House IP Subcommittee holds yet another one-sided hearing on bad patents and patent trolls

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), House IP Subcommittee Chair

On the morning of Thursday, July 13th, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet held a hearing titled The Impact of Bad Patents on American Businesses. The hearing, which included appearances from the highest ranking members of the full House Judiciary Committee, was ostensibly designed to focus on abuses of the U.S. patent system even as that system has itself been abused to the point that the U.S. is currently tied with Hungary in terms of the strength of patent rights in our nation.

House IP subcommittee chair Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) led off the hearing by discussing the large number of interests who are often on Capitol Hill to discuss their issues with “patent trolls,” including the “genius ones” which have only been developed in recent years. Despite the intent of the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 to weed bad patents out of the system, “patent trolls” remain active. Issa felt there were a few reasons for this, including the fact that such entities make money and that good patents could still be used to assert unreasonable claims. “Why innovate when it’s far easier and more profitable to simply purchase a patent, acquire one, acquire the rights to a patent, perhaps one that has never been licensed, bully businesses into writing a check, go away without ever seriously litigating,” Issa said. He said that 80 percent of “patent troll” litigation focuses on small business. “Simply put, we should not confuse ‘Making America Great Again’ with ‘Making American Patent Trolls Richer Again,’” Issa said. Although Issa was pleased with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on patent venue in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, he recoiled at what he felt was an “overreach” by Judge Rodney Gilstrap from the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.); Issa felt that Gilstrap misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland by denying a motion to transfer venue from E.D. Tex. in Raytheon v. Cray. “It is, in fact, an act that I find reprehensible by that judge,” Issa said.

Following Issa was the ranking Democrat on the House IP subcommittee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). Nadler noted that patent owners cannot protect against infringement without a strong patent system but he felt that poor patents sometimes “slip through the cracks,” which could be caused by pressure on examiners at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to process a large backlog of patent applications without clear guidance from the court system on what constitutes patent-eligible subject matter. “When bad patents are granted, it also encourages abusive litigation by bad actors known as ‘patent trolls’ who purchase these weak patents and use litigation or the threat of litigation as a weapon to extort settlements from innocent defendants,” Nadler said. He praised the Patent Quality Initiative program established at the USPTO as a good tool for ensuring that the patent office conducts its work effectively. He also mentioned that patentability standards should be harmonized between district court and the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). “As we work to strip bad patents from the system, we must strike the proper balance to ensure that we do not inject uncertainty and unfairness into the marketplace by throwing away good patents along with the bad,” Nadler said.


Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), the chair of the full House Judiciary Committee, offered his remarks that litigation abuse should be opposed wherever it appears. “Unfortunately, a small number of bad patents that should never have been granted in the first place have been used by some to harass American businesses,” Goodlatte said. These “questionable patents for common technologies long in use” include those that cover podcasting, electronic shopping cart and document scanners, Goodlatte noted. After extorting a demand payment less than the cost of litigation, “the ‘patent trolls’… then move on to their next victim.” Although the Innovation Act, which Goodlatte sponsored, he was happy to see the Supreme Court step in and solve some problems despite the “defiance” of Judge Gilstrap. “Also unfortunate is that there are some now calling to undo much of the progress which has been made on patent litigation reform,” Goodlatte said. “Simply put, their efforts and their views on what makes a strong American patent system are misguided.”

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member

It wasn’t until Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), ranking member of the full House Judiciary Committee, spoke that anyone brought up the issues hurting patent owners which have been caused by recent changes to the U.S. patent system. “We’ll examine the current state of patent law and to consider whether Congress should be doing more to promote innovation and protect inventors,” Conyers said. He noted that preventing the issuance of poor patents from the USPTO in the first place was one of the most effective steps that could be taken in weeding out bad patents. Conyers cited to a report from the U.S. Department of Commerce which showed that IP-intensive industries support 45 million jobs and 40 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. “Congress must ensure that the [USPTO] has sufficient funding so that it can be truly effective in protecting the integrity of our intellectual property system,” Conyers said. Although he said that he supports reasonable reform efforts, Conyers evinced a strong sense of caution on further legislative proposals and said that he would reject any change that could undermine the patent system even indirectly. “Even well-intentioned proposals must be thoroughly analyzed to avoid unintended consequences that harm our patent system, discourage innovation, weaken patent rights or increase patent litigation,” he said.

The first panel witness to testify was Tom Lee who works in geocoding with Mapbox, a developer of custom designed mapping technology for websites; according to data pulled from the legal data analytics available through Lex Machina, Mapbox has faced one patent infringement case going back to January 1st, 2000. In Lee’s testimony, he said that Mapbox has had multiple run-ins with “patent trolls” which Lee defined as “non-practicing entities (NPEs) who file meritless lawsuits that are cheaper to settle than defend.” These NPEs “produce nothing other than legal demands,” he said. Lee voiced displeasure as to the sophisticated nature of the “troll” industry, their use of venue to bring Mapbox into cases outside of their home jurisdiction and the low quality of the patents asserted. “Digital mapping is a complex computer science problem, but the claims we’ve seen have purported to cover techniques as prosaic as looking for businesses on a map or dispatching vehicles from a central location,” Lee said. “It is not an exaggeration to say that these techniques have been in use for hundreds or even thousands of years…In general, the quality of software patents in our system seems to be very poor.” Lee further went on to state that he knew software engineers who would consider it “an embarrassment” to be listed as an inventor on a patent. Lee also found it “particularly galling” that there were efforts to weaken PTAB trials like inter partes review (IPR), “one of our most important tools for dealing with the many thousands of bad patents that should be invalidated in the wake of the Alice decision.”

Former Chief Judge Paul Michel

Following Lee’s testimony was former Chief Judge Paul Michel, a panel witness with no organization affiliation who noted that he was testifying as a disinterested observer. In Judge Michel’s testimony, the former Chief Judge noted that, just in the past three years, the U.S. patent system has reached a crisis mode caused by various forces and reform efforts that it was no longer functioning effectively. Along with the current 10th place ranking of America’s patent system, “patent values have plummeted, by as much as 60 percent” and patent application filing is down as more firms turn to trade secrets. Although he supported AIA trial proceedings such as IPRs, Judge Michel argued that the USPTO seems to have deviated from Congressional intent in setting up the PTAB. “For example, you seem to contemplate amendments, they virtually never allow amendments,” Judge Michel said. “You seem to contemplate strong estoppel, they hardly ever estop anybody. And the statute as I read it suggests that the Director and his subordinates should make the institution decision and the Board only make the final written decision on the merits, but it was all sent to the Board in a massive delegation, so the Board does everything now, and that doesn’t seem consistent with the design that was put into the [AIA].” Further, recent SCOTUS decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories have created patentability standards so vague that they’ve caused massive uncertainties. “Yes, there is a problem of invalid patents and overreach on infringement claims, but it’s a limited problem and I think it’s now under way better control than it was even a couple years ago,” Judge Michel said. He was hopeful that the subcommittee would work to get the USPTO to respect the original intent of the AIA while also suggesting that Congress could help by clarifying patentability in the 35 U.S.C. §101 statute.

Testifying next was Sean Reilly, senior VP and associate general counsel with The Clearing House banking association. To The Clearing House and its partners in the financial services industry, covered business method (CBM) review proceedings as a crucial tool for invalidating “spurious” patents. “The CBM program was a landmark effort by Congress to address abusive patent litigation around low quality business method patents,” Reilly said in his testimony. “Thus far, it has operated precisely as Congress has intended. 79 percent of the final written decisions issued in CBM proceedings have resulted in an invalid challenged patent, in whole or in part. The Federal Circuit has never found that any of those decisions were wrong when you look at the merits of whether those patents are invalid.” Unlike IPRs, parties petitioning for CBM review proceedings may challenge a wider degree of patentability issues including those under Section 101 as well as 35 U.S.C. §112 for definiteness. Not only should Congress make the CBM program permanent, Reilly argued, it should end the IPR carve-out and allow for petitioners to make any invalidity challenge and not just those under 35 U.S.C. §102 for novelty and 35 U.S.C. §103 for non-obviousness. Reilly noted that 75 percent of CBM petitioners are from industries other than banking and insurance. “The opponents of CBM have claimed that CBM review has undermined the perceived value of the assets,” Reilly said. “We don’t believe that this is the case.” Reilly stated that venture capital funding has increased year-over-year since the passage of the AIA. He further stated that only 5 percent of patents challenged through CBMs are in the software space.

“This problem [of bad patents] disproportionately harms the community of startups I represent,” said Julie Samuels, president of the board of directors for Engine, a policy and advocacy group for tech start-ups. Samuels’ testimony focused on the current political moment in which she believed that reform to rein in bad patents was possible. There are approximately 2.5 million patents in force today, Samuels said, and 40,000 patent grants related to software technologies. Many of those software patents were “often next to impossible” for engineers and lawyers to understand. “Many are simply bad,” she said. “Like a patent on filming a yoga class, using a computer to count calories, and, famously, exercising a cat using a laser pointer. Samuels testified that 82 percent of “troll” activity targets small- and medium-sized businesses and that 55 percent of “troll” suits are filed against companies with revenues of less than $10 million. “[These business] can least afford the $1 to $6 million it costs to litigate.” Samuels did see positive trends in two areas, one involving Supreme Court jurisprudence on patent eligibility especially in terms of Section 101 patentability in the wake of Alice. Of the 465 patents invalidated under Alice 101 challenges, 333 patents (more than 70 percent) were invalidated as abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer. The second positive trend was IPRs, which Samuels said have proven to be “an invaluable tool to clean the system of the most egregiously bad patents.” Samuels closed by saying she didn’t believe that Congress needed to act in the current moment to continue weeding out bad patents as “advances” such as Alice and IPRs were “doing important work to right the ship.”

In a second article we’ll be publishing on this House IP subcommittee hearing, we’ll analyze the questioning period, including some interesting suggestions from former Chief Judge Michel on how to modify the outcomes of IPRs while respecting the intent of the AIA, and provide further analysis on the panel witnesses appearing at the hearing.


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on 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 as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of

Join the Discussion

29 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for staff]
    July 21, 2017 12:13 pm

    ‘the intent of the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 to weed bad patents out of the system’

    We believe the intent of AIA (or as we prefer to call it ASIA, as that is where it is sending all America’s jobs) was rather to legalize theft of our inventions by our large multinational competitors and it’s doing exactly as they planned. Don’t believe the lies thieves. Just because the call it ‘reform’ doesn’t mean it is.

    For our position and the changes we advocate (the rest of the truth) to truly reform the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at
    or, contact us at [email protected]

  • [Avatar for PTOIndentured]
    July 19, 2017 09:00 pm

    I am not cynical by nature, but almost the whole hearing, other than Judge Michel’s much-needed reasoning, read like all others were following a script / had been spoon-fed. ’10th and tied with Hungry’ is not a static state, it’s a marker on a downward USPTO trajectory. We need more defibrillators of the US patent system (like Judge Michel) to regularly ‘defibberate’ those too often posing to be its rescuers.

    It might also help in this panel recap to quote from Steve’s and Gene’s excellent IPW article (of 07-10-17) citing Darrell Issa’s own IP management dealings: “Only $128,000 collected from a combined 13 cases? That is less than $10,000 per case, which doesn’t even approach the nuisance value the truly bad actors, the true patent trolls that Issa himself and so many others rail against as extortion artists, seek to collect.”


  • [Avatar for Tesia Thomas]
    Tesia Thomas
    July 19, 2017 02:30 pm

    HTIA = Evil Eight and Software Cartel

  • [Avatar for Tesia Thomas]
    Tesia Thomas
    July 19, 2017 02:15 pm

    Historical perspective:

    When large companies in the same or similar sectors band together then people should look very closely at the group and its motives.

  • [Avatar for Tesia Thomas]
    Tesia Thomas
    July 19, 2017 01:39 pm

    HTIA= Evil Eight
    Can we spread this around like they spread “patent troll”?

  • [Avatar for Tesia Thomas]
    Tesia Thomas
    July 19, 2017 01:38 pm

    @Eric Berend,

    Exactly. But if you tear down Google’s public perception then you’ll get there as with Walmart.

    Frankly, all of the vile eight companies of HTIA were amazing and really just like us when they started up.
    Now they’re extremely evil and are becoming just like any other big company.

    Another question we need to ask is why are eight of the largest companies banding together to influence the law for everyone?

    And why is no one checking this out?

    It reeks of anti trust and collusion.

    How can anyone consider (from any perspective, historical or otherwise) that large entities forming a gang will mean everyone’s interests are represented and that they’re going to play fair?

  • [Avatar for American Cowboy]
    American Cowboy
    July 19, 2017 01:21 pm

    Anybody who needs a slogan to remind him or herself not to be evil must have a natural tendency to be evil.

  • [Avatar for Eric Berend]
    Eric Berend
    July 19, 2017 12:43 pm

    @ 15, 16, ‘Night’:

    A most cogent argument, that has received little attention. This is a correct answer to the challenge involved. Of course, since it strikes to the heart of the principle of fostering competition, if the milieu is tainted with influences against that principle; then, there will be obfuscation and deceit as has been seen with such determined and ruthless efforts against it.

    @ 17, ‘Tesia’:

    One aspect that really helps promote this perception, is that Walmart had already garnered a not-too-savory reputation in other areas. Too many people still think ‘Google is great’. One of the main reasons for the blatant propaganda of “Don’t be evil”, in the first place.

  • [Avatar for Ternary]
    July 19, 2017 12:09 pm

    This hearing was actually not entirely one-sided, courtesy of Judge Michel, who took the wind out of the sails of the other witnesses and in effect from chairman Issa. A key moment is at about 2:04 near the end of the hearing when Judge Michel points out that our (patent) system is not a common law one, but a statutory one and that it is up to Congress to decide how that system functions. Especially Judge Michel’s repeated observation that changes in the patent system are now affecting our economy, seems to put somewhat of (and I assume unfortunately a temporary) damper on expressed anti-patent sentiments.

    Set-up questions by Rep. Jeffries were helpful in some sobering opinions by Judge Michel, who cleverly pointed out that he is not testifying on behalf of an interest group.

  • [Avatar for Tesia Thomas]
    Tesia Thomas
    July 19, 2017 11:32 am

    @Night Writer,

    To your point:
    “The High Tech Inventors Alliance is comprised of eight technology companies: Adobe, Amazon, Cisco, Dell, Google, Intel, Oracle and Salesforce. These companies have over 447,000 employees in the United States, have invested $62.9 billion in research and development in the past year and hold a total of over 115,000 U.S. patents.”

    So why is that billions on R&D not working?
    I think that’s an even better question because it illuminates the reason why the small player need to be able to compete.

    We can’t count on large companies to make every innovation. They spend billions and are ‘outwitted’ by micro entities.
    The world needs all of us.

  • [Avatar for Silicon Valley Inventor]
    Silicon Valley Inventor
    July 19, 2017 11:16 am

    Going off on a tangent here, but @Eric #12, Google Glass was not dropped. It is actually in the news today — — and was supremely mismanaged and mismarketed (because Google is inept at hardware products).

    The IP around Glass is actually a fascinating case study, if any of you are interested. Google acquired failing smart glasses company Microoptical Corp and onboarded its founder Mark Spitzer as director to warm a seat. Of course Google knows better than anyone and has no need for inventors. Soon its own employees named as inventors around Glass (e.g., Adrian Wong) were leaving. The entire operation was tainted by Google cofounder’s Sergei Brin affair with the British marketing gal who coined the brilliant phrase “ok Glass” to engage its voice command interface. As if you could market a product clearly for enterprise as a consumer device.

    This comedy of errors would have made a great season of the HBO show Silicon Valley. Of course, Sergei Brin is worth over $43 billion so I suppose the joke is on us. And I agree with all of the above comments that it’s a travesty to have these types of hearings with no real inventors and drivers of innovation.

  • [Avatar for American Cowboy]
    American Cowboy
    July 19, 2017 10:22 am

    There was a recent ABA Landslide magazine article about using patent aggregators to combat so-called patent trolls and extolling their virtues for Corporate America. The general notion was that the aggregator buys the patents and then gives free licenses to those who pay dues to it. Not a whole lot different than the so-called troll business model, I’d say.

    But the other tidbit in the article was the fact that 80% of the patents that the so-called trolls have in their portfolios come from Corporate America. Ironic, ain’t it?

  • [Avatar for Tesia Thomas]
    Tesia Thomas
    July 19, 2017 10:17 am

    @Night Writer: 15&16,

    EXACTLY! That’s exactly why these software inventors need to somehow use and publish their IP- name is something like “bubble sort” and put it out there.

    When the IP suit comes around, they can clearly show that the competitor was not in possession of the technology and direct the argument to that, at least with the public.

    That’s what Josh (balloons) is able to do. And, really, it’s making people go, “Hey, I’m going to buy the original. Walmart is really evil.”

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    July 19, 2017 09:12 am

    And, I cannot emphasize enough the important of @15. The way forward is to shift the dialogue from how can we weaken the patent system more to what can you do corporation that is make $10’s of billions of dollars in profit a year to protect yourself.

    We lose if the dialogue is that any lawsuit from an NPE is a troll suit. For each lawsuit, the question should be asked why you corporation don’t have a patent for that? Why don’t you have a public disclosure pre-dating the patent application?

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    July 19, 2017 08:59 am

    Everyone should think about the following. Nothing in the hearing goes to a simply question. Can you the big corporation do something about this yourself?

    The answer is that they can do a lot. Improved innovation and getting on the cutting edge of patent filings is the way to fight the NPEs. The corporations could fairly easily take care of about 90 percent of what they believe is a problem.

    But, the question was not even asked. Thank Lemley.

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    July 19, 2017 08:03 am

    You know there is a big lie about all of this too. The fact is that the Googles can do something about this themselves. And that is spend more on research and disclosure. To get ahead of the NPEs so that what they have is worthless. The reality is that many NPEs are ahead of the corporations in development. Yes, there is some weirdness to it in that the NPEs pay ph.d.’s to figure out what will be in five years.

    But, the corporations can play this game too. It comes down to they don’t want to spend money on innovation.

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    July 19, 2017 07:06 am

    @12 Eric

    It has reached farce proportions. Plus, the great irony that Google is saying we don’t need patents that they can innovate without them, and the business analyst excoriating Google for being so bad at innovating. They still get 90 percent of their revenue from their search engine.

  • [Avatar for Eric Berend]
    Eric Berend
    July 19, 2017 06:34 am

    What a grotesque farce. What will these software-supremacist sycophants do for their faux moral outrage, when it becomes no longer possible to keep puffing up this boogeyman? The inventors have already been chased away. Is this their version of Torrette’s Syndrome – cannot avoid the compulsion to repeatedly beat up on an opponent which is completely absent?

    That gusher from AlphaGoog can get cut off just as abruptly as Google Glass was dropped – or, try any of the company’s dozen-plus failures at creating new technology with any public appeal. It’s no wonder Google and friends are desperate to destroy patents for anyone but themselves (notice their special PTAB institution rate and CAFC rate of invalidation) dependent upon role (attacking or defending…is it Google?…then, favor them no matter what) – and adverse decision rate for the valid novel technology of everyone else.

    It’s all a giant, digital mob extortion racket. Use “eyeballs” to pretend real profits, scare business into paying exorbitant ad rates for distribution and outcomes of which that are unverified (“Trust us! We’ll supply the metrics! Pay no attention to any conventional ad placement or marketing measures! We’re not (‘don’t be’) evil!!”).

    Where is the independent verification? For a business operation that has produced little profit aside from a conventional media advertising model: where’s the “Nielsen” of the industry? “Don’t be evil!”?? Take it all, on faith?

    Is that it? THAT, is sufficient in big business’ minds and actions, to sh*t all over inventors and the U.S. 200+ year patent law jurisprudence, long acknowledged as the best in the world? Nothing but a giant ego stroke for contemptuous corporate masters?

    The whole Ashley Madison scandal was a watershed event for revelation of the digerati’s massive swindle on the U.S. and “Internet” economy: the “women” are mere software bots.

    300,000 software bots and just 4000 women.

    Just look how quickly that essential news story was swept aside; yet, here we are yet again, with tired partisan refrains in a Congressional “hearing” that resembles a kangeroo* court inquest rather than any honest trial – where’s the other side?

    These evil liars do love to trot out their scripted dog-and-pony show. Even if the have to paint the zebra (this particular ‘poster child’ so-called ‘victim’ of so-called “trolls”, disposed of their legal threat without even filing a brief? That is pathetic, even for such a greased-rail hatchet job).

    Dozens of sham hearings – not ONE inventor heard.
    The most corrupt and evil members of Congress.
    The most corrupt and evil members of academia.
    The encouragement of the most corrupt and evil online communities against property rights.

    From the very beginning, the whole racket is based on nothing but a pile of lies. Get ready to call China “Master”.

    *- proper American English calls for capitalization of this word. I refuse to do so here; these criminals do not deserve that respect.

  • [Avatar for Poesito]
    July 19, 2017 12:57 am

    @1 angry dude: Mr. Issa had a close call in his re-election last Nov. That would imply that his constituents may be tiring of his schtick. It would be interesting to know his key sources of campaign funds. A lot of politicians sell their souls for surprisingly paltry amounts. It may be possible to focus a national effort against him as has been done in recent congressional special elections. His district is a great place to live and work so it shouldn’t be hard to find a challenger even for the Republican nomination next time. He has always had an ambition for higher office and ran for a U.S. Senate seat before running for the House. A concerted effort might convince him that it’s time to move up or out.

    @7 CW5: According to his Wikipedia article he was indicted not once but twice for auto theft. There was also the matter of a questionable large insurance claim in the early years of his auto electronics biz. When he was running for the U.S. Senate in ’98 he explained how he leveraged the auto theft charges to help promote his business claiming that he knows what it takes to deter a car thief while at the same time attempting to establish himself as a solid conservative Republican. He seems to be ethically challenged bordering on the sociopathic.

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    July 18, 2017 09:43 pm

    >>“hundreds or even thousands of years,”

    This is a ridiculous statement. The methods of modern computers are very different than anything that has come before–in general. Of course, modern computers also do everything that was done before.

    But, to categorize what computers do as old is simply wrong. I’d say Lee knows this and was intentionally lying to get her Google bucks. Can’t wait to see how Google shovels millions into her pocket.

  • [Avatar for Curious]
    July 18, 2017 07:21 pm

    ANYTHING from (and associated with) EFF is suspect (at best).
    I didn’t catch that. EFF is anti-patent (period). There isn’t a software patent that isn’t stupid in their book. The next time a hearing is held on the death penalty, you might as well invite a convicted serial killer to get his/her “unbiased” opinion. What a joke ….

    Lee said. “It is not an exaggeration to say that these techniques have been in use for hundreds or even thousands of years…In general, the quality of software patents in our system seems to be very poor.”
    Unless you are a patent attorney, the odds are pretty much 99.99%+ that you have little idea as to what constitutes a well-written (or poorly written) patent. Moreover, if the patented technique has been around for “hundreds or even thousands of years,” this reflects either a massive failure by the patent office or a complete failure of the person evaluating the patent (i.e., Lee) to truly understand what invention is being claimed. I’m guessing that the latter rather than the former is true.

    Unfortunately, far to many laypeople read the Title of the Invention and think that is what the invention covers.

  • [Avatar for Invention Rights]
    Invention Rights
    July 18, 2017 03:56 pm

    The one MapBox case lasted only a few weeks and was dismissed before they filed a single brief. This is the witness for how “bad patents” hurt American business? In what way was it a “bad patent” and how did it hurt their business? The witnessess the infringers keep trotting out have it easy compared to the entrepreneurs suckered into relying on their patents to build a business these days.

  • [Avatar for CW5]
    July 18, 2017 03:49 pm

    1. Rep. Issa owes Judge Gilstrap an apology. Judge Gilstrap is dealing with a dearth of relevant case law due to the S. Ct.’s strange resurrection of a venue statute that has been dead for the last 25 years. He tries to provide guidance to litigants based on the few cases that are available, and Issa calls the judge “reprehensible.” If Issa’s views weren’t clouded by Google money, he would realize that Gilstrap is a fair, hard working, and knowledgeable judge who deserves the utmost respect – even if you happen to disagree with his decisions in a given case.

    2. Issa is clearly in Google’s pocket. I wonder how much money Google and the other serial infringers have donated to Issa over the last decade?

    3. I understand that Rep. Issa was once indicted and arrested for car theft. Seems ironic that he is now vigorously advocating for patent thieves.

    4. Thank God for Judge Michel. He was the only person who testified with accurate, current knowledge of the state of the patent system. All the others were Fake Witnesses pushing the serial infringer’s narrative.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    July 18, 2017 02:46 pm

    In Julie Samuels bio is the following:

    Julie Samuels was a Senior Staff Attorney at EFF, where she held the Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents. At EFF, she focused on intellectual property issues. Before joining EFF, Julie litigated IP and entertainment cases in Chicago at Loeb & Loeb and Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal. Prior to becoming a lawyer, Julie spent time as a legislative assistant at the Media Coalition in New York and as an assistant editor at the National Journal Group in D.C. She was also an intern at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications. Julie earned her J.D. from Vanderbilt University and her B.S. in journalism from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Consider the source.

    ANYTHING from (and associated with) EFF is suspect (at best).

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    July 18, 2017 01:41 pm

    That really is a vile lie. Saying that no one can understand that patent applications. I have been doing this for a long time and often in software. I haven’t seen many patent applications that a patent attorney cannot understand. Less than what I can count on one hand.

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    July 18, 2017 01:39 pm

    One thing they said about VC capital may give them some leverage. If it is increasing, then maybe a closer look should be given to where. The fact that it is increasing given that zero percent interest rate for 10 years is not surprising.

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    July 18, 2017 01:38 pm

    >>Many of those software patents were “often next to impossible” for engineers and lawyers to understand. “Many are simply bad,” she said. “Like a patent on filming a yoga class, using a computer to count calories, and, famously, exercising a cat using a laser pointer.

    This is just false. And, figuring out how many calories a person burns from a video is a bad patent? Why? Also, the notion that trolls are all over the place without any evidence.

  • [Avatar for David]
    July 18, 2017 11:39 am

    In other words: the grant of cert in Oil States has Congress in a state of panic.

    Here comes the tried and true troll scare.

    Very corrupt.

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    July 18, 2017 10:59 am

    why is Issa still in congress?
    who votes for that pos ?

Varsity Sponsors

IPWatchdog Events

Patent Portfolio Management Masters™ 2024
June 24 @ 1:00 pm - June 26 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Webinar – Sponsored by LexisNexis
August 22 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT
Women’s IP Forum
August 26 @ 11:00 am - August 27 @ 5:00 pm EDT
IP Solutions, Services & Platforms Expo
September 9 @ 1:00 pm - September 10 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Webinar – Sponsored by Anaqua
September 19 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT

From IPWatchdog