Tagged: #infringing #licensing #PTAB
JoshKeymasterMay 25, 2022 at 1:18 pmPost count: 4
Lemley is such a shill. He says that PTAB invalidation rates are the same or lower than in real court. If that is the case, why don’t they make it voluntary? Why does every patent owner disagree with him? Why do deep-pocketed infringers fight so hard to have their cases heard by the PTAB?Tami PalmerParticipantMay 25, 2022 at 1:49 pmPost count: 1
I know that our focus is the PTAB but they discussed the importance of licensing agreements and this is the solution to most inventors. We hope to license many of our new projects but it sends you to the same place, COURT. The companies refuse to give you sales reports, COURT. They refuse to pay the royalty in the contract, COURT. ETC . . . . It would be nice to have a quick claim court for companies to follow the terms of the contracts.
Most congressmen that I have talk to don’t believe in a “royalty” rate of any type. They companies should have the right to sell what ever product if “you/inventor is not doing it”
What about a standard royalty rate 3-5% if someone infringes a mandatory royalty rate be imposed a a “Patent small claims court” [That is what I thought the PTAB was going to be. I was wrong]
If the infringing company is a “serial infringer” they should be barred from producing products. Just a thought.PatentVoiceParticipantMay 25, 2022 at 3:07 pmPost count: 4
First, I don’t believe the intent of the panel was/is malicious. I just believe there’s not a strong enough voice for independent inventors saying, “Wait, what you’re proposing here results in serious long-term consequential harm.” With one or two notable exceptions, the panelists appeared to ignore the concerns of private inventors almost entirely.
In general the panel consisted of legal subject matter experts without any apparent experience of an independent inventor subject matter expert who has actual experience with a small startup that relies on patents and licensing for income. In fact didn’t see *any* apparent board members who had independent inventor experience — despite the number of total independent inventors historically representing about 30% of the total filers. http://invention-ifia.ch/independent_inventors_statistics.htmPatentVoiceParticipantMay 25, 2022 at 3:09 pmPost count: 4
Furthermore, its clear that there isn’t a good understanding of the practical aspects of licensing. My own experience after speaking to multiple potential licensees and attorneys has been that potential licensees (post AIA) will only pay for a license fee if they are sued first. Its a proverbial, “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free” situation.
I believe one aspect that could help here is to avoid some misleading statistics that the USPTO seems to be relying on which allow them to operate under the misguided delusion that the PTAB doesn’t have a disparate impact on patent-holders compared to third-party petitioners who may have been sued for infringement. This concept is clearly discussed in this article here: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/04/05/ipr-gang-tackling-distorts-ptab-statistics/id=81816/PatentVoiceParticipantMay 25, 2022 at 3:10 pmPost count: 4
Contrast this with the recent patent statistics that appear to support the conclusion that the PTAB is acting in a fair an impartial manner (a point stressed by one of the panelists). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ptab_aia_fy2022_q1__roundup.pdf
As a whole The Director appears to welcome practical input, but I believe there are some high bars to climb because there is an abundance of either carefully crafted misinformation or poorly interpreted data surrounding the true practical problems facing inventors who file patents at the USPTO.
Clearly experience doesn’t seem to match data — which should be informative to the patent office. Bad data results in bad conclusions.PatentVoiceParticipantMay 25, 2022 at 3:19 pmPost count: 4
Josh, See my other comments.
I believe this is a data-interpretation problem. Lawyers aren’t data-scientists (although it probably could help). The article here discusses the disparity. Either the USPTO doesn’t realize they have a problem or they realize they have a problem and are deliberately misinforming the public through a careful use of statistics.vkondaParticipantMay 25, 2022 at 8:57 pmPost count: 1
I attended this meeting in person today. The panel is from local Universities Cal, Stanford, and Santa Clara University. And so nobody represented from Independant inventor’s perspective.
I met Bobby Singh, Juliette Fassett (who came all the way from Portland) at the meeting. After the meeting I also met Achyut Datta, an independent inventor. I requested him to join USI.
After the session Bobby, Juliette, Achyut and I spoke to Kathy Vidal and her chief of staff, Dede Zecher. (Dede Zecher’s email address: email@example.com). My impression is Kathy Vidal is receptive to our feedback that there was no representation from Individual inventor’s perspective. We strongly raised the concern that PTAB is killing individual inventors. Kathy said she is open to arrange another meeting in San Jose with individual inventors in July. Dede Zecher gave her email address (see above). I suggest we follow up with her to make sure she sets up the meeting in July.JoshKeymasterJuly 21, 2022 at 6:45 pmPost count: 4
Thanks for the comments here. We are still working out the bugs on this forum. New topics are coming soon. Based on Kathy’s comments at the town hall last week, she is preparing to rebuff our concerns. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6953481900736864256/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.