Summary: The efforts to incite Iancu against the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carry on unabated and his words are being distorted by patent maximalists to say what they want him to say

The patent trolls' lobby (IAM) is still pressuring Andrei Iancu to hate PTAB and make the USPTO more open to abstract patents, such as software patents. The IAM interview even warped his words somewhat (in the headline especially), so it's rather sickening that these people even call themselves "journalists" or "news". it's also frustrating to see the extent of coordinated pressure, not only that he accepted a speech invitation from IAM.

Richard Lloyd does it again, citing a newer appearance of Iancu and saying: "If you were looking for a sense of the industrial complex that has sprung up around the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the five and a half years since it was created, then this week’s PTAB Bar Association annual conference was a good place to be. With around 500 delegates crammed into a ballroom in the Ritz Carlton in Washington DC - a stone’s throw from the lawyers and lobbyists of K street - the association, in just a couple of years, has quickly established itself in patent circles."

"The patent trolls' lobby (IAM) is still pressuring Andrei Iancu to hate PTAB and make the USPTO more open to abstract patents, such as software patents"The patent maximalists already project their own desires (business agenda) onto him. One patent maximalist said that "Dir. Iancu Calls for Paradigm Shift in USPTO Prior Art Searching and Forward Thinking wrt 101 Eligibility," in effect distorting the actual headline he links to. "USPTO Head Stresses Need For Predictability In IP System" is the real headline and it's an article behind paywall in which Matthew Bultman (Law 360) says nothing critical (there's no lack of possible criticism) and instead summarises as follows outside the paywall:

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu emphasized the need for predictability in the intellectual property system on Thursday, while suggesting various ways the agency might help to bolster certainty in patent rights.

Speaking at the PTAB Bar Association Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., Ianucu [sic], who was sworn in as director late last month, said innovation was important to the U.S. and its economy.

The rest is behind paywall/s. Benjamin Henrion quoted/said: "The patent office has issued some guidance on Section 101, typically in reaction to court rulings. Iancu suggested there may be room for more forward-thinking guidance from the agency about where it thinks the lines of patent eligibility should be drawn" (this is what was actually said).

"Once upon a time an "attack" was some patent troll blackmailing a lot of businesses with threats; but the narratives are being inverted by some -- to the point where the attacker carrying on with blackmail/lawsuit is "survival" and the defendant found innocent of infringement is actually an "attack". Now we see Iancu accused of "attacking patents" simply by maintaining the status quo. "Then came maximalists' propaganda sites such as Watchtroll, which say that "USPTO to Clarify Guidance on Written Description of Antibodies" (different but related) and two days earlier carried on characterising concern for patent quality as an "attack". They said (with our emphasis added): "But the first major ruling under the new Director of the USPTO Andrei Iancu fell back to attacking patents. On February 23, three administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a sweeping opinion that sovereign immunity does not apply to PTAB proceedings and that the agency can revoke a patent right without consent or participation of the patent owner. This is the latest and possibly most extreme example of agency overreach in the 7 year history of the PTAB under the American Invents Act."

Why is it that such patent aggressors compare justice to "death squads" and attacks? Is justice itself an aggression? Is Iancu "attacking patents" by choosing to preserve improved patent quality? That "attack" narrative goes even further; we see it almost every day. Here's a new tweet from a patent maximlaist: "US Pat 8311945, System and method for processing checks; Survived 101 Attack; Asserted Against US Bank; $3.3M Verdict for Infringing..."

"The patent extremists have already bullied Michelle Lee out of her job. Are they trying to threaten Iancu with the same fate unless he does their biddings?"And then again: "Checking Patent that Survived 101 Attack Was Successfully Asserted Against US Bank; $3.3M Verdict..."

Once upon a time an "attack" was some patent troll blackmailing a lot of businesses with threats; but the narratives are being inverted by some -- to the point where the attacker carrying on with blackmail/lawsuit is "survival" and the defendant found innocent of infringement is actually an "attack". Now we see Iancu accused of "attacking patents" simply by maintaining the status quo.

The patent extremists have already bullied Michelle Lee out of her job. Are they trying to threaten Iancu with the same fate unless he does their biddings? ⬆