backlog (they started falling behind in the 1980s, but Congress slapped passed new laws preventing that). And if they reject an application the application can be amended and resubmitted, and almost always is until it's accepted.
So basically the USPTO doesn't have the authority by itself to solve the issue, and we need a solution from Congress.
Correct me if I am wrong but if the USPTO is the one granting the patents, then they can do something. Almost immediately they could instruct people reviewing tech patents to err on the side of not granting a patent or taking more time if the patent seems kind of obvious. If the folks are not in a position to tell if it is obvious, they should not be evaluating the category of patents.
Unfortunately, I get the sense that USPTO is in denial for the most part and does not believe, at least publicly, that there is a problem.
It should have been invalidated in the course of the trial, but we have a wonderful notion of presumed validity.
Instead we just went through both an expensive lawsuit and a re-exam procedure for a patent that never should have been filed and hence never should have issued.
It begs the question: How often are damages paid for "infringement" of invalid claims?
Lawyers made money. The USPTO made money.
Businesses lost money, not to mention time.
Anyone who is paying licensing fees for Apple's bogus pinch to zoom patent, you can stop paying now. Thanks for playing.
USPTO hasn't officially invalidate any patents. They've filed a non-final office action. It's now up to Apple to prove they're valid.
USPTO almost always do this when it comes to reexaminations, they'll reject all claims, forcing the patent owners to fight harder to prove they should have those patents.
On USPTO site, they mention that it is very rarely that the reexamination would reject in all patents being invalided after the first office action, 70%+ of the times, a small part is rejected while the rest are re-validated as real.
