Summary: Granting software patents only harms the perceived legitimacy of all patents; we take note of Iancu's conspicuous absence from the spotlight/limelight in recent months and also Battistelli's conspicuously (and uncharacteristically) low-profile attitude since one year ago as confidants get arrested

AT THE START of the year USPTO Director Iancu launched his now-failed assault on 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101. Earlier this year Coons did the same after he had received some more bribes from law firms (like Iancu's). Where are we now? Same place we were a year ago. In yesterday's daily links we showed the latest from Anticipat, an anti-Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) outfit. It no longer focuses on inter partes reviews (IPRs) and Federal Circuit decisions. Like Janal Kalis, it now focuses on examiners who follow Iancu's poor guidelines, which judges won't follow. In the courts, based on our readings (we rarely write about it anymore), software patents continue to perish. The same thing happens to European software patents in spite of EPO Presidents like Campinos and Battistelli allowing such patents.

Is it just us or has anybody else noticed that Iancu no longer makes public appearances, including interviews? This is actually a positive sign. If he became camera-shy, then that means he's in effect hiding from critics, which grew in number. In recent months we saw groups that front for technology companies openly blasting him (as we had done for years). The same can be said about Battistelli, who has been virtually 'in hiding' at CEIPI (refusing to even respond to media queries). He can literally be arrested if he opens him mouth, joining his body/buddy Alexandre Benalla. ⬆