Watchtroll is attacking the Federal Circuit (CAFC), i.e. judges, once again (it already attacked CAFC in the past, even quite recently, and it includes individual judges; it smears SCOTUS Justices and PTAB judges as well). Why? Simply because they're not patent maximalists like Iancu and Watchtroll, who are apparently meeting already. Burman York (Bud) Mathis III published this piece a couple of days ago in a site that's defending patent trolls, smearing politicians who care about technology, and habitually distorting the facts. As usual, we don't wish to entertain/air the underlying arguments but merely highlight the fact that this is happening. They want to pressure judges by questioning their motivations etc. (perhaps to make it look like a scandal, as they did with Michelle Lee). And yes, it's all about patent quality. To quote: "One might naturally expect that, if a rejection under ۤ 101 appealed from the PTAB failed to address all the claim limitations and had zero supporting evidence to determine whether something was abstract or well-understood, routine and conventional, the case would be a slam-dunk at the Federal Circuit."

"The USPTO isn't a court and in order to maintain perceived value of patents it will have to follow the law and set its guidelines based on caselaw, not Iancu's whims and ideology, which is like a religion attached to greed."That's a loaded statement and a rather gross distortion of what actually happens in appeals to CAFC (of which there are very many, resulting in affirmations almost all the time).

Some reasonable law firms realise that foul-mouthed patent lawyers who attack judges etc. spoil the reputation of the whole profession. They're a risk to the system because they even upset judges, who are in turn likely to just turn their backs on patents altogether. When it comes to 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and SCOTUS must eventually converge, otherwise patents granted by the USPTO will lose their value (invalidated massively in courts below SCOTUS).

What also isn't helpful is Watchtroll's endless obsession with Google, which yesterday it attempted to frame as a hypocrite. Lawrence H. Frank (also in Watchtroll) is now advocating yet more patents on nature. In its latest attack on 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101 Watchtroll speaks of "[a] conflict [...] between the incentive to invent and the breadth of patent-eligible subject matter. It has become difficult to recognize the line between patentable subject matter and non-patentable products of nature. The Supreme Court [...] their rulings on 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101..."

Alice and Mayo are a thorn on the side of patent maximalists because they set pretty clear limits on the scope of patenting. The USPTO isn't a court and in order to maintain perceived value of patents it will have to follow the law and set its guidelines based on caselaw, not Iancu's whims and ideology, which is like a religion attached to greed. ⬆