“Xiaomi considered Maalouf’s invention unique only after Maalouf invented it, created it and proved its market. Why Xiaomi wants to offer a commercially successful product If it’s obvious to combine elements of prior art alone, why didn’t Xiaomi do it first?”
I attended hearings before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Marloof vs Microsoft On Monday, February 6, 2023, the CAFC issued an opinion on this matter last Thursday. This incident has an interesting origin. Lebanese immigrant and US citizen Ramzi Khalil Maalouf, through his own company Dareltech, sued Chinese multinational Xiaomi in New York for patent infringement. The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, as Xiaomi was found to have no physical presence in New York despite its proven secret office.
Microsoft then filed an inter partes review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), citing Xiaomi as a true stakeholder. In other words, US big-tech multinationals will void the patents of small American inventors on behalf of China-dominated multinationals, paving the way for China-dominated multinationals to enter the US market. rice field.
Microsoft/Xiaomi’s problem is because Maalouf was previously attacked by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and banned in the US in six IPRs filed by Shenzhen DJI, a drone maker controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). , was added to the injury. The state as a national security threat.
The focus of this article, however, is how the Marlof patent was apparently revoked by the CAFC.
obvious lawlessness
In Microsoft’s attack on Maalouf’s patent, the PTAB found two combinations of prior art to be obvious. While there are valid arguments to show that the prior art used is not adequate to invalidate a patent, Judge Reyna’s dangerously erroneous view of the motives for combining prior art items is far more concerning. will be
For a patent claim to be obvious when the elements of the invention are in multiple prior art items, there must be an incentive to combine those elements. It’s not obvious to do it without the motivation to combine them.
At the Maalouf PTAB trial, Welch, a Microsoft expert, explained that the motive for combination could simply be the motive for producing a commercially successful product.
“PHOISTA is ambitious to expand the commercial application of the handle by combining Kim’s shaft and mounting structure with Rosenhan’s handle for use in various types of mobile phones on the market.(Quoted from CAFC decision).
The PTAB agreed with Microsoft’s theory and found Maalouf’s allegations clear and invalid.
Of course, the motivation to create a commercially successful product is the primary motivation for any business. But how can you prove that this ubiquitous business motive means that someone identifies and combines specific items to produce a product?
To answer that and other questions, Maalouf appealed to the CAFC. Hearings took place on February 6th. In the hearing recording, at 2:20 Judge Reina answers:
“Why isn’t that enough motivation to combine? and, as a result, greater commercialization. Why is commodification itself not a sufficient basis for motivation to combine?”
On Thursday, February 23, 2023, the CAFC ruled that Maalouf’s patent is clear.
“Both boards’ basis for their findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, particularly the testimony of Microsoft expert Welch.” and “We do not agree that Welch’s testimony, including the excerpt above, is conclusive. Instead, Welch articulated why a skilled craftsman would pair Rosenhan with Kim…”
Clearly, the Federal Circuit has ruled that the ubiquitous business motive of producing a commercially viable product is sufficient to demonstrate a motive for combining. Any Prior art item.
Reina’s blatant hindsight bias
Reyna’s comments and the CAFC’s decision are the absurd conclusion of a dangerous hindsight bias that would be amusing if it weren’t so damaging to US innovation.
Since the purpose of an invention is to achieve commercial success, and only successful inventions are subject to litigation, the fact that an invention is a commercial success is not the same as the fact that an invention has achieved commercial success. is a commercial success. It is clear to invent it.
No invention can stand this test unless it is commercially successful.
Commercial success depends on the invention no clear
On the other hand, here in the real world, it’s a simple fact that inventions must be invented before they can be commercialized. When an invention occurs, there is no way of knowing whether it will be commercially successful. The inventor can only imagine its commercial success, betting hard work and treasure on a lottery ticket that wins (or loses) after the invention hits the market.
In the real world, commercial success is absolute proof of a great invention. Not the other way around, as the USPTO and CAFC have enacted legislation.
If Maalouf’s invention is obvious, why didn’t Xiaomi bring it to market? After all, Xiaomi is the third largest mobile phone maker in the world, with over 30 million customers, It has far greater expertise and deep funding than Xiaomi is therefore in a much better position than Maalouf to figure out the obvious.
Xiaomi adopted Maalouf’s invention as its own only after Maalouf invented it, created it and proved its market. If it’s obvious that Xiaomi would combine elements of prior art simply because it wants to offer a commercially successful product, why didn’t Xiaomi do it first? must be
Is the real answer that the risk of the invention not being successful in the market is too great for Xiaomi? If so, what Xiaomi has done is more accurately called IP theft.
self-evident truth
The self-evident truth is that the simple fact that Maalouf invented it, brought it to market, and achieved commercial success long before Xiaomi and others even tried, is an absolute proof that his invention was not trivial. evidence that Maalouf’s invention deserves patent protection.
Judge Reyna’s theory is blatant hindsight bias at its worst. It destroyed the labor and treasured achievements of American citizens, and in doing so opened up access to the US market for Xiaomi, a predatory Chinese Communist Party-controlled multinational corporation. USPTO and he CAFC. How can you allow this to happen?
