Summary: So-called 'panels' where the opposition is occluded or excluded try to sell the impression that greatness comes from patent maximalism (overpatenting) rather than restriction based on merit and rational scope

The Intellectual Property Owners Association, IPO (there are many other things in this domain with the same acronym), is truly nasty and harmful. It not only lobbies for software patents; it lobbies for just about everything that harms science and technology for the sake of scientists and technologists being taxed by lawyers and patent trolls. IPO should be approached/treated/viewed with the same disdain the public has for front groups of oil and coal giants; even military contractors...

"IPO should be approached/treated/viewed with the same disdain the public has for front groups of oil and coal giants; even military contractors..."It hardly surprised us to learn that there was yet another stacked panel (of this litigation zealots' front group, IPO) taking place yesterday; it was promoted by Patent Docs the other day; it's a site which campaigns for software patents, patents on life, and is expectedly (given those two things) against PTAB, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board whose inter partes reviews (IPRs) invalidate a lot of patents, soon to be reaffirmed by the Federal Circuit. There has been an attempt to disenfranchise Unified Patents (and RPX), denying them access to IPRs. Watch who debated these things yesterday:

The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "Federal Circuit Appeals and Remands to the PTAB: Recent Lessons and a Look Ahead" on November 8, 2018 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET). Michael Flibbert of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; Sheila Kadura of Dell Technologies; and John O'Quinn of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP will review case law and discuss strategies for affirming or reversing a PTAB decision.

It's a totally stacked panel (maybe except Dell). Where are all the attendants who represent the other side? There are none. Kevin E. Noonan from Patent Docs meanwhile continues to defend and advocate patents on life and nature itself, as he profits from evil litigation in this domain (privatising life using pieces of paper). Does it not matter that patent scope has already gone out of control? There's this case in the UK Supreme Court which deals with patent scope and the UK BioIndustry Association (BIA) wants to get involved. Guess who BIA represents/fronts for (similar to BIO in the US). It's revealing:

The UK Supreme Court has granted permission to the UK BioIndustry Association (BIA) to intervene in an ongoing life sciences dispute.

Actavis v ICOS is a patent dispute that addresses the patentability of a discovery made during the dosage regime testing stage of a clinical trial.

BIA is arguing that medical innovations should be patentable irrespective of how the invention is made.

So they basically say that everything should patented irrespective of prior art (like nature itself), public interest and so on. Will the court realise whose interests are served there? These people already stuff the media, overwhelm the courts, and stage 'debates' where only one side is presented. Litigation is, after all, big 'business'. They want to make it bigger. ⬆