3 ms·

Here's a less dumbed-down article from a bit earlier in the process: https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/sites/dailyreportonline/2018/01/08/challenging-the-fu

Here's a less dumbed-down article from a bit earlier in the process: https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/sites/dailyreportonline/2018/01/08/challenging-the-fundamentals-of-administrative-review-in-the-patent-system/?slreturn=20180324120007 https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/sites/dailyreportonlin... A 2012 law created an administrative review system for challenging patents, meant to reduce the expense of challenging patents by keeping the process out of court. That law was challenged as being an illegal taking happening outside a court of law. The Supreme Court disagreed, considering it just a corrective action of the patent office's discretionary granting abilities. More or less.

grendelt 9y ago
So IP lawyers (and their accounts receivable ledgers) are quite unhappy about this ruling, I'm sure.
- longcommonname 9y ago
  Rather, companies are happy they can use their patent lawyers to gum up the system and prevent judgments.
- josaka 9y ago
  It's mixed. These proceedings (along with other reforms, like limiting venue) have been very bad for litigation billing, as disputes are fewer and disposed of faster. But I think the consensus is that we're better off taking this hit than losing even more support from the public for patents and facing something more severe.
- Scott_Sanderson 9y ago
  The IP lawyers who prepare post-grant patent petitions are happy with this ruling. Wouldn't you rather represent Google at the PTAB than represent the troll in court?