THE new Director of the USPTO is hostile towards PTAB (remember that Director Iancu himself was apparently chosen by Trump for reasons which may include nepotism). We have seen plenty of evidence of it so far (it's well documented here), but SCOTUS and Federal Circuit judges remain firm in their pro-PTAB stance, so Iancu cannot do much. He would rather speak of SAS, not Oil States, but without looking like a fool he cannot marginalise PTAB.
"When will the patent microcosm and their man inside the USPTO (Iancu) quit badmouthing and discrediting PTAB? Maybe never."Since we've mentioned nepotist/favouritism tendencies at the USPTO, mind yesterday's tweets from USPTO CIO Watchdog: "Rumor has it that Director Iancu will re-advertise the CIO job, because his staff failed to provide him a list of qualified candidates. Allegedly and unbelievably, Pam Isom and David Chiles were in the top 3 for the job. Scardino must want his puppets? Iancu decided wisely! [...] Why is Scardino still serving as the Dep Dir for USPTO, a job he does not meet any of the qualifications to hold? Perhaps Scardino should look to fix his own shop, his shop seems to be incapable of simple contracting and purchasing efforts. More to come as we investigate the CFO..."
More on nepotism for scrutiny by USPTO insiders? Is this how one gets top jobs at the USPTO (similar to some EPO scandals)? Either way, there's this case from last week called Swartz v Iancu. It has just been summarised as follows:
The federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia, properly dismissed an inventor’s appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions rejecting six patent applications on the grounds of lack of utility and collateral estoppel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The applications were directed to unproven cold fusion technology. One application was not ripe for review by the district court because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board had not issued a final decision.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Jazz”) appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from six inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”).[1] Collectively, the decisions of the PTAB held certain claims of Jazz’s U.S. Patents 7,668,730, 7,765,106, 7,765,107, 7,895,059, 8,589,182, 8,457,988 and 8,731,963 invalid as obvious. Because the Board did not err in its conclusions of obviousness, the Federal Circuit affirmed. See Jazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, No. 2017-1671, (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2018) (before Newman, Lourie, and Reyna, J.)(opinion by Lourie, J.).