Are conflicts of interest at the PTAB leading to preferential decisions for Apple? - IPWat...
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`Are conflicts of interest at the PTAB leading to
`preferential decisions for Apple?
`
`By Steve Brachmann
`April 28, 2017
`
`Print Art
`
`On May 26th, 2016, a panel of administrative patent judges (APJs) at the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) entered a final written decision ending the
`proceedings of a covered business method (CBM) review of U.S. Patent No.
`8336772, titled Data Storage and Access Systems. The final decision declared
`that four of the patent’s claims, including claim 1, were directed to subject
`matter that was invalid under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. The patent, owned by tech
`licensing firm Smartflash, covers data storage and access systems, which
`enable downloading and paying for many types of data, including audio, video,
`software, games and text.
`
`The petition for the CBM review was originally filed on November 25th, 2014, by
`Cupertino, CA-based tech giant Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) The ‘772 patent is
`one of six patents asserted by Smartflash in a patent infringement action filed against multiple defendants, including Apple, on May 29th, 2013,
`a year and a half before Apple’s CBM petition on the ‘772 patent at PTAB.
`
`The Code of Conduct for United States Judges sets the rules judges presiding over federal courtrooms must adhere. In rules regarding the fair,
`impartial and diligent performance of a judge’s duties, the code of conduct outlines the circumstances under which a federal judge must
`disqualify himself or herself from a case because of reasonable questions of impartiality. These circumstances include when a judge has a
`personal bias concerning a party or the proceeding; when the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy; or a judge has a financial
`interest in either the subject matter or a party in the case.
`
`The lead APJ serving on the panel of multiple CBM reviews petitioned by Apple, who also wrote the final written decision on at least one CBM
`review petitioned by Apple and invalidated claims of the ‘772 patent, was Administrative Patent Judge Matt Clements. According to Clements’
`LinkedIn profile, he has served as an administrative patent judge at PTAB since March 2013; up until that time he served as a patent attorney at
`international law firm Ropes & Gray going as far back to September 2006. While at Ropes & Gray, Clements was part of a legal team that
`represented Apple in patent infringement cases. According to legal party data made available by Law360, Clements served as counsel for Apple
`up to December 2012 and served on a team with fellow Ropes & Gray lawyer James Batchelder as well as Eric Albritton of the Albritton Law
`Firm. Both Batchelder and Albritton were counsel of record representing Apple in the Smartflash infringement case where the ‘772 patent was
`asserted against Apple. Batchelder and Clements both worked at Ropes & Gray’s East Palo Alto offices, where Batchelder served as managing
`partner, so there’s a distinct likelihood that Clements reported directly to Batchelder in his work with Ropes & Gray. The November 2014
`petition by Apple for CBM review of the ‘772 patent was also filed by counsel from Ropes & Gray including Ching-Lee Fukuda, another one of
`the lawyers representing Apple in the Smartflash action. These types of relationships would have led to the recusal of a federal judge on a
`matter, but obviously did not affect the participation and decision making of APJ Clements.
`
`When reached for comment on what appears to be a very troubling, actual and direct conflict of interest involving APJ Clements, a USPTO
`spokesperson declined to comment, saying: “The USPTO does not comment on cases.”
`
`In recent years, Smartflash has been the victim of a corporate drubbing at PTAB and has faced a total of 46 petitions for CBM review filed
`against the patents it has asserted in its infringement case against Apple, including 10 CBMs targeting the ‘772 patent alone. Most of the
`petitions have been filed by Apple, although Korean consumer tech conglomerate Samsung Electronics (KRX:005930) and Mountain View, CA-
`
`Voip-Pal Ex. 2078
`IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201
`1/12/2018
`http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/04/28/conflicts-of-interest-ptab-apple/id=82628/
`
`

`

`Are conflicts of interest at the PTAB leading to preferential decisions for Apple? - IPWat...
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`based Internet services giant Google, now held by Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL), have also filed petitions against patents asserted by
`Smartflash in other patent infringement actions against those companies.
`
`Given the fact that a potential conflict of interest exists with at least one of the APJs sitting on the PTAB panel deciding the validity of
`Smartflash’s claims, counsel representing Smartflash submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office (USPTO) for the disclosure of documents and information held by the federal government pertaining to two items: the
`applications for APJ positions at the PTAB of all current APJs including job applications, submitted resumes, submitted references and records
`of contacting references; and records pertaining to PTAB procedures for assigning APJs to panels for CBM or inter partes review (IPR)
`proceedings including standard operating procedures, prior versions of standard operating procedures and records indicating why changes
`were made to standard operating procedures.
`
`On March 17th, 2017, the USPTO sent an interim response to the FOIA request, which included documents pertaining to standard operating
`procedures for assigning APJs to reviews; the agency was still reviewing documents related to applications for all current APJs. Of the 57 pages
`of documents identified by USPTO as responsive to Smartflash’s request for operating procedure documentation, a total of 52 pages have
`been withheld, two pages have been partially redacted and only three pages related to the distribution of cases by trial type and technology
`are released in full. The two partially redacted pages include e-mails from a sender whose identity remains confidential, including a July 2014
`e-mail distributed to America Invents Act (AIA) trial judges which asked those judges to return data on cases in which they were responsible for
`drafting a decision to institute or a final written decision.
`
`In Smartflash’s case against Apple in the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.), Smartflash prevailed on all of the Section 101 invalidity
`challenges put forward by Apple in the case. A report and recommendation issued by an E.D. Tex. magistrate judge on January 21st, 2015, in
`response to Apple and Samsung motions for summary judgment for invalid subject matter under Section 101 found that the asserted claims of
`the Smartflash patents satisfied step two of the Alice/Mayo framework and thus were directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The magistrate
`judge’s rejected Apple’s argument that the Smartflash patents were similar to the claims invalidated in 2014’s Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC, a
`case in which patents which covered methods for viewing copyrighted content at no cost in return for viewing an advertisement were
`invalidated. E.D. Tex. officially adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and denied the motions for summary judgment on February 13th, 2015.
`Apple tried to reopen the Section 101 validity challenge by filing a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under Federal Rule
`of Civil Procedure 50(b). In a court order filed July 8th, 2015, the court declined to revise its summary judgment, stating that “The § 101 issue
`has already received full and fair treatment.”
`
`Smartflash also prevailed on patent validity challenges raised under 35 U.S.C. Section 102 (novelty) and 35 U.S.C. 103 (non-obviousness) in
`Apple’s CBM petitions on the ‘772 patent. As the petition for CBM review filed by Apple notes, PTAB had previously denied institution to Apple’s
`petitions challenging validity under §102 and §103 because the Board concluded that Apple had not shown that it was likely it would prevail in
`demonstrating that cited combinations of prior art rendered obvious limitations of the Smartflash claims. In switching to its challenges of the
`‘772 patent under §101, Apple argued that claims directed to “a data access terminal” essentially comprised a “general purpose computer.” Of
`course, it doesn’t take a computer expert to understand that general purpose computers in October 1999, the priority date of the application
`for the ‘772 patent, were not capable of the kind of data access technology covered by the ‘772 patent. It’s also important to note here that the
`‘772 claims are directed to a handheld multimedia terminal. If those claims are directed to a “general purpose computer,” then what does that
`say about the patents Apple continues to obtain which are directed at computer-implemented methods?
`
`On February 21st, 2017, Smartflash filed an opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in which Smartflash asks the
`Federal Circuit to consider whether the PTAB erred in determining that its patents were subject to CBM reviews and whether claims directed to
`a specific network architecture and distribution of functionalities, which enable convenient purchases of digital content while preventing
`piracy and allowing only permitted uses of proprietary content, are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. Smartflash’s brief argues that
`while payment is an aspect of the claims, the inventions themselves are not used in any financial product or service. Further, the claims that
`have been deemed ineligible by the PTAB as “abstract ideas” actually describe novel distributions of functions among devices in a computer
`network, teaching specific solutions to technological problems associated with the distribution of content over the Internet. Smartflash’s brief
`cites numerous cases as a basis for this argument, including Federal Circuit decisions in 2014’s DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., et. al. and
`2016’s BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et. al. Further, Smartflash argues that the conclusions of the PTAB were legally
`erroneous by dismissing individual claim elements as conventional without considering the claims as an ordered combination in violation of
`the standard set by the Federal Circuit in 2016’s Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, et. al.
`
`The current incarnation of the U.S. patent system is a nightmare for smaller players fighting legitimate claims of infringement against large,
`entrenched corporate interests, and every branch of the federal government has been complicit in the destruction of Constitutionally-
`protected property rights. The PTAB was created by Congress through passage and enactment of the AIA in 2011. The executive branch, which
`is ultimately responsible for the activities of the USPTO and PTAB, has failed to create a code of conduct which requires recusal and therefore
`cannot provide any reasonable assurance that justice is actually being served in the face of conflicts of interest. The swell of invalidity
`challenges under §101 are the direct result of the Supreme Court’s controversial decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International and Mayo
`Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Normally one dead canary is enough to realize that it’s time to get out of the mine. The
`
`http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/04/28/conflicts-of-interest-ptab-apple/id=82628/
`
`1/12/2018
`
`

`

`Are conflicts of interest at the PTAB leading to preferential decisions for Apple? - IPWat...
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`floors of PTAB are littered with an entire flock’s worth of dead claims that have been declared invalid, and it appears that those claims might
`be invalidated more at the behest of Apple and other tech giants than any cohesive rule of law.
`
`Readers who are piqued by this story should stay tuned; this is not the last report we’ll have on the legal issues raised by the proceedings in
`Smartflash v. Apple.
`
`Tags: Apple, CBM, Covered Business, covered business method review, covered business methods, patent, patent office, Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, patents, PTAB, Smartflash, Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, USPTO
`Posted In: America Invents Act, Apple, Attorneys, Capitol Hill, Communications Systems, Computers, Consumer Products, Courts, Department
`of Commerce, District Courts, Electronics, Federal Circuit, Google, Internet, IP News, IPWatchdog Articles, IPWatchdog.com Articles,
`Legislation, Mobile Devices, Multimedia, Patent Litigation, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents, Samsung, Smartphones, US Supreme Court,
`USPTO, White House
`There are currently 42 Comments comments.
`
`Brian Edmond April 28, 2017 11:43 am
`
`Well researched article. The conflict issue seems real and is very troubling.
`
`Scott Benning April 28, 2017 4:32 pm
`
`So the question it seems boils down to this: Will anyone within the Trump administration care about what is happening here? Are they glad it’s happening?
`Or perhaps are they unhappy but are too ignorant or lazy to do anything about it? I recall Peter Thiel was an ‘inside man’ with Trump on tech issues;
`perhaps a little lobbying of Peter might pay some benefits here. My last question is: do small inventors have a voice anywhere within the 3 branches of
`government? I am completely discouraged that America has lost her way in this too-important area that has in the past made America great.
`
`Scott McQuarrie April 28, 2017 6:35 pm
`
`Public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is part of the necessary foundation of democracy. Without it, the judicial branch loses it legitimacy in
`the eyes of the public. That PTAB is a tribunal, and not part of our judicial branch, does not excuse it from this necessity. To discharge its quasi judicial
`function effectively requires the same public confidence in its competence and impartiality.
`
`Unfortunately, and for legitimate reason, there is no confidence in either. Many parties are complicit, most of all the large corporations (some mentioned in
`this article) who pushed for AIA knowing they would be able to “efficiently infringe” successfully most of the time and by doing so increase their bottom line.
`
`What has been happening at PTAB is appalling, disgraceful and certainly has the appearance of impropriety, if not more. It is harming not only many patent
`holders, but also, and more importantly, the country as a whole.
`
`It is past time for this nightmare to end. Until it does, how much harm (and deprivation of property without due process of law) must occur before our
`government takes the action necessary to reform USPTO?
`
`Paul Morinville April 28, 2017 7:35 pm
`
`This is what happens in third world property right systems like the USPTO has become. It’s happening in Venezuela and dozens of African nations. When
`one person has full control of the creation and destruction of a property right, corruption seeps in. It is not possible to stop it. The only way to fix the PTAB is
`to eliminate it.
`
`Troy April 28, 2017 8:28 pm
`
`More melodramatic nonsense from the TMZ of patent law. And the usual cackling hens just eat it up. LOL
`
`Bp April 28, 2017 11:58 pm
`
`8. A data access terminal for controlling access to one or more
`content data items stored on a data carrier, the data access
`terminal comprising:
`a user interface;
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/04/28/conflicts-of-interest-ptab-apple/id=82628/
`
`1/12/2018
`
`

`

`Are conflicts of interest at the PTAB leading to preferential decisions for Apple? - IPWat...
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`a data carrier interface;
`a program store storing code implementable by a processor; and
`a processor coupled to the user interface, to the data carrier
`interface and to the program store for implementing the stored code the code comprising:
`code to request identifier data identifying one or more
`content data items stored on the data carrier;
`code to receive said identifier data;
`code to present to a user via said user interface said
`identified one or more content data items available from the data
`carrier;
`code to receive a user selection selecting at least one of
`said one or more of said stored content data items;
`code responsive to said user selection of said selected
`content data item to transmit payment data relating to payment
`for said selected content item for validation by a payment
`validation system;
`code to receive payment validation data defining if said
`payment validation system has validated payment for said
`content data item; and
`code to control access to said selected content data item
`responsive to the payment validation data.
`
`Why didn’t the author of this article actually quote the claims involved in this case?
`
`Paul Antonio April 29, 2017 6:20 am
`
`What About USPTO Director who served Google for 10 years?
`
`anonymous April 29, 2017 9:23 am
`
`@4 because this website does not want to have an opportunity to attack the PTAB wasted by something as irrelevant as facts. They prefer a guilt by
`association story about a judge who has done some work for real world companies before he became he a judge.
`
`If you want to recruit judges who know what they are talking about,you cannot (and should not) avoid that they have some history with part of the
`companies he will see in court. It is only a conflict of interest if he is still payed by Apple and it is only a problem if his decisions are not in line with the facts
`and the law.
`
`This claim is obviously not describing an invention of any sorts. A user selects data items and pays for it. The software validates the payment and allows the
`user to access the content data item. That’s all. Nothing more. This has been done on computers at least since Musk started Paypal in 1998, and in the real
`world since at least 10,000 BC.
`
`Paul Morinville April 29, 2017 9:36 am
`
`Bp @4. The article is about a conflict of interest, which looks pretty obvious to me. The claims have nothing to do with the decision if the kangaroo court is
`corrupt. The integrity of the court comes first.
`
`Anon April 29, 2017 10:15 am
`
`Bp,
`
`I echo Mr. Morinville’s reply in that you seek to “kick up dust” and switch the focus to some type of “defend the claim” game.
`
`To then provide a short and direct answer to your question of “why,”: because the answer you seek (inclusion of claims) is not pertinent to the legal issue
`being discussed.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/04/28/conflicts-of-interest-ptab-apple/id=82628/
`
`1/12/2018
`
`

`

`Are conflicts of interest at the PTAB leading to preferential decisions for Apple? - IPWat...
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`Gene Quinn April 29, 2017 10:56 am
`Anon April 30, 2017 5:01 pm
`Anon April 30, 2017 5:00 pm
`anonymous April 29, 2017 11:33 am
`Anon April 30, 2017 4:54 pm
`Anon April 30, 2017 1:17 pm
`
`David April 29, 2017 4:53 pm Scott McQuarrie April 29, 2017 7:04 pm
`Anon April 29, 2017 4:23 pm
`David April 29, 2017 3:58 pm
`Ternary April 29, 2017 8:13 pm
`Anon April 30, 2017 10:42 am
`
`Anon April 30, 2017 10:48 am Anon April 30, 2017 6:51 pm
`
`Paul Morinville April 29, 2017 2:29 pm Scott McQuarrie April 29, 2017 3:45 pm
`
`
`Bp April 29, 2017 2:01 pm Shawn Ambwani April 29, 2017 2:03 pm Paul Morinville April 29, 2017 2:21 pm
`anonymous April 29, 2017 1:06 pm
`
`
`CT May 3, 2017 1:55 pm LLdc May 8, 2017 12:03 pm Mark Syman May 10, 2017 10:30 am
`
`Scott McQuarrie May 3, 2017 2:09 am Anon May 3, 2017 8:22 am
`Gene Quinn April 29, 2017 12:39 pm
`Gene Quinn April 29, 2017 12:33 pm
`Gene Quinn April 30, 2017 3:32 pm
`Gene Quinn April 29, 2017 10:59 am
`Gene Quinn April 30, 2017 11:50 am
`
`Gene Quinn April 30, 2017 11:48 am Gene Quinn May 2, 2017 7:47 pm
`Troy @5-
`and part one of the second half.. (might be entered twice)
`and part one of the second half..
`@12 As an attorney, you cannot work for Apple and Samsung simultaneously. But you can stop working for Apple and start working for Samsung. Not at day
`Gene,
`Gene,
`
`No anon, I don’t. But perhaps we will after Steve writes the article!Here is a start.
`“Compare the rules governing Article III district court recusals with the rules governing PTAB APJ recusals.”
`Steve B,
`I have noticed (on this blog and on the “other” blog) that comments and opinions regarding disputable court and PTAB decisions and procedures on
`
`It’s not all black and white, Gene. There are positions possible somewhere in between all out war and thinking that “the PTAB is brilliant, the Supreme Court “The implication seems to be that because of the proclaimed lack of quality of an invention, any violation of rules and procedures is fine, because the invention
`
`Bp @ 17,The last part I cannot get through (list of usc and cfr sections.
`
`Shawn Ambwani, you have been silent until recently. Now you stalk this blog and my LinkedIn posts. You built your company on an obscenely unfair law Appearances matter. A lot. Why? Because they directly impact the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judicial process. Such confidence is a requisite
`
`
`If the claim is not patentable, then apple did not get a preferential decision. the claims are very relevant to the article. There have been numerous software Actually, Gene, there are a lot of things that you say that are factually incorrect. I am happy to point them out and have in the past, but they are so Bp. You can’t take the result to justify the action that brought the result. Perhaps the same result may have been reached had the judge recused himself, but
`
`
`The Federal Circuit reversed the E.D. Tex. decision cited here on March 1, 2017 (2016-1059, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3833), and held that the ‘772 patent was Administrative Patent Judge Matt Clements should be disbarred and fired. Matt Clements most likely has undisclosed financial interests in Apple. Time to Can anyone cite any decisions on how long after former representation do conflict of interest fade away? That would be helpful to know. My guess is that it
`
`Responding to 37. That APJs are not required to recuse themselves unless they represented a former client within the preceding 1 year does not much The item that I mention above is from a book by Gillers, Simon, and Perlman; published by Wolters Kluwer.
`anonymous @12-
`anonymous @13-
`Anon-
`anonymous @8-
`Shawn-
`
`anonymous-Responding to my post at 11 above…
`one, and not on the same cases you worked on before, but you can. And it is what most attorneys do. Otherwise they may run out of clients pretty fast.
`validity of patents are sometimes countered with opinions on the quality of an invention.
`
`that has wrecked the capitalization of startups here and sent them to China. You worry that your house of cards is about to collapse and now you arrogantly of the “consent of the governed.” It must never be taken for granted (study history).
`
`
`related 101 cases from the fed. cir. during all this. To say that the claims don’t matter when the article asserts that apple is getting “preferential treatment” numerous it is difficult to sometimes keep up. Also, I am always happy to say who I am and my affiliation, Unified Patents. Have a great weekend.that cannot be proven. What can be proven is the judge should have recused himself because of a conflict. Because he didn’t and he was obviously
`
`
`is doing a fantastic job on patents, examiners who never issue patents should receive medals, and the Federal Circuit should simply deny all patent owner is undeserving of a patent.”takes at least 10 years for conflicts of interest for former clients fade away. In any case, APJ Matt Clements would have done better better to disclose his
`
`invalid under Section 101. Regardless of APJ’s ethical duties (which the readers of this publication proved were not violated), the PTAB decision had no get off the gravy train. Fire Administrative Patent Judge Matt Clements.
`change the criticisms voiced in 21 and 25, above.
`Thanks for the compliment! Obviously, this is not nonsense. Only someone truly ignorant and unfamiliar with the law on even the most rudimentary level
`It touches upon the fact that those in the government may have additional ethical restraints – additional to any that may already exist for those in law
`…lawyers who work for the federal government (or who have previously worked for the federal government) are governed not only by state rules of
`I am thinking that it may be a copyright flag issue…
`A post with multiple citations (but no hyperlinks) is being bounced with a message of “page has been moved.”
`Code of Conduct for United States Judges. http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
`Do you have a link?
`If you are interesting in researching this issue further, I recommend the following:
`Your reply is what is not reasonable. Read again my counter at 10 and realize that you are imbibing in a fallacy of “the Ends justify the Means.”
`…lawyers who work for the federal government (or who have previously worked for the federal government) are governed not only by state rules of
`When you switch firms (or when your client does), you have to be able to continue working in the same technical area.
`attack those who bring light to the corrupted system. Thank you for posting and have a nice day.
`
`is….not reasonable.conflicted, his integrity is in question and therefore the integrity of the result is in question.
`
`appeals without explaining why”former representation of Apple. “In the interests of full disclosure” is the best policy.
`bearing on the patent owner’s rights. Not to mention, given its alignment with the Federal Circuit, the PTAB got it right where the district court failed.
`One more thing… if we are so openly hostile and you can’t stomach what we publish and my comments in particular, why do you keep reading? The easy
`I am happy to have an in depth ethical discussion with you if that is what you want to do. It will not, however, take place with you remaining anonymous. I
`I’m not sure why that is happening. I will alert our web team. Sorry for any inconvenience.
`What a truly ignorant comment. APJ Clements acted in an unethical way, full stop! You cannot adjudicate a matter involving a former client. There are
`would think (let alone say) that this clear breach of ethics is nonsense.
`You say: ” I am happy to point them out and have in the past…”
`
`What is consider trolling is coming here and making really ridiculous arguments and then saying that you don’t know why you come here (but you still do) If you can believe it, deciding cases of former defense clients is not a breach of any ethical duty apparently. The PTO only requires employees to recuse
`professional conduct on conflicts and confidentiality equivalent to ABA Model Rules 1.6, 1.9 and 1.11, but also by stringent federal statutes such as 18 [_]
`A response may proclaim that the invention is bad, known, well known, very well known, irrelevant, stupid. The implication seems to be that because of the
`professional conduct on conflicts and confidentiality equivalent to ABA Model Rules 1.6, 1.9 and 1.11, but also by stringent federal statutes such as 18 [_]
`Regardless of whether corruption (usually concealed and difficult to prove) can be proven, what happened here does not pass the “smell test.” APJs,
`This has been identified as an “Ends justify the Means” approach.
`(lawyers and non-lawyers alike).
`Notably, the rules offered by the author of the cited article appear to apply to all USPTO employees. If there are any further rules specifically for APJs, they
`Whichever commentator above surmised that this article was “well-researched” was sorely mistaken.
`solution is to stop visiting and go elsewhere. As far as I can tell we are one of the few, perhaps only, publications that challenges the powers that be. You
`have no interest in debating with an ethically challenged, anonymous commenter.
`thousands of cases filed at the PTAB every year. Clements didn’t represent every stakeholder. It would be EASY for him to recuse himself from matters
`
`because all the information is hostile, wrong, bad, etc. If everything here is hostile, wrong, bad, etc. why do you or others come? That is why I characterized themselves within the first year after they were employed. So deciding matters for a former defense client petitioning to kill patents 366 days after you
`Here is an attempt with part of it:
`Compare the rules governing Article III district court recusals with the rules governing PTAB APJ recusals.
`This applies to Article III judges. Don’t know whether something elsewhere (such as a USPTO regulation) makes it, or something similar, applicable to
`207. Lawyers who appear and practice before the federal [Omitted] in the representation of securities issuers are governed by rules found at 17 [_] Part 205.
`Judges are supposed to rule based on facts. When there are serious signals that a judge makes decisions that do not align with the facts, alarm bells should
`proclaimed lack of quality of an invention, any violation of rules and procedures is fine, because the invention is undeserving of a patent.
`207. Lawyers who appear and practice before the federal [Omitted] in the representation of securities issuers are governed by rules found at 17 [_] Part 205.
`
`I’m not a lawyer, and it appears you are not either, but even I can tell that your logic is not sound.wielding the power that they have, should be required to avoid putting, and when not required, should instinctively know better than to put, themselves in
`If you were white and that guy at Techrights were black, I’d consider myself off-white. But no matter what my opinions are, I like to also read and discuss
`were not cited. If there are no further rules for APJs, there should be.
`-Gene
`-Gene
`Interesting… last time you did that I went point by point and provided citation after citation to prove that you were wrong. Hardly shocking coming from an
`dealing with former clients. That is what federal judges do every day. It is what attorneys do every day. An attorney who engaged in this type of ethical
`
`what you said as trolling. became a judge is perfectly ethical.
`should very easily be able to find all kinds of articles and commentary from those who think patents are evil, the PTAB is brilliant, the Supreme Court is
`
`USPTO APJs.Those employing this approach have been routinely put on notice as to the very view that you are expressing here, and those employing this approach have
`ring and his professional history may indeed become very relevant. But if you want to ring that alarm bell, you should at least show where and how this
`this situation.
`others’. Do you only read opinions and websites that you like? That would certainly explain the atmosphere here.
`I’ll just point out the obvious stupidity of your comment. You say: “But if you want to ring that alarm bell, you should at least show where and how this judge
`infringer shill like yourself who characterizes all patent owners as NPEs and then characterizes all NPEs as patent trolls. You are wrong about pretty much
`Scott @ 25,
`Witout a frame of reference, the discussion devolves into finger pointing.
`breach would be sanctioned, period.
`doing a fantastic job on patents, examiners who never issue patents should receive medals, and the Federal Circuit should simply deny all patent owner
`[Omitted].
`As a patent owner I would expect that a judge who worked for an opponent in a case would recuse her/himself automatically to prevent even the slightest
`[Omitted].
`been asked to NOT use such an approach.
`Any APJ presiding over a contested case should be required to avoid the appearance of impropriety as set forth in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Public
`judge made a wrong decision. In this case, the patent was obviously invalid and the judge clearly made the right decision.
`made a wrong decision.” That isn’t how ethics work. You do not absolve yourself of an actual conflict by pointing out that substantively no legal wrong
`everything you say, so I get you need to deflect and project.
`
`As far as the substance of what you said, you know as well as I do (if you really are an attorney) that is it wholly inappropriate for a judge on any level to See: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sge_summary_of_ethics_rules_2015.pdf
`” Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities
`appeals without explaining why.
`whiff of corruption. Why is this even a point of discussion?
`Apparently, there is no rule at USPTO that would require an APJ to recuse himself from a particular case where he had previously (and recently) represented
`Apparently, dissenting opinion are considered trolling here.