Supreme Court Upholds Procedure That’s Said to Combat ‘Patent Trolls’; The New York Times, April 24, 2018

Adam Liptak, The New York Times; Supreme Court Upholds Procedure That’s Said to Combat ‘Patent Trolls’

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of a procedure that makes it easier to challenge questionable patents.

The procedure, created by Congress in 2011, resembles a trial in federal court, but is conducted by an executive-branch agency. Supporters say it helps combat “patent trolls,” or companies that obtain patents not to use them but to demand royalties and sue for damages.

Opponents say the procedure violates the Constitution by usurping the role of the federal courts, violating the separation of powers and denying patent holders the right to a jury trial.

By a 7-to-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the procedure was a permissible way for the agency that administers patents to fix its mistakes."

The U.S. Supreme Court Is Reining in Patent Trolls, Which Is a Win for Innovation; Harvard Business Review, June 2, 2017

Larry Downes, Harvard Business Review; The U.S. Supreme Court Is Reining in Patent Trolls, Which Is a Win for Innovation

"In the last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two important rulings limiting patent rights. The decisions, which were both unanimous, significantly scaled back the ability of patent holders to slow innovation by competitors, tipping scales that many legal scholars believe have become badly imbalanced."

Supreme Court Ruling Could Hinder ‘Patent Trolls’; New York Times, May 22, 2017

Adam Liptak, New York Times; 

Supreme Court Ruling Could Hinder ‘Patent Trolls’

"More than 40 percent of patent lawsuits, for instance, are filed in a federal court in East Texas.

In recent years, a single judge based in Marshall, Tex., oversaw about a quarter of all patent cases nationwide, more than the number handled by all federal judges in California, Florida and New York combined.

Monday’s decision was a victory for big technology companies and other patent holders, which have complained about what they called forum shopping in patent cases. Other companies have argued that it makes sense to let cases be considered by courts that have developed expertise in patent matters."

Patents Are A Big Part Of Why We Can’t Own Nice Things: the Supreme Court Should Fix That; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), March 21, 2017

Kerry Sheehan, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 

Patents Are A Big Part Of Why We Can’t Own Nice Things: the Supreme Court Should Fix That

"Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could allow companies to keep a dead hand of control over their products, even after you buy them.  The case, Impression Products v. Lexmark International, is on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who last year affirmed its own precedent allowing patent holders to restrict how consumers can use the products they buy. That decision, and the precedent it relied on, departs from long established legal rules that safeguard consumers and enable innovation."

These three 2016 cases gave new life to software patents; Ars Technica, 12/27/16

Joe Mullin, Ars Technica; These three 2016 cases gave new life to software patents:

"In 2014, the US Supreme Court dealt a major blow to software patents. In their 9-0 ruling in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, the justices made it clear that just adding fancy-sounding computer language to otherwise ordinary aspects of business and technology isn't enough to deserve a patent.

Since then, district court judges have invalidated hundreds of patents under Section 101 of the US patent laws, finding they're nothing more than abstract ideas that didn't deserve a patent in the first place. The great majority of software patents were unable to pass the basic test outlined by the Supreme Court. At the beginning of 2016, the nation's top patent court had heard dozens of appeals on computer-related patents that were challenged under the Alice precedent. DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com was the only case in which a Federal Circuit panel ruled in favor of a software patent-holder. The Alice ruling certainly didn't mean all software patents were dead on arrival—but it was unclear what a software patent would need to survive. Even DDR Holdings left a teeny-tiny target for patent owners to shoot at.

That all changed in 2016. Judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found three more cases in which they believe that software patents were wrongly invalidated. What once looked like a small exception to the rule now looks like three big ones. The results of those cases could portend a coming year that will be friendlier to patent owners than the past few have been. As 2016 winds down, let's take a closer look at the details of these three software patent battles and how patent-holders kept their patents alive through the appeals court."