Before discussing our patent invalidation, I'd like to express gratitude to all of the Snapizzi users and friends who shared their support and feedback (including some well-deserved criticism) after reading my recent blog post, “Snapizzi’s Odyssey“. It truly means a lot to me and I'm finding these blog posts quite cathartic.
In retrospect, I deeply regret not communicating more effectively with our users and Founding Members during the challenging period discussed in the post. As the founder, I had always intended to maintain Snapizzi's operational status and avoid shutting it down despite the obstacles we faced.
However, I recognize that my failure to keep our community informed left many users uncertain about the future of Snapizzi and, in turn, the impact on their businesses that relied on our platform.
This lack of communication was a disservice to the trust and loyalty our users have shown us over the years, and for that, I sincerely apologize.
Moving forward, I am committed to fostering a more transparent and open line of communication to ensure that our users feel informed and supported throughout Snapizzi's journey.
The Patent Invalidation and Its Impact
As the title of this blog post implies, I had a plan. A great one. Or so I thought. Until I got punched in the face. And there was no plan B.
I had worked tirelessly for years developing Snapizzi, acquiring, and asserting our patent rights. I looked forward to a life of luxury and financial security, believing I had done everything right. I'm not ashamed to admit it.
After all, isn't that what we all would like as a result of our efforts to build a business? Financial success?
Unfortunately, I had learned enough to think I was right, but not enough to know how wrong I was. As I discovered on December 4, 2019, when, after years of costly IP licensing and litigation, our patent was invalidated.
That experience—and the years that followed—reshaped my understanding of a patent system that many of us, myself included, once trusted.
The Land Development Analogy
To illustrate the plight of patent owners facing invalidation without compensation, let's explore an analogy that draws parallels to a more everyday situation, highlighting the injustice and the role we might expect the government to play in a similar situation.
Imagine pouring your life savings into buying a piece of land for the purpose of building your dream home. You follow every legal requirement, secure all necessary permissions, and then invest further in hiring architects, contractors, and landscapers to turn your dream into reality.
Your dream house, built through years of hard work and substantial financial investment, finally stands complete.
However, a few years down the line, a sweeping change in property law, heavily influenced by major corporate lobbying efforts, retroactively alters the zoning regulations of your area. Suddenly, your property no longer complies with these new laws, and you're faced with the stark reality of having to demolish your home without any compensation for the vast sums of money and time you've invested.
The change, driven by corporate interests, disregards the impact on individual homeowners, who made significant life decisions based on the stability and assurances of the existing legal framework.
In such a scenario, you would rightfully expect some level of governmental intervention or legal recourse to address the unjust situation. The notion that a change in law, especially one influenced by corporate power, could so drastically affect individual citizens without offering compensation or remediation is wrong.
This analogy highlights the need for a fair and just system that protects individuals from arbitrary legal shifts and fairly compensates those harmed as a result.
It mirrors the challenges faced by patent owners when changes in patent law or legal interpretations, often driven by the interests of powerful corporations, invalidate their patents without any form of compensation.
Pivotal Court Decisions Shaping Patent Law
In the past 20 years, the complex fabric of U.S. patent law has been distinctly shaped by several pivotal court rulings and destructive legislation. Most notably:
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.: The Supreme Court's 2006 verdict in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. redefined the issuance of injunctions in patent infringement disputes. Before this ruling, injunctions were typically granted once infringement was proven. Post-eBay, the requirement for a four-factor assessment made it more challenging for patent owners to obtain injunctions, complicating the defense of their intellectual property.
The America Invents Act (AIA): The 2011 enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA) significantly transformed the U.S. patent system, establishing a "first-inventor-to-file" principle that gives priority to the filing date of patent applications over the date of invention. Another pivotal change introduced by the AIA was the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which oversees the Inter Partes Review (IPR) process. This mechanism allows for the post-grant review of patents' validity at the USPTO. The PTAB has invalidated a staggering 84% of the patents it has fully reviewed. This high invalidation rate raises serious concerns about the stability and reliability of patent rights, particularly for individual inventors and small companies.
Furthermore, defending a patent in PTAB proceedings can be extremely costly. The average defense cost in a PTAB proceeding ranges from $400,000 to $800,000. This financial burden is especially challenging for small inventors who may not have the resources to withstand prolonged legal battles against larger corporations that often challenge patents at the PTAB.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International: The 2014 Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International introduced a significant shift in the criteria for patent eligibility, particularly concerning software and business method patents. The Court established a test to determine if a patent claim is an "abstract" idea, which, if deemed so, requires something "significantly more" to qualify as patent-eligible. This has led to an increase in patent invalidations, particularly affecting those in the software industry.
This destructive decision effectively killed Snapizzi's granted patent. And thousands of others.
The uncertainty and increased difficulty in securing and enforcing patents have led to a chilling effect on innovation, as the risks and costs associated with defending patents often outweigh the potential benefits for smaller entities. This has created an environment where the protection once afforded by patents has been eroded, particularly affecting small inventors and startups like Snapizzi.
These landmark decisions also raise additional concerns for the future of innovation in the United States.
The Detrimental Effects on U.S. Innovation
The United States is now lagging behind in the global tech race, losing ground in scientific discoveries, research innovations, and attracting world-class talent. These elements are vital for leading and shaping the future of critical global technologies—including those yet to be developed.
The U.S. patent system, once the bedrock of American innovation, is now clouded with uncertainty. This uncertainty is stifling domestic innovation while other nations, notably China, enhance their intellectual property frameworks to foster technological advancements.
As a result, China now leads in 37 out of 44 critical technology sectors.
The odyssey of Snapizzi illustrates the critical juncture at which the U.S. patent system stands today.
As we continue to navigate these waters, I invite you join us in advocating for a patent system that truly supports innovation across all sectors of the economy.
Visit US Inventor to learn more.
Posts in this Series
Snapizzi's Odyssey: From Vision to Industry Standard and Beyond
Part I: Everyone Has a Plan Until They Get Punched in the Face
Part II: Losing the Patent, Gaining a Mission: My Fight for Change in DC
Part III: Coming Soon!
Part IV: Coming Soon!
