“From the time my patent was granted to the time it expires, a company that stole my invention from my hands will have generated over $1 trillion dollars using it. When faced with a patent infringement lawsuit, they weaponized the America Invents Act, which they lobbied into law, and the PTAB validated their theft.”
A flash of genius hits like lightning. It shocks you into a superior state of understanding and your entire body buzzes. My flash struck in the summer of 2000, while I was asleep.
In a dream, I saw three rotating gears whose teeth were not matching up, and then saw my own hands reorder them so they fit perfectly. That’s when I bolted awake and said the name of my invention out loud.
I solved a problem few in my industry were noticing with a solution that contradicted and insulted conventional wisdom. I never went back to bed.
I got to work early and waited for people to arrive. When they did, I started to share how “it” would work. Some thought it was brilliant, some could care less, most didn’t get it, and one suggested I file for a patent.
I spent hours on sunny weekends inside the San Francisco public library helping to write a patent specification. For years after filing the patent, I examined every piece of prior art presented in every rejection the examiner put forth and worked with my attorney to craft our responses. I paid every filing fee and the legal bills with numbers hard to digest.
In August of 2006, six years after my flash of genius struck, I earned a patent. I would later learn my examiner granted less than 11% of applications he reviews.
A Painful Discovery
At around this time, I started reading about a new ad serving system launched by an Internet company with a funny name. A component to their new system was being described by journalists as a “breathtaking innovation,” “a novel mechanism that emerged from the wild,” and “the least understood, most controversial and ultimately the most powerful component” to their new system. I was stunned.
Some of my co-workers had joined this new company and brought my invention with them. I felt terrible for them. They were going to get in trouble, I thought, for stealing what was now a patented invention. As I did more research, however, I was surprised to learn the name of someone I did not work with was publicly credited for this “breathtaking innovation.”
Then, a New York Times article came out in October 2006 with a picture of the 20-something wunderkind who apparently “experienced an epiphany…an idea that would be worth billions and billions of dollars.” Standing next to him was my former boss who thought my invention was “brilliant.”
From the time my patent was granted to the time it expires, a company that stole my invention from my hands will have generated over $1 trillion dollars using it. When faced with a patent infringement lawsuit, they weaponized the America Invents Act (AIA), which they lobbied into law, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) validated their theft.
Having an invention taken from you twice—first by one of the largest companies in the world and then again by your own government—is something only inventors who have been through this PTAB experience can identify with. It’s like sudden death combined with a slow and painful one relived every day.
I am no longer present. I have trouble looking my son in his eyes and he’s four and has beautiful eyes. I feel like I let him down and his life will forever bear my scars. I can’t see any future because I am so desperate to change this past. I catch myself talking to myself.
The unfairness of the AIA keeps me up at night. It is so patently absurd it is impossible to explain to people without a metaphor. It’s like a losing a college degree after questions on all your tests previously passed, are changed ten years after graduation. Surprisingly, your answers are no longer correct.
It’s like moving the fence back after a home run is hit. So now it would be obvious the ball would have been caught ten years after the batter rounded the bases.
The Real Definition of a “Bad Patent”
The PTAB ruled my patent lacked an inventive concept for a claimed invention those in the art referred to as a “breathtaking innovation.” When I got the chance to meet with USPTO Director Andrei Iancu and his team to discuss my case, I asked how they square a ruling like this and they had nothing to say.
The gas lit narrative of ridding the world of bad patents keeps me up at night. If a granted patent is infringed, then common sense validates the claimed invention is likely innovative and non-obvious because obvious, non-innovative ideas are not copied.
A bad patent in the eyes of the AIA is a patent that threatens a big company. Just say it.
A Problem of Representation
Knowing I could have won keeps me up the longest. Like most inventors, I could only afford contingency representation.
I loved my lawyers. They were smart, but they spread their hours across multiple cases from all different industries. They could never spend enough time with me to learn the industry in which my invention lived. So, we were never as prepared as the $1,200 an hour lawyers we were up against who work on “this case” and always within the same industry.
There was a moment during our oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when Judge Taranto mischaracterized my invention. My attorney could not respond with the insights I could have shared easily to help the judge make a more informed decision. In an exercise where the goal is to “get it right” the inventor is not allowed to talk.
All That’s Left
I always thought a patent was granted to protect the inventor, not violate them. The AIA helped one of the biggest companies in the world get away with stealing, leaving me for dead. Worse, they conspired to cover up their theft by handing someone else my flash of genius.
That’s my story, and it’s all that I am left with.
Image Source: Deposit PHotos
Image ID: 68812441
Join the Discussion
57 comments so far.
SSBMarch 19, 2020 08:06 pm
If i were James Madison i would be extremely pissed.
Are we really even driving innovation here. With PTAB and CAFC having two different standards and personnel qualifications the answer can easily, “reasonably” diverge.
I thought the AIA was supposed to streamline all this, not fragment it further and deeper. Yikes. Sad. Shame.
PTO-IndenturedMarch 11, 2020 02:55 pm
With respect to Ari’s story:
The manner in which the courts at all levels appear to be perpetuating antidemocratic decisions regarding U.S. patents might lead one to reasonably wonder if their M.O is:
What good is an abandonment of democratic principles if it cannot prove to favor — overwhelmingly — a wealthiest few?
jacekMarch 9, 2020 11:21 pm
lunatics like Bernie
Maybe he sees what needs to be done. For people with a daily feed of nonsense streaming through most of US media, his ideas are extreme. What extreme is about Universal health care, standards present in the whole industrial world? I was born in a country with one and nobody there is unhappy with it. The nonsense I am talking about is, for example, forcing businesses to pay tax in the form of health insurance of its employees. It is an incredibly crazy idea when the taxman himself can deliver much better and cheaper care and free the business to do something better with its money. Its first steps to create conditions for economic growth in every country after WW2. Nonsense because supposedly pro-business Republicans push it. It is outside of logic. It seems that at least half of the obvious facts are delivered to people’s minds by nonsense repeated like a mantra. It is more like dog training when after we start what suppose to be a discussion by reacting to certain words in prescribed fashion. Like “socialism.” I bet 90% is not able to explain the meaning of this word.
angry dudeMarch 9, 2020 08:43 pm
Night Writer @52
“The fact is that I don’t think people under 45 believe a single politician is telling the truth or that a single policeperson or judge is honest”
There is saying: “Fish starts rotting from its head”
I do not have many complaints about most municipal court judges and most police officers on the streets
But I do have huge problems with current composition of Scotus and Cafc
And politicians are dishonest a$$holes by definition … or lunatics like Bernie
jacekMarch 9, 2020 02:36 pm
This whole blog is about the US – state, which failed to recognize and protect its own best interest. Blog by real participants. RT or Sputnik Radio in Kansas? Mighty $ speaks. Of course, Putin is using every opportunity we give him, and we do. Efficient infringers lobby is acting as an arm of Russian interest weakening the US. Interests align accidentally or not.
Looking for opportunities, Putin found it in Syria to try to destabilize the EU. In Brexit. In the UK he is directly hiring politicians etc. Today Guardian.com announcement: Russia ‘hired network of Britons to go after enemies of Putin’
In the US… Fill in blanks.
Night WriterMarch 9, 2020 10:59 am
@49 angry dude
I think this is right. The closest analogy is probably during the 1930’s in the USA. Some are doing well, but a very large percentage are not. And no one has any faith in any portion of the system.
The fact is that I don’t think people under 45 believe a single politician is telling the truth or that a single policeperson or judge is honest.
And this whole thing of the Scotus eviscerating patent law on their own with ridiculous assertions about science and innovation is just another step to the abyss.
angry dudeMarch 9, 2020 10:56 am
Night Writer @48
“…Scotus has changed the “law” so that everything is a balancing test…”
Scotus could write one sentence instead of dozens of “legal” opinions and decisions to save you guys from studying them and writing long “legal” articles here:
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”
(Supreme “Court” of the United States)
concernedMarch 9, 2020 09:24 am
The sub prime mortgage fraud is such a good analogy to today’s patent environment as I have suggested numerous times.
I remember guest speakers on CNBC stating that there was no problem with sub prime mortgages, that their business models show real estate going up 8% ad infinitum. Such a statement obviously did not pass the smell test and appeared as an attempted to hood wink the public or justify their moral compass going south.
On this very forum we see posters attempting to justify the same type of non-sense, or what the author of this article and many others are going through today. In addition, does SCOTUS really think there is no consequence to their unilaterally decisions? I can come up with a great idea, spend thousands of my dollars and unmeasured amount of time to develop the idea for the pleasure of having my idea ripped off without consequence and with the blessing of the judicial system?
I just have to wonder if there is a medical crisis in this country or around the world, what company/investors are going to spend billions to solve the problem only to just get ripped off? Obviously such a solution would just be the abstract idea of healing people, of course.
angry dudeMarch 9, 2020 06:34 am
“This process already started here in the US, as you can see, looking at the popularity of Sander’s ideas among the young generation. The change comes through diminishing beliefs in the legitimacy of current institutions, and the sample of the US patent environment is just one of many deficiencies of the current system.”
Interestingly, there are already some radio stations and even TV channels in the US trying to do exactly that…to present United States as failed state (which it’s rapidly becoming btw):
Night WriterMarch 9, 2020 06:05 am
The biggest thing to understand about what has changed in patent law is that the Scotus has changed the “law” so that everything is a balancing test that enables the fact finder to find any claim invalid under 101 or 103.
We’ve moved to a system where there aren’t really laws, but balancing tests that are vague. Then add in Obama stacking the CAFC with judges that are anti-patent judicial activists and you have a formula for the end of patents with no legislation.
Ari RosenbergMarch 8, 2020 03:37 pm
#12 — Pro Se — can you please contact me directly at [email protected]
angry dudeMarch 8, 2020 09:56 am
When China surpasses US economically 2 or 3 times the only chance US will have left is to compete on innovation as Elon Musk recently noted
China is already way ahead of US in many critical areas
Take drones for example
DJI is dominant monopoly US government is desperately trying to fight
Give it some more time
Chinese master is coming with a big whip for Congress critters and the rest of us lemmings
jacekMarch 8, 2020 08:25 am
“The correction to the patent environment will be an event like the
sub prime housing meltdown.. An event so devastating that it threatens the country and political disruption to the point crony capitalism or crony patentism will be forced to take a backseat.”
You are right. Countries and political systems die slowly. We are right now in the middle of a transition. There is going be an unexpected shift of minds realizing the there is new reality. I was participating in one of such shift already trying to accelerate it by using the tools much more powerful than guns, running illegal at the time publishing business in a country under the communist government. This process already started here in the US, as you can see, looking at the popularity of Sander’s ideas among the young generation. The change comes through diminishing beliefs in the legitimacy of current institutions, and the sample of the US patent environment is just one of many deficiencies of the current system.
There is no way to change the direction of a river in the money dominated the US political environment. The cancer is advanced.
ConcernedMarch 8, 2020 03:54 am
As the author of this article unfortunately realizes, FAANG entities are going to get. and take, anything they want in this environment.
The correction to the patent environment will be an event like the sub prime housing meltdown.. An event so devastating that it threatens the country and political disruption to the point crony capitalism or crony patentism will be forced to take a backseat.
Then both political parties will point the finger at each other and finally do something to correct the issue. To this day, I still hear guest speakers on CNBC open up about how close this country was to financial collapse back in 2008.
Yet everyone on Main Street knew the sub prime mortgage was an open fraud, people you personally knew with no job or financial means were buying houses as an unwitting straw man so originators could extract huge fees. And some people were willing participants to get free rent (basically) for 4 years until foreclosure. Forty percent of the sub prime loan originations in 2006-2007 did not even make their first payment on a 360 month note.
Similarly, I hear comments from Joe Blow nobody on Main Street about how the patent system is rigged. My wife was at a community event and a person just blurted out how the patent system was a joke. He had no idea I was an inventor. I still wonder what his story is to this day.
angry dudeMarch 7, 2020 09:39 pm
“I withdraw my earlier comment, as I was thinking of Federal Circuit”
Do you mean that Google-appointed Federal Circuit is not using each and every opportunity to save their corporate masters (at everybody else’s expense) ?
angry dudeMarch 7, 2020 05:48 pm
“The Fed is beholding to the stock market”
Sure they do … until they can’t
They were also beholding to the housing market not so long ago…
The FAANG stocks are easy to drop: just return US patent system to pre-EBay or just pre-AIA/pre-Alice – I can guarantee 50% drop in a few days, possibly one day, like Friday…
All those BIG TECH SV multinationals are sitting on mountains of stolen IP
All it takes is to make it public and stick it to them … BUT before doing so rid them of their usual crooked tactics like IPRs and PTAB
They WILL have their day in court, of course – real court, not kangaroo court, but they are not gonna like it
AnonMarch 7, 2020 05:03 pm
Thanks Concerned – I withdraw my earlier comment, as I was thinking of Federal Circuit (even as I copied your comment which was speaking clearly about the Reserve, and not the Circuit).
ConcernedMarch 7, 2020 01:46 pm
Four QEs, interest rates almost at zero and we are only about 12% from a record stock market high.
Last two Fridays the market rally 2-3% after 3:15pm to the close. The Federal Reserve chairman spoke about goosing the market each time approximately around 3pm. Last Monday an emergency 50 bps interest rate cut toward a biological virus following the chairman’s Friday remarks.
Their has been no price discovery for 11 years.
Most people on Wall Street knows the Fed has their back until the Fed has no more to goose it. Alot of the capital is flowing to FAANG stocks as the above link reveals.
I call the above a Fed mandate after talking head after talking head on CNBC states the same. The Fed is beholding to the stock market.
angry dudeMarch 7, 2020 11:09 am
Stock market valuations are fake of course. But they’ll try to prevent its collapse until Presidential elections… IF they can… which I doubt
So don’t expect any (substantial) positive changes in the near future to the extremely unfair (and sometimes outright criminal) current US patent regime based on fear of (existing) smaller patent holders to be racketeered into oblivion
by PTO’s own corrupt PTAB and legalized racketeering outfits like Unified Patents
But sooner of later both US stock market’s bubble and US patent system’s bubble will blow up
This is cancer in very late stages
(Painful) amputations will be necessary to save the patient – USA
Whatever is left of that patient
AnonMarch 7, 2020 10:36 am
“The Federal Reserve’s mandate seems to be”
From whom exactly, would such a mandate come from, and why would a judicial body NEED to hew to that mandate?
Concerned, your statement begs the question and presumes the very ‘power’ that you seek to have as a conclusion.
This is nothing more than a logical fallacy.
I “get” that your message may be different, but your delivery here does not stand up to scrutiny.
concernedMarch 7, 2020 07:29 am
This article supports your contention about all the people with FAANG stocks in their 401ks. The Federal Reserve’s mandate seems to be prop up the stock market at all costs. You have often said what a disaster it would be if the FAANG stocks dropped 50%.
This realization might explain a few things in the patent world.
Pro SayMarch 6, 2020 10:42 pm
It’s always easier to do a deal with more infringed claims than with fewer infringed claims.
Art NutterMarch 6, 2020 06:44 pm
Sun-Tsu said never do battle with a much-larger, stronger adversary on the battlefield. You’ll lose. Must attack on a different front.
Jerry Hosier, attorney for Jerry Lemelson (RIP) said, “It’s always easier to do a deal with more patents than with fewer patents.”
We must learn from these wide comments.
angry dudeMarch 6, 2020 05:34 pm
“Or maybe US inventors are going start a march on Washington”
A Million Inventors March on wash dc ? That would be a great idea,
but unfortunately we don’t have as many inventors in US, much less independent inventors…
And other people just don’t care … until Chinese master comes with a whip to teach their kids mandatory Chinese
jacekMarch 6, 2020 04:49 pm
A Surprising public event can create enough public awareness of the issue to force changes. Sooner or later, it is bound to happen. Either it is going to be an inventor who lost everything except desire for payback and is going use different and cheaper means than a squadron of lawyers. Probably a little bit violent. “Unified Patents” already received some promises in this style on this blog a couple of weeks ago.
Or maybe US inventors are going start a march on Washington.
Complaining leads to nothing.
For me??? Thank you guys for reminding me about US current reality.
Overseas seems all the time, like a better and sober option for any inventor. At least there is no PTAB.
Pro SeMarch 6, 2020 04:12 pm
@Angry Dude #28 – shoot… I had 12 references stitched together against me in a IPR… I don’t think there’s 12 ingredients total in a Michelin’s Chef best dish…
Ari RosenbergMarch 6, 2020 04:06 pm
#29 (Anon) — sorry to have left out key details — as I mentioned I am so not a patent expert this article was written from a “different place.” To answer your questions, the 112 rejection was a joke and even Taranto made fun of it during the appeal proceedings so that was not the issue — you are correct I was not subject to an IPR because even the biggest search company in the world could find any prior art to throw at me — they did use the CBM route and the PTAB quickly grabbed their argument that my patent was “just an abstract idea” that could be applied to any media — this is where the PTAB failed miserably — the invention was created for Internet advertising because the problem lives there NOT in traditional media — there is a distinct difference between how traditional and Internet advertising works and the PTAB had no appetite to learn why — we should have been placed in the “DDR” bucket. Instead, they really did puppet what the opposing attorneys argued with no consideration to our brief — one PTAB judge was inserted at the last minute to our oral arguments and it was so obvious she did not read the briefs — it was crazy.
Hope that helps — did not mean to be so vague — this whole world is still so foreign to me even the language is so difficult — I really appreciate everyone else’s amazing support here — just amazing — and TFCFM sorry — it appears like I made you really angry.
TernaryMarch 6, 2020 03:40 pm
TFCFM @26 “…which I’m not inclined to do absent some good reason” A good reason being to respond rationally to arguments. One argument here is that Ari had a valid patent. The rules were changed, and using these changed rules his patent(s) were invalidated. Saying that he had the opportunity to defend his claims against the new rules after they were declared valid does not reflect “Justice.” It reflects more how interest groups are able to change rules to invalidate patents that were first issued as being valid. That is one lesson we should learn and include in all patent law: any new rule should only be applied to applications filed after the new rules go into effect. No more ex post facto invalidations.
” … merely because a (fallible) patent examiner allowed a claim to issue.” The Examiner did not fail in this case. He merely examined under previous rules. This again reflects your returning opinion that something must be “wrong” either with issued patents or with the invention. Especially because you did not read the case.
I find this case particularly note worthy because the invention itself is pretty solid and valuable. I get that from reading the specification. You should try it sometimes.
AnonMarch 6, 2020 12:05 pm
Thank you. I also found two CBM decisions in the USPTO PTAB End 2 End system. After only a glance, those do not appear to be ‘prior-art’ driven, instead are being challenged on 101 and 112 grounds (see CBM2016-00049 and -00050). I do not know if these are the particular items that are at the heart of this article, as further comments from the author seem to indicate a prior art basis of concern (instead of 101 and 112).
I was going to give them a little more attention this weekend, as traveling and prior commitments limit me now. Before then, it would be helpful to hear from the article’s author as to the actual underlying legal issue.
angry dudeMarch 6, 2020 11:43 am
Ari Rosenberg @25
“What I am saying is that isn’t there a very good chance our patents are being invalidated by what would likely be invalid patents?”
Patents are invalidated based on “prior art” which can be other patents (valid or invalid – does not matter) or any public documents like articles, white papers etc.
The common practice nowadays (a racket) is that they make arbitrary combinations of 3-4-5 (maybe even 6 or 7) references (usually other patents but can be anything) and throw it against the wall (PTAB) to see if anything sticks (it eventually does cause PTAB is corrupt). If it does not stick the first time then rinse and repeat until it does…
The better the patent the more chances of this happening non-stop until patent holder is exhausted
Like I said: A RACKET
Special Prosecutor with RICO charges against PTO’s PTAB and Unified Patents please !
Enough is enough
Pro SayMarch 6, 2020 11:19 am
I’ll give you my patents when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
TFCFMMarch 6, 2020 10:25 am
Ternary@#9: “patent law was appropriately applied at the time. That is the issue here. The patent was invalidated in hindsight with changed rules.”
Given the utter lack of detail in the author’s account, it’s impossible to tell without tracking down the details, which I’m not inclined to do absent some good reason. What we can tell is that the author had the opportunity to defend the validity of his patent at the PTAB and failed, and that he also had the opportunity to present the supposed errors of the PTAB to the Federal Circuit, which did not agree that errors were committed. If you’d care to present the details here, I’ll be happy to comment further.
The mere facts that an additional tribunal/procedure for assessing patent validity was set up and that patent law continued to be interpreted in greater detail in the interim between patent issue and invalidation does not compel the conclusion that this patent (whichever it was and whatever it claimed) complied with the patent laws (even at the time of issue), merely because a (fallible) patent examiner allowed a claim to issue.
Ari RosenbergMarch 6, 2020 08:46 am
Thank you to all of you who took the time to read my column and for all of your comments including #12 Pro Se who took the time to draft a new claim — amazing of you to do that — it felts good to read these comments so I don’t feel so alone in all of this. I am so far from a patent expert it’s actually funny to be published on this site but I do have one question that has come to my naive mind in all of this — is it possible that our patents are dismissed based on IPR’s that involve previously issued patents that would likely be invalidated if the roles were reversed? What I am saying is that isn’t there a very good chance our patents are being invalidated by what would likely be invalid patents?
angry dudeMarch 6, 2020 06:34 am
Are you independently wealthy ?
How do you stay in the fight and not go bankrupt immediately after IPR is filed against your patents ?
Contingency lawyers don’t represent you in IPRs , do they ?
How do you pay for IPRs and is it even worth it ?
Even if you are independently rich and can afford it. But I can’t. And most of us can’t. It is a RACKET to be treated like other RICO cases. Unfortunately it is a legalized racket. A collusion between corrupt PTO’s PTAB and outside racketeering outfits like Unified Patents.
Well… they can do whatever they want…for now…
A major patent scandal in wash dc is coming
I can sense it coming…
Either THAT or Chinese master is coming to whip their ar$e$
Whichever they prefer…
Mr.259March 6, 2020 12:04 am
As an inventor, 15 patents and 3 applications, won on an issue at CAFC and lost 2x, won on an IPR, has licensing success, and lost. We have to keep fighting this fight. We are going to have claims and patents invalidated. That’s the current AIA climate. What are the options? Wait? Wait for what? 20 years. I started in 1997. File continuations, utilize patent term extension, use the 6 years to go back, stay in the fight.
For me , the individual inventor, this is a property rights and value issue. If you have good patents that have been tested, no prior art issues, a market of users and abusers, it’s almost a duty to protect their value.
Ari’s observation about contingency fee lawyers vs big corporate tool legal, is his observation. But, the contingency fee lawyers are partners in this fight. They argue the issues, and occasionally win on issues and change law. My observation is patent litigation is far to civil for change. What I think inventors need are patent lawyers who act like divorce lawyers. Even at the CAFC courts, it’s 10AM, the panel is listed, you lose. Why be nice.
So angy dude, I’m staying in the fight.
angry dudeMarch 5, 2020 09:00 pm
“…in a way that a blithe ‘to the morgue’ is not”
I still have my patent with all its claims intact ONLY because I did not try to enforce it after AIA and Alice – I knew what would happen…
Like Josh Malone noted – the game is rigged, it does not matter how good your patent is, if it’s software or hardware
The better the patent the more chances of it being serially attacked in multiple IPRs until it’s finally thrown out by corrupt PTAB or patent holder runs out of money and quits…
“To the morgue” is the best advice to all small patent holders under the circumstances
Do not deal with crooks. Period.
Patent-BoobooMarch 5, 2020 07:24 pm
IPC pricing is a system and method that is covered by claims protected by US Patents;
Patent-BoobooMarch 5, 2020 06:23 pm
I think the patent is US Pat. No. 7,089,195 (System and Method for the Presentation of Advertisement). The Petitioner was GOOGLE, INC.
Claims 1 – 20 were found unpatentable under 35 USC 101.
angry dudeMarch 5, 2020 04:05 pm
Pro Se @12
With all due respect.. we are dealing with crooks
Your advice won’t work… at least not until MAJOR patent-related political scandal breaks in wash dc
And IT WILL sooner or later… I would day sooner…
THAT or Chinese master comes with a big whip so they should get their ar$e$ ready…
Alan BurnettMarch 5, 2020 03:21 pm
Taranto was one of the judges that issued two Rule 36 judgments in IPRs I was involved with. I didn’t realize his background and that he was appointed by Obama in 2011 to replace Judge Michel (who was actually competent) and my IPRs were one of his first (if not the first) cases he worked on. Normally I would immediately call the inventor about finding this out but he died of a heart attack last week. 10 years of dishonest actions, outright lies, and worse was too much to handle.
angry dudeMarch 5, 2020 01:43 pm
Can you disclose the sources of your income ? NOW ???
Put up or shut up, please ?
angry dudeMarch 5, 2020 01:17 pm
You are not alone, dude
They will get what they deserve eventually … unfortunately they’ll get to keep the stolen money (in offshore accounts) … because LLC and stuff
But not yet … not yet
The patent scandal in wash dc needs to unfold first … and IT WILL
For now they are accusing each other of sexual harassment like 30 years ago when they were like 50-60 years old .. you gotta be kidding
This country is a joke
Disgusting, simply disgusting
Pro SayMarch 5, 2020 01:15 pm
Thank you for your heart-felt story Ari.
Though small consolation it be, know that you are not alone.
Far, far from alone.
But don’t give up yet. I hope you’ll consider Pro Se’s kind and thoughtful suggestion.
You may yet have your invention back.
D.a.m.n. these innovation-stealing tech giants.
Congress: Break them up.
Paul V. HayesMarch 5, 2020 12:58 pm
I have not read the details, but I’ll bet a dollar the mischaracterization Taranto made was a parroting of the Infringer’s mischaracterization.
Richard BakerMarch 5, 2020 12:38 pm
Please send this story to every member of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. This story needs to be heard, as I have heard similar stories from many inventors since the AIA passed.
Pro SeMarch 5, 2020 12:09 pm
(Public comment, consult your attorney for final advisory)
I read your files and I can relate to your story.. I found ways to beat my circumstances, there are ways…. I hope this message doesn’t find you too late, but here is what I suggest:
File a reissue on the ‘059 patent with this 1 claim suggestion, then go back after your adversaries… Please, don’t give up:
—–Suggested Reissue Claim——
A system for transforming the presentation of at least one preset data message to viewers of at least one website into a processor trigger for a value monitor apparatus, the system comprising:
at least one CPU processor; and
at least one storage device in communication with the at least one CPU processor, the at least one storage device including source code instructions that, when executed by the at least one CPU processor, enable the performance of a CPU executed method comprising the steps of:
ascertaining with the at least one CPU processor a predetermined value to an entity per impression of at least one preset data message; presenting, with the at least one CPU processor, the preset data message for display on a device such that the preset data message is accessible via one or more devices;
receiving with the at least one CPU processor a quantity threshold calculus of actions performed by users of the one or more devices; and as the quantity threshold calculus of the received actions increases, then with the at least one CPU processor, transforming the quantity threshold calculus into a decreased value per impression calculus of the preset data message to a new value below the said predetermined value.
TernaryMarch 5, 2020 11:54 am
The original application was filed in 2001. The first patent was issued in 2006. The patent was invalidated based on changes in patent law (AIA) and SCOTUS decision after the application was filed, examined and the patent was issued.
It is difficult not to conclude that the “establishment” did a thorough number on Ari. Reading the arguments from Google in this case, it provides a solid appreciation why companies like Google have greatly benefited from changes in patent law. The whole process seems fundamentally unfair.
TFCFM: patent law was appropriately applied at the time. That is the issue here. The patent was invalidated in hindsight with changed rules.
It is difficult, if not impossible to maintain that the claimed invention is not a practical application.
Having said all of the above, it should be noted that a 101 rejection (pre-Alice) was issued by the Examiner in the first case. Written description invalidations were added later. It is somewhat surprising that the attorney in this case did not take the opportunity to strengthen the technical aspects in follow-on filings. I remember that at that time, we started making sure to load up specs with technical descriptions. Though it is doubtful if that would have salvaged the cases from Alice.
MaxDreiMarch 5, 2020 11:45 am
I read the piece, never supposing that the patented invention was in the field of “selling ads”. Then I read Comment #2 and laughed out loud. Please let this thread go on and on, for it contains the promise of unlimited further laughs.
Readers, take it from me, here in Europe, drafting your patent application is a delicate matter because you are laying the basis, the only basis, of any law suit that might occur. It’s all you’ve got, so better do it right.
AnonMarch 5, 2020 10:47 am
Before I rush in (and not at all indicating that your views are ill-founded), I do wonder what was the basis of your loss and was that basis objectively on point.
I normally try to avoid a ‘in the weeds’ approach, but your story is compelling (in a way that a blithe ‘to the morgue’ is not).
Comment 2 mentions “read your patent” but it is not clear what that patent actually is (or what art downed your patent).
Can you provide some additional details?
Josh MaloneMarch 5, 2020 10:32 am
It doesn’t matter how perfectly the inventor follows the rules. The game is rigged.
TCFCM, could you show us an example of a good patent?
BemusedMarch 5, 2020 10:29 am
“Judge Taranto mischaracterized my invention” I’m not surprised. Taranto and the other Google-appointees on the CAFC have no background in science or tech. Regardless of their lack of knowledge is that a condition of their appointment by their PayMaster was to invalidate all patents created by small independent inventors.
TFCFMMarch 5, 2020 10:26 am
Would AR feel better if the patent laws had been correctly applied at the outset, and his applications accordingly rejected? That surely would have saved him some $ and avoided raising his hopes.
USPTO training personnel, take this to heart. Allowing ‘bad patents’ to issue is more than just an “oopsie!” Real people can get really hurt.
Adrian PelkusMarch 5, 2020 10:12 am
? I’m so sick of this blatant corruption by the USPTO. Repeal A.I.A!!!!
Mr.259March 5, 2020 10:09 am
This is the story of hundreds of individual inventors. Same story, same company, same investment, same outcome, same reality.
Did Taranto mischaracterize the invention or create a characterization to fit an outcome?
Pierce MooneyMarch 5, 2020 09:32 am
What did you invent?
Superad!March 5, 2020 09:29 am
I read gears and I got excited, and then I found your patents and they’re about selling ads. Come on man.
Night WriterMarch 5, 2020 08:59 am
>>judge Taranto mischaracterized my invention.
It is pretty certain that the same corporation you are referring to selected Taranto as an anti-patent judicial activist and instructed Obama to appoint him. Obama worked with the corporation very hard to end patents and stacked the CAFC with anti-patent judicial activists. Taranto is perhaps the worst of them. I would not refer to him as a judge but as a hitman.