Boalick and Bonilla appointed as PTAB Chief and Deputy Chief

Congratulations to Scott Boalick and Jacqueline Bonilla for their appointments as Chief Judge and Deputy Chief Judge for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Judges Boalick and Bonilla have already been doing the work since September 2018 in their roles as Acting Chief and Deputy Chief.  Earlier this year, Dir. Iancu also appointed Thomas Krause as USPTO Solicitor.  These three individuals are each highly qualified with deep intellectual property and government experience.

These appointments round-out Dir. Iancu’s top staff so that all leadership team members are in permanent positions rather than temporary “acting” appointments.

29 thoughts on “Boalick and Bonilla appointed as PTAB Chief and Deputy Chief

  1. 3

    Max, I guess I went over my alotted posts on the other thread. See here, me citing your own MEPs and experts on how the EU actually works from the inside. As moderated and put together by Carl B the cuck journo.

    link to

    1. 3.1


      You should be aware that MaxDrei’s reply to you chastised you for your use of Carl B, and he will likely disclaim anything from that source.

      I do not think that he will accept at face value that what Carl B has to say is indeed a true and accurateciting your own MEPs and experts on how the EU actually works from the inside

      Do you have any other sources for the position that you want to advance?

    1. 2.1

      As needs repeating:

      There is no, “us” MM.

      You. Are. Alone.

      Why Dennis continues to put up with you remains a real head scratcher.

      As good as it already is, PatentlyO would be an even richer, more IP-valuable resource were other professionals with their worthwhile views, insights, and assistance willing to post.

      Were it not for the vulgar, personal-attack scourge of PatentlyO.


      1. 2.1.1

        There is nothing remotely “insightful” about Balloon Boy’s comment. He’s a professional whining crybaby.

        Also, the Internet has plenty of places for rich white entitled a h o l e s to vent about the end of the patent troll paradise. Go there and cry yourself a river.


          The internet has places for all kinds of things.

          Perhaps you should heed your own advice, and find a place more suitable to your rants that LACK any cogent or meaningful touch with actual legal issues…


            As we all know, Billy, “discussing” legal issues with you is just wrestling with a dissembling hypocritical glibertarian p I g.

            I do it primarily to show everyone how vapid and entitled you and your maximalist cohorts are.



              LOL – just because I dismantled attempts to take legal viewpoints opposite of mine, does NOT make that “wrestling” with the attempts denigrations that you tack onto the wrestling point.

              Here’s a hint for you: learn to wrestle better.

              I do it primarily to show everyone how vapid and entitled you and your maximalist cohorts are.

              LOL – cohorts…? First, you would have to actually ENGAGE (and do that in an inte11ectually honest manner) in order to actually discuss ANY legal issues.

              You constantly show an inability to engage or actually discuss legal issues that would be on point in this forum.

              This should not come as a surprise to you, as it is the very thing that you whined about above (the “cogent” point that you do not want to pay heed to).

  2. 1

    These individuals have joined many decisions and briefs against inventors over the past few years. Boalick and Bonilla have ruled against inventors over 75% of their decisions. Krause over 90%. They have a lot of damage to reverse now that they have the reins.

    1. 1.1

      From your comment I get the impression you’re saying they are anti-inventor. I would want to know more about the kind of decisions they are making before coming to that conclusion. There are quite a few “bad” patents out there – meaning those that never should have been issued in the first place. It’s possible (and completely unknown at this point) that those are the kind of IPRs they were called upon to decide. I was told by a former Examiner (now a partner at a mid-sized firm) that the attitude when he first started working at the USPTO was to allow most everything, and, if anyone cared about it, they could just fight it out in court. That seems like a recipe for allowing applications that have little to no merit and need to be revoked. Look at some of the patents that have been aggressively pursued by NPEs (aka patent trolls). Scanning documents to pdf or email comes to mind first. There are many others.

      1. 1.1.1

        Classic “Ends justify the Means” full swig of the “Oh N 0 e s – Tr011s” kool-aid served up by the Efficient Infringers…


          Many people use the term “NPE” and many others use “patent troll”. Not all people will connect one to the other immediately, so my comment was intended to ensure that anyone reading it would understand what I was referring to. I don’t really see the relevance (or thought process) that went into your comment. Care to elaborate?


            That you do not see is part and parcel of the problem.

            You have drunk from the propaganda rampant with portraying enforcement of patents as somehow necessarily being a “b a d” thing.

            That you are unaware of the MASSIVE amount of propaganda indicates that your opinion is ill-informed.


              You have drunk from the propaganda


              Billy has been reciting patent maximalists scripts for twenty years non-stop. Too funny, even for a Friday.


                The sad thing is Malcolm, by your empty retorts you merely show a lack of appreciation as to WHY what you call “patent maximalists” is actually a good thing.

                Your empty “swagger” is a condemnation alright – just not a condemnation of what (or who) you may think it to be.

      2. 1.1.2

        We will never know how many of the 1,800 patents revoked by the PTAB were really invalid. They used short cut procedures, improper claim construction, and bypassed juries on factual questions. The PTAB is inherently anti-inventor. They should reject these petitions unless there is truly hidden prior art that anticipates the invention under the claim construction advanced by the inventor. The other subjective close calls should be left to fair fight in a real court. Humility should be the mantra for these new oligarchs that control the primary collateral of our innovation economy.


          ” They used short cut procedures, improper claim construction, and bypassed juries on factual questions.”

          How many are getting reversed by the Fed Circ?


              Then it sounds ok. Are you disagreeing? Are you wanting to implement oppressions or something?

Comments are closed.