Summary: The Federal Circuit Bar Association panels exclude actual inventors; in other words, views on patents are only permitted if one works for the patent 'industry' (patenting, litigation and so on), not those who are supposedly being 'protected'

THE Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) became pretty good in recent years (after Randall Rader had left to become some sort of a lobbyist because he got caught in serious misconduct). We generally support CAFC because nowadays it hands down decisions largely in compliance with the SCOTUS. The USPTO bases its guidelines on SCOTUS and CAFC, so this is important. It's the law-setting process. It defines patent scope and practices.

So imagine our disappointment when a couple of hours ago Patent Docs advertised the Federal Circuit Bar Association's (FCBA) stacked panel about Oil States and SAS Institute, two decisions that are only 6 days old (we already wrote 6 articles about them, some of which were rather long). Here they are again, in order of publication:

• Quick Mention: As Expected, the US Supreme Court Cements PTAB's Role With Trump-Appointed Gorsuch Dissenting
• Koch Brothers and Big Oil Could Not Buy the Decisions in Oil States, SAS
• The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Lives on and People Whom Patents Were Conceived for (Not Lawyers) Are Happy
• When You Cannot Win the Case Attack the Judge and Say the Decision is Wrong
• Patent Maximalists Are Using SAS Institute v Iancu to Distract From Their Epic Defeat in the Vastly More Important Oil States
• Like a Pack of Spoiled Brats, Patent Maximalists and Media That They Control Bash the Oil States Decision and Distract From It

Watch this outline about the panel (in their own words):

he Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) will be offering a webcast entitled "The Supreme Court Decided Oil States & SAS Institute: Now What?" on May 2, 2018 from 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm (EST). Emily Johnson of Amgen, Inc. will moderate a panel consisting of Allyson Ho of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Christopher Suarez of Williams & Connolly LLP, Gregory Castanias of Jones Day, and Russell Cass of Clark Hill PLC. The panel will discuss the Supreme Court's decisions in Oil States and SAS Institute, including their holdings and the issues left for another day, potential implications for patent owners and petitioners involved in IPR proceedings, anticipated changes to PTAB adjudication of IPR challenges, likely impact on district court litigations and appeals to the Federal Circuit, the next expected constitutional challenges to IPR proceedings, and potential consequences of labeling patent grants as "public rights" and "public franchises."

So it's basically just a bunch of law firms; yes, scientists and technologists are shut out, as usual. Emily Johnson comes from Amgen, whose patent aggression we covered here before (e.g. [1, 2]). The panel itself is composed of just 4 law firms. Nothing else!

The Federal Circuit Bar Association also has this 'webcast' coming. Patent Docs has just advertised it as follows, noting that Matal will be there (Matal came to be the temporary/interim Director of the USPTO after Lee had been bullied out). To quote:

...panel consisting of Joe Matal of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office...

So this one, for a change, won't be completely dominated by just a bunch of law firms. It's about Helsinn v Teva. The question remains, however, how can the Federal Circuit Bar Association be taken seriously when its panels exclude actual inventors? Who is the system for? ⬆