“‘Efficient’ Infringement will continue to thrive as a successful ‘business model’ for exactly as long as we continue to protect and reward these very special criminals.”
Just over the mountain of Patent Eligibility Reform awaits The Thiefdom of Efficient Infringers.
No other intellectual property criminal enjoys the legal immunities and protections that the patent thief enjoys. Other intellectual property criminals – the copyright infringers, the trademark infringers, and the trade secret thieves – all are subject to both civil and criminal liability, just like every other common criminal.
But not the patent thieves. This one type of intellectual property criminal gets favored treatment and special protections under the law. Why is this?
In her article, Why it May Be Time to Provide Criminal Remedies for Patent Infringement, intellectual property attorney Brooke Blackman explains that, for decades, the patent thief has exclusively enjoyed a separately protected legal class where one can never be held individually liable (either civilly or criminally) even in a case of willful patent theft.
Most incredible, however, is that while the intellectual property thief steals with brazen impunity, he is, all the while, free to seek both civil restitution and criminal prosecution against any individual who steals his intellectual property.
Cases in Point
No “Responsible Persons” at Google were (or ever could be, under current law) held to account individually for stealing Sonos’ intellectual property. However, at the very same time, Google’s Larry Page summoned the whole wrath of the law (both civil and criminal) to rain down individually upon Anthony Levandowski for stealing Google’s intellectual property.Time and again history teaches us that the ability to hold a white-collar criminal individually, civilly, and criminally liable for their crimes is the only effective deterrent.
Apparently, Page agrees:
“Google co-founder Larry Page was reluctant to file the suit. However, he was pushed over the edge when… Uber’s design appeared to be almost identical to that of [Google’s] Waymo.”
And so does Judge Alsup, who denied Levandowski’s request for home confinement, saying it would “[give] a green light to every future brilliant engineer to steal trade secrets. Prison time is the answer to that.”
A Tale of Two Thieves
Thief #1 – Anthony Levandowski (a.k.a. “Common Criminal”)
a) “Levandowski” steals Google’s (not patented) intellectual property.
b) Google seeks justice against Levandowski individually.
c) The civil court holds Levandowski individually liable to pay damages to Google, and further refers the case to the Criminal Court.
d) The criminal court also prosecutes, convicts and imprisons Levandowski under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.
e) Levandowski gains worldwide notoriety for Economic Espionage and Intellectual Property Theft.
f) Levandowski goes to prison, pays restitution from his personal fortunes, and publicly apologizes to Google.
Thief #2 – Responsible Persons at Google (a.k.a. “Special Criminals”)
a) Responsible Persons at Google steal Sonos’ (patented) intellectual property.
b) Sonos seeks justice against the Responsible Persons at Google.
c) Conversely, the court denies Sonos the same recourse that Google obtained against Levandowski. Because the IP in question is a patent, the judge says Sonos cannot seek any justice or any restitution against any Responsible Persons at Google for stealing its patent.
d) Just like Levandowski, the Responsible Persons at Google should of course be held individually liable and criminally prosecuted for their theft of Sonos’ intellectual property, but they are not. Instead, the laws and the courts shield the Responsible Persons at Google from personal responsibility, along with their ill-gotten personal fortunes.
e) The Responsible Persons at Google do not gain worldwide notoriety for economic espionage and intellectual property theft.
f) The Responsible Persons at Google are not imprisoned, pay no restitution, and do not apologize. Instead, they continue to grow their personal fortunes by stealing more and more patents with brazen impunity.
No Practicable Remedy Exists
So, what can the patent owner do when one of these very special criminals has stolen her intellectual property, even fraudulently and willfully?
By 2005 it was widely recognized by the world’s top Internet engineers, researchers, and the U.S. Government that the foundational infrastructure of the global Internet was rapidly crumbling and would soon exceed its functional capacity, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
I thought my patent (US PAtent No. 6324586) on a new and improved internet infrastructure provided a solution to that problem, so I sent the patent directly to “Father of the Internet” (and Google Vice President) Dr. Vint Cerf, since Cerf was known to be the world’s preeminent technical expert in the subject matter of my patent. I also sent my patent directly to Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, as well as (then) CEO Eric Schmidt, offering to sell or license the patent to Google. Cerf wrote back to me (within hours) to say that he would review the patent and get back to me.
After a lengthy review, Cerf wrote back to me confirming that Google had no interest in the technologies of my patent.
Years later, through public statements made by the company’s own engineers, I suspected that Google had in fact begun infringing the patent in early 2007, immediately following Cerf’s letter to me confirming that Google had no interest in the technologies of my patent.
To research this, I attended Google’s Cloud conferences and inquired directly with Google’s own networking engineers, but their answers only further confirmed my theory that for years the company has been infringing my patent.
Last year, I wrote again to Cerf directly, asking for his help to discover the truth. I sent Cerf my thorough research detailing the similarities between my patent and the technology systems upon which Google now publicly claims to have built its entire empire. My documentation to Cerf even included a claim chart which I had personally paid an independent technical expert thousands of dollars to prepare.
Cerf responded to me, and over the last year we have continued to correspond. I have repeatedly implored Cerf to challenge my evidence and help to disprove my theory that Google in fact used my patent at the foundation of its internal networks as well as the basis for the infrastructures underlying its global advertising platform.
I have made heroic efforts, over the course of many years, and at the expense of tens of thousands of dollars, to disprove my theory of infringement of my patent by Google. I shared all of my research and findings with Cerf, openly, transparently, and in good faith. I connected all of the dots for him.
Cerf has never denied any of my allegations, or challenged any of my research, or provided any answers or evidence on his own behalf or in his own defense, or any information whatsoever to help me disprove my theory.
My years of consultations with numerous independent technical experts and patent attorneys, my conversations with the company’s own engineers, and Cerf’s recent responses all only seem to support my theory that the company did, indeed, use my patent.
Was I suckered into a bad deal? My patent attorney had explained the “patent bargain” that, in exchange for publicly disclosing my invention as a patent, my exclusive rights would be secured for a time. I kept my end of the bargain. But now, because I signed up for this patent “bargain”, I’m left explicitly unprotected against the patent criminals. It seems that I am left with few options. What can I do? Mine is a small engineering firm without the necessary millions to take a behemoth “Big Tech” corporation to court.
Numerous IP litigators have told me that my case is strong, and that time enough still remains to enforce my patent against Google (including a case for willfulness, based on my evidence of correspondence with Cerf and the other Google executives.)
But in reality, what are my practicable options? I can try to raise the necessary millions through litigation financing in order to bring a case against Google through the current legal process. This is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Because the Government has since reneged on the original legal process I had agreed to when I got the patent, and put in its place a new process, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review process, which is known to be heavily rigged from the outset against patent owners, and in favor of the patent thieves.
Due to the severity of this new heavily rigged system, litigation financing companies will now only consider funding cases involving many patents in order to spread out their risk. The proposition of asserting a case involving only one patent, against a behemoth, “Big Tech” corporation with unlimited resources such as Google, regardless of any other factors, does not meet the “risk profile”.
It is now apparent: I am left with no practicable recourse to defend myself against these very special criminals. Thus, Cerf and the others at Google are only incentivized to continue to steal again from patent owners, right out in the open, without any fear of consequences and with brazen impunity.
Kristen Jakobsen Osenga explains this perilous phenomenon in her article “Efficient” Infringement and Other Lies.
Equal Justice for Patent Owners is Long Overdue
“Efficient” Infringement will continue to thrive as a successful “business model” for exactly as long as we continue to protect and reward these very special criminals.
It’s time to take away these special protections and privileges from those who have long abused them and allow the patent owners to access the same legal tools as all the other intellectual property owners (including the ability to seek civil restitution and criminal prosecution against individual perpetrators and conspirators of patent theft.)
Simply allow patent owners equal justice.
This article has been updated to include the Patent Number.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID: 31248541
Join the Discussion
41 comments so far. Add my comment.
Jen WallaceMay 4, 2023 09:36 am
Many thanks to all who commented here!
AnonMarch 26, 2023 01:31 pm
Without diving into the conversations below, I note that through Patent Center, this applications shows practically zero prosecution – possibly even a first action allowance.
Ms. Wallace, you also appear to be rather late to the scene (and not likely understand the starting point of invention and patent prosecution), given that the assignment information is circa 2016 for this patent issued 2001 (application filed 1998).
Jen WallaceMarch 24, 2023 06:49 am
Do you disagree?
Jen WallaceMarch 24, 2023 06:42 am
You said —
“Sadly, you have wasted your time … in trying to negotiate with Google.”
My response: To be clear, the intent of my article here on IP Watchdog is not intended as any attempt to “negotiate with Google”.
I simply feel that I should be entitled to access the same legal tools as all the other intellectual property owners, as Google has, including the ability to seek civil restitution and criminal prosecution against individual perpetrators and conspirators of IP theft.
Paul V. HayesMarch 22, 2023 09:54 pm
Not having seen the patent, and assuming it is valid, my guess is that Josh Malone is correct and the PTAB would invalidate your patent; much like my patent (issued in 2006) was invalidated at PTAB some 18 years later.
My patent was declared obvious. But what patent is not obvious after a decade or two?
I know the “judges” are supposed to consider obviousness at the time of invention, but do we really expect a PTAB judge who could have been in grade school when a patent issue, to have a clear understanding of what was novel in a highly technical field, at that time. And even if they do know, do they care, as they attempt to feather their nest for a future job in big tech?
Without a jury trial you unfortunately have little chance going up against the mighty Goog.
My infringers were Duke Energy and Itron (who was getting rather cozy with Cicsco last I looked).
The “America Infringers Act of 2011” needs to be rolled back.
RALIA Go Massie! H.R. 5478
Jen WallaceMarch 21, 2023 04:55 pm
Wow @Pro Se –
This is truly fascinating. Thank you so much for detailing this.
F22strikeMarch 21, 2023 02:04 pm
This is in response to your comment suggesting that I should send you a bill.
I have not formulated, nor have I expressed, any opinions regarding the validity and/or infringement of your patent.
My comments regarding Google’s likely response if you sue it for infringement are based on a well-established pattern of behavior of big-tech companies in patent disputes since the enactment of the AIA. This pattern is reflected in the federal court records that are publicly accessible on the PACER website.
My comments regarding the survivability of your patent claims in IPR proceedings are based on statistics published by the USPTO.
I submitted editorial comments for the readers of IPWatchdog to support my proposition that US Patents are now essentially worthless in most cases.
Please direct your attention to the following portion of the Warning & Disclaimer on the IPWatchdog website that applies to all of my comments:
“Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship.”
Pro SeMarch 21, 2023 12:03 pm
I’m sorry, switch “plaintiff” with “defendants”
(The U.S. FinTech R&D Program is severely busy these days)
Please excuse typos when you see “Pro Se” (Pro Say is another very smart IPW family member)
Pro SeMarch 21, 2023 12:00 pm
@Jen: the current Director, before being sworn in, was the lead defense attorney for a group of District Court plaintiffs.
Those plaintiffs, after being sworn in, filed PGR2022-00031.
PGR2022-00031 has broken several Federal Laws and the Department of Commerce is involved looking into the issue.
What was done?
October 5, 2022, a Statutory Disclaimer (SD) was filed for Embodiment 1 of the design patent (e.g., Claim 1). Embodiment 2 was left in tact.
Embodiment 1 was valid, but the PTAB turned a blind eye to CAFC RE: SurgiSil and an admission by the petitioner that their asserted reference was covered under a 102 “shield” (my prior published invention of “subject matter” of their asserted reference).
Seeing the PTAB was ignoring the 102 shield and admission, WGP LLC (the patent holder company) filed the SD which should have terminated PGR2022-00031.
On October 7, 2022 (2 days later), the PTAB instituted PGR2022-00031 based on the SD (and non-existent) Claim 1, maybe the first instance of the PTAB violating their own “GE” precedent around 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e).
Unless fixed, as of today, 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) in view of PGR2022-00031 renders the law “moot precedent” at the PTAB.
WGP LLC Informed the PTAB of the violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) in PGR2022-00031 and on October 22, 2022 (paper 24) the PTAB ignored the facts of the 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) and threatened WGP LLC with a “sanction” if it tried to “speak up” about the issue of 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) again.
WGP LLC requested “Director Review” and it was ignored.
WGP LLC requested for “Adverse Judgement” to cancel Embodiment 1 from the filed SD before institution (legally as “timely”), this also was ignored.
What wasn’t ignored? The petitioner (the Director’s former clients) request for Adverse Judgement on the non-existent claim? Was GRANTED.
Under the SCOTUS Cuzzo decision, there’s no appeal for PTAB institution decisions, so guess what? They created a “walk the plank” scenario to a one-sided premeditated gameplan to take out this patent at all costs.
What they didn’t see coming?
WGP LLC was coerced to file a second SD for Embodiment 2 to legally stop the PTAB from their unstoppable mission of taking down the asset.
And what did the PTAB do?
They issued a Final Written Decision on the disclaimed claim 1 and try to “cover up” their failed game plan.
This issue is now being investigated with the Department of Commerce as Federal Law 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) was violated by the USTPO.
This is only just a portion of the issues I’m having with the USPTO, since the new Director came in, 6 railroaded design patent application.
*I invented and hold the patent claims to iCloud and Apple Pay, I’ve been forced to request Suspension of Activity for the remainder 20+ pending application due to a claim of Director bias.
Jason Stroud of Unified Patents know too…
I ask myself daily after a 30 year U.S. inventor career:
How did we end up where corporate entities get their pick appointed and they are able to “weaponize” the USPTO as seen in PGR2022-00031
*I am also the founder to the United States of America FinTech Research and Development program, and the patent they did this with (which they didn’t know at the time) is one of the Federal Reserve FedNow patents.
So, behind the scenes Jen?
A whole lot of people are in hot water and the weight of the U.S. economic watchdogs are investigating.
So yes, it gets worse. Keep fighting for your rights, U.S. inventions are valuable.
*I expect this comment won’t come up missing… I govern the FedNow IP Pool at: https://www.fednow.cash
Jen WallaceMarch 20, 2023 11:57 pm
@Pro Se –
jacekMarch 20, 2023 10:25 pm
I am glad that, finally, somebody is using the correct description of patent-stealing criminals! Please, more of it. Let’s scream for the world to recognize these lowlife criminals not as “Business Leaders” but as common thieves.
bartMarch 20, 2023 09:30 pm
After reading this article, I have two words for Ms. Wallace:
It’s not smart to openly discuss, let alone publish, such matters and intent.
Jen in comments: “I do not anticipate the USPTO revoking my patent.”
F22strike in comments: With all due respect, your quoted statement is naïve at best, and ignorant at worst.
I concur with F22strike. Ms. Wallace appears to be new to the scene in advocating for her cause (and inventors in general). Jen, please educate yourself, and I encourage you to find better lawyers. IPWatchdog.com and USInventor.org are both great resources to begin your journey; however, from the date of your patent, it appears that this is coming (or has already come) to a quick close. But for your own sake, I strongly encourage you to choose your commentary and your legal moves wisely, especially in the public forum.
Pro SeMarch 20, 2023 08:45 pm
It gets worse… I hate to say, but so bad, I can’t stomach it to explain how “wrong” things can get in the USPTO.
Gene and Crouch know…
So bad, I asked them to not say anything,
Jen WallaceMarch 20, 2023 06:24 pm
Wow! In less than 2 hours you read through my patent, researched all of the prior art and potential patentability issues, and provided me a Validity Opinion. Thank you for that!
How much do I owe you?
Jen WallaceMarch 20, 2023 06:17 pm
@Max Drei –
You said, “People, Jen’s story seems to be another complaint about the sheer effrontery of subjecting the ex Parte examination process at the PTO to any sort of review process…”
@Max Drei – My Answer:
Your comment does an excellent job of mapping the current patent eligibility mountain. Astute legal minds are already manning that front.
With respect, I think you missed the point of my article which is about what lies in wait beyond that mountain.
Should I be denied the same access to justice that the other IP owners have, including even those very individuals who I believe might be infringing upon my rights?
Would it make more sense for the laws and the courts to go ahead and provide the same legal immunities and special protections to the trade secret thief (like Levandowski)?
Heck… why not also immunize the trademark thief, and the copyright thief while we’re at it?
Really, why not?
Oops! But then Google… and… um… er… hmm…
OH CRAP! Golly Moses! Then what recourse would Larry Page and Google have had against Anthony Levandowski?!
@Max Drei, you also said “Where else in the US legal system is there any such level field?”
@Max Drei – My Answer:
Everywhere else, with regard to IP rights protections.
They are the same for everyone (except patent owners.)
F22strikeMarch 20, 2023 04:53 pm
You wrote this:
“I do not anticipate the USPTO revoking my patent.”
With all due respect, your quoted statement is naïve at best, and ignorant at worst.
I would say the odds are 90% that the potentially infringed claims of your patent would NOT survive the inevitable IPR petition that would be filed by Google if you try to enforce your patent in federal court. Unlike patent litigation in federal court, I am not aware that law firms will handle IPR proceedings on a contingent fee basis.
Even in the very unlikely case that your asserted claims survived Google’s initial IPR petition, expect another big-tech company (or a Google surrogate) to file another IPR petition against your patent, and to face a serial stream of IPR petitions until the potentially infringed claims are found unpatentable by the PTAB and/or the CAFC.
In the very unlikely event that your patent claims survived a gauntlet of IPR petitions, then in federal court litigation you would face other defenses, and extreme difficulties in obtaining injunctive relief and/or reasonable royalty damages.
As far-fetched at it may seem, there is a significant risk that your asserted patent claims would not survive a motion to dismiss your complaint for infringement based on those claims allegedly covering non-statutory subject matter. In your case I would expect Google to argue that your claims are directed to the abstract idea of “synchronizing the clock cycle of a computer using output timing signals from a global satellite system” and that the claims are therefore directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Federal district court judges have a propensity to dispose of patent infringement cases at an early stage on the basis that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. In the event such a motion was granted against your complaint, Google would not even need to file a petition for IPR against your patent.
Let me give you just one example showing that US Patents are now essentially worthless in most cases. The California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) is one of the leading institutions of scientific research in the world. One of its professors and two of his graduate students invented ground-breaking improvements in error correction used in WiFi around the world. You are probably using these inventions on your computer at this moment. For decades Caltech has patented its various scientific breakthroughs and then licensed them to industry for royalties that help fund its extensive research efforts. This all changed with the enactment of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) in 2012 which gave birth to inter partes proceedings (“IPRs”). Despite having multiple “robust” patents on the widely used WiFi technology, substantial economic resources, and one of the best law firms in the US, Caltech has so far been unable to license its patents to big tech – you know the names – Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, HP, Dell, etc. No fewer than nineteen (19) IPR petitions have been serially filed against Caltech’s asserted WiFi patents. Three of Samsung’s most recently filed IPR petitions are currently pending before the PTAB.
Sadly, you have wasted your time and money obtaining a US patent and in trying to negotiate with Google. Congress, the SCOTUS, the PTAB, and the CAFC have collectively destroyed the US patent system. I am still amazed that anyone would spend the time and money to obtain a US patent since it is extremely unlikely that it could ever be successfully enforced even if one has virtually unlimited financial resources.
Eileen McDermottMarch 20, 2023 02:58 pm
I have updated the article with the patent number.
JuneyMarch 20, 2023 02:49 pm
Patent Infringement, should be a crime. Ordinary thiefs end up in Jail. Why are they so special?
anonMarch 20, 2023 02:10 pm
@Max Drei and @Robert Moll
Pretty sure the patent in question is US6324586. (At least that’s the only even vaguely relevant patent with the name Jennifer Wallace anywhere near it.)
I could be wrong – she’s not a listed inventor, just an assignee. And the patent expired in 2018.
But looking at it, the fact that essentially all the claims are means-plus-function claims jumps out at me.
Jen WallaceMarch 20, 2023 01:23 pm
Thank you, @Pro Say – I really appreciate your attention and your thoughtful advice.
Pro SayMarch 20, 2023 12:50 pm
One last thought Jen. Because your input and testimony would be critically-important factors for a successful assertion against Google, you should also be able to obtain a 5%+/- (on-gross-proceeds; or 10% +/- on net proceeds) “back end.”
You’ll need your attorney to handle such a contract, including in order to provide for a fair and reasonable revenue apportionment for you in the event yours is one of multiple patents being asserted.
Indeed, everything considered, this sounds like a great opportunity for Google to both pick up an important asset and to remove a very dangerous patent from the market . . . for less than pocket change.
As I am not an attorney, Jen, this is of course not legal advice.
Pro SayMarch 20, 2023 11:41 am
You’re welcome Jen.
At this point in your monetization journey; and especially considering the near-explosive growth in patent-hungry buying entities which has thankfully occurred over the past three years; it may be time to consider an outright sale.
While I haven’t reviewed your patent, if you are correct regarding your EOU (evidence of use) by Google (and others), a buyer could bundle yours with other patents they have.
While such a sale would be unlikely to bring you the 7 -8 figures it sounds like you’re reasonably entitled to, you might realize mid-to-high six figures for your single patent.
Go back to all the folks you’ve contacted to see if they and/or their clients would like to buy it.
It’s sad that Congress, SCOTUS, CAFC, and the PTAB have left American inventors with having to settle for giving up and selling out like this.
Max DreiMarch 20, 2023 09:46 am
People, Jen’s story seems to be another complaint about the sheer effrontery of subjecting the ex Parte examination process at the PTO to any sort of review process in which both sides of the theory of patentability are heard for the first time. Since 1973 Europe (the EPO) has had a pan-European IPR process, called “post-grant opposition”. A lot of granted European patents get opposed, and guess what. Only about 20% come through the process unscathed. Yet nobody seriously asserts that the process is biassed or somehow unfair. Patents that survive it (very often with claims not as wide as those originally granted) have a seriously enhanced presumption of validity. You don’t mess with a European patent that has come through the opposition mill with flying colours.
Reading Jen’s strory, what strikes me is that it is a cruel trick of the US patent system to let inventors believe that their issued patent is valid and that its validity is unassailable with anything less than “clear and convincing” evidence that the claim is not inventive but, rather, obvious. Inventors know how slippery the concept of obviousness is, and can be forgiven for supposing that putting together evidence of obviousness convincing enough to bring down their expensively procured and Government be-ribboned certificate of grant of exclusive rights would be too hard for anybody to do.
Jen, I don’t know why you expect the US patent system to provide a level playing field for David to fight Goliath. Where else in the US legal system is there any such level field?
Max DreiMarch 20, 2023 09:29 am
Jen, why won’t you give us the serial number of your patent? Robert Moll asked you before the week-end but I haven’t seen it yet.
I’m in Europe, but I had supposed that in the USA there is an entire industry sector called NPE that makes large amounts of money by asserting previously overlooked patents against big beasts with deep pockets. I wonder why it is, that the only offers you can get are from outfits that require you to indemnify every cent of their out-of-pocket costs. It is as if they all fail to see your patent as good enough to take down Google.
Tough. But investors are not charities are they?
Eileen McDermottMarch 20, 2023 08:41 am
@VR – No one censored or removed your comment – not all comments are automatically posted. Now, both of yours are. Additionally, you obviously don’t even read IPWatchdog if you think we would censor any of the topics you mention?
VRMarch 19, 2023 08:53 pm
I posted a comment critical of the AIA, USPTO and PTAB. I also opined that nothing will happen unless the AIA, USPTO and PTAB will be overhauled or dismantled. I also opined that the situation will be corrected once China eclipses USA in clout. IPWATCHDOG censored/REMOVED my comment. WHY? Is it because we can’t handle the truth?…
Jen WallaceMarch 19, 2023 06:27 pm
@Pro Se –
Thank you for that link to the US Inventors website. It looks like an awesome resource and community. I went there and signed the petition, and will be spending more time studying all of the content there.
VRMarch 19, 2023 06:01 pm
Your case and many other cases have proven that USA has become a big jungle, where dinosaurs like Google, Apple etc will routinely crush small independent inventors. It is nature at work. I have not come out with my proven invention yet, because I know my giant competitor, whose market cap is close to USD 90 billion, will just swat me like a fly. If you are threatened with certain death, you will hide and seek safer venues, for natural preservation. I am not stupid to expose my neck to USPTO and PTAB Judges. The situation will only get worse by the minute. The situation will only be corrected with total overhaul of AIA, USPTO and PTAB… or their extinction. Or worse, if China will rise and totally eclipse the USA.
Jen WallaceMarch 19, 2023 04:45 pm
@Josh Malone –
You said: “It’s phony because as you correctly anticipate, the USPTO will revoke it should you assert it against Google.”
You are incorrect. I do not anticipate the USPTO revoking my patent. As an interesting note, my patent attorney (named on the face of the patent as the Attorney of Record) subsequently served for years as a PTAB Patent Judge. Is he going to invalidate the very patent he represented?
Jen WallaceMarch 19, 2023 04:39 pm
@David Lewis –
Thank you, you said that so well.
My journey on this front (seeking counsel to file against Google) has been fascinating…
90% (of the hundreds) of firms I’ve contacted have conflicted out because someone at the firm has done some work for Google.
The other 10% were, after reviewing my materials, mostly all eager to take the case on partial contingency, but would still need their out-of-pocket costs covered, which they all still estimated to be in the lower millions.
I will continue to try, though, until the very last day that potential rewards might still result!
Any brave soul who wanted to contact me could of course do so through the info on this site https://ipwatchdog.com/people/jen-wallace/
Pro SayMarch 19, 2023 04:26 pm
Hi Jen. One of the best sources of legislation / potential new legislation; including those in Congress working hard to restore our patent system (a growing number in both houses of Congress); is US Inventor:
I’m one of the many financially-supporting members myself.
Every independent inventor who hasn’t already done so should join.
Josh MaloneMarch 19, 2023 04:23 pm
It’s phony because as you correctly anticipate, the USPTO will revoke it should you assert it against Google.
David LewisMarch 19, 2023 04:12 pm
If you have a strong case, you might see if you can find an attorney willing to take the case on a contingency basis.
Thanks for sharing your experience. It is unfortunate the manner in which our patent system has changed. Even before the changes, I never understood why patents were treated differently than other areas in terms of criminal law. However, perhaps the owner of the intellectual property should have at least an option of protecting their intellectual property without accusing the infringer of a crime. There is a difference between intentionally infringing and trying to be clever in avoiding the bounds of a patent claim, trademark, or copyright. In any case, stealing a trade secret shouldn’t be treated differently than infringing on a patent, as the difference between the two is just whether a patent was filed and obtained.
Perhaps the consequences of stealing a trade secret should be less severe than that of infringing on a patent infringement, so as to encourage the trade-secret owner to share the secret and apply for a patent, thereby furthering the advance of technology.
Jen WallaceMarch 19, 2023 03:41 pm
@Pro Say –
Is there a Bill to do this that already exists?
Who (if any) are the responsible persons in this effort in Congress?
Pro SayMarch 19, 2023 11:16 am
Thank you for sharing your story Jen.
You — along with all of us independent inventors and innovative small companies — have been trampled by the Four Horsemen of the Innovation Apocalypse:
Congress could restore America’s patent system to its former Gold Standard with but one bill.
Just one bill.
Will 2023 be the year they finally stand up for their country — for their America — and do so?
Or will they continue to allow the Four Horsemen to ride roughshod over our desperately-needed, critical innovation?
Jen WallaceMarch 19, 2023 01:54 am
@josh – this is not a phony patent! This patent is, in fact, the real deal!
The current system is a phony system! I hope (I think) this is what you really meant?
Google VP Vint Cerf has confirmed that he had it in his hands, on his desk, in 2005. I have it documented that Cerf and others at Google actually reviewed this patent.
Then, in 2007, Cerf confirmed to me personally that, after review, Google wasn’t interested in the technologies of the patent.
What Google has since said very publicly is that Google engineers started building Google Spanner in 2007. And that, in 2009, Google started using Spanner for their Adwords platform, then subsequently added Google Search, Gmail, Youtube, and other critical Google products and services onto Spanner. Essentially everything transactional and “real-time”.
AI relies on Neural Networks; Neural Networks rely on the computational superpowers of Globally-Distributed Parallel Processing. These are the things that Google Spanner has enabled in the real world that didn’t exist prior to Spanner. It’s an untold story.
Alphabet/Google executives have had these powerful tools in hand since I sent them the patent. I do not feel aggrieved. Mostly I feel gratitude, because I am a happy warrior in this world. Actually, I couldn’t be more proud to find out just how well and precisely Google implemented the patent (bravo, Google engineers!) I celebrate this, because it is the very reason that the inventor and I made the carefully considered decision to share the technical design specs publicly as a patent, as opposed to keeping it as a trade secret and trying to build it and market it ourselves. It was like our child — we wanted it to actually be built in the world, and to proliferate, so it could be of the most benefit to humanity. We thought that there were others who could do that better than we could. Thank you, Google, you did that so well!
At the time (2005), we thought Google was in the best strategic and financial position in the technology marketplace (and also in part because its “Don’t be evil” mantra had created so much goodwill in the open source developers’ community.)
In addition, Google had some of the most talented networking engineers in the world. Also, it had just hired the “Father of the Internet” and then committed billions to rebuilding its core networks.
But Google has over the years become a culture of self-service and corruption that very few people trust anymore.
Google became greedy with the incredible competitive advantages enabled by Spanner. By hoarding it for themselves for their own exclusive competitive advantage for too long, Google came late to the party and fell behind AWS and the others in the Cloud Computing business sector.
Now Google has repeated the same mistake, coming late to the party and falling behind in the AI marketspaces after having in hand for so many years the incredible competitive AI capabilities enabled by Spanner.
“Phony patent”? Not according to Google.
At my request, Vint Cerf and Google spent most of 2022 re-reviewing the patent, alongside the claim chart showing that Google Spanner is an implementation of the patent.
Still, Vint Cerf (who is considered to be the preeminent world’s expert on the subject matter of this patent) will not dare to claim that Spanner is not in fact an implementation of this patent. Cerf has only and repeatedly evaded the question.
Why is this?
JeromeMarch 18, 2023 10:53 am
It is definitely a stacked deck in favor of the entity who wants to take without paying the small guy for their efforts.
Josh MaloneMarch 18, 2023 09:59 am
It’s tragic. After all your investment in solving the problem and diligently following the law, you are left with a phony patent. It’s a small consolation that you learned that the USPTO us going to stab you in the back before they do it.
concernedMarch 18, 2023 06:22 am
Meet one of the lucky one: The USPTO rejected my patent from the beginning. I saved money, time and frustration.
I am sorry to hear about your story.
My attorney sent my situation through Chat GPT. The question and its response (PTAB admitted my process had a practical application, just not their practical application, whatever that statement means):
“I want an argument for overturning the Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo doctrine including an argument for overcoming stare decisis”
The Alice/Mayo doctrine was a significant blow to the software industry because it invalidated numerous patents related to software and computer-implemented inventions. The rationale behind the Alice/Mayo test, which is focused on determining whether a patent is directed towards an abstract idea or a practical application of such an idea, is flawed and has created confusion and unpredictability for inventors and companies seeking to patent their ideas.
The Alice/Mayo test relies on vague and subjective concepts like “abstract” and “inventive concept” that are interpreted differently by different judges and examiners. This subjectivity leads to inconsistent and arbitrary decisions in patent cases, which undermines the predictability and stability of the patent system. Moreover, the test overly restricts the scope of patentable subject matter, discouraging innovation and investment in the software industry.
Overcoming stare decisis is necessary to overturn the Alice/Mayo doctrine because it is a recent and controversial decision that has created more problems than it has solved. Stare decisis, the principle that courts should adhere to prior precedent, should not be an absolute rule, especially when the precedent in question has been criticized or has proven to be unworkable.
The Supreme Court has overturned precedent in the past, including landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. In those cases, the Court recognized that stare decisis must yield to the recognition of new rights or significant changes in factual circumstances.
Similarly, the software industry has undergone significant changes since the Alice/Mayo decision was rendered in 2014, and there is growing recognition that software and computer-implemented inventions are not inherently abstract or unpatentable. To promote innovation and ensure a stable and predictable patent system, the Supreme Court should revisit and overturn the Alice/Mayo doctrine.
Robert MollMarch 17, 2023 05:52 pm
Jen, what’s the US patent number? Not involved in case, but curious to understand your story a bit better.
mikeMarch 17, 2023 04:22 pm