EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS


When European SMEs Make the Mistake of Relying on the EPO’s Integrity, Now Want to Even SUE the EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

And the European Patent Office (EPO) wants even more power with the Unitary Patent?

Sorting ideas

Summary: The EPO’s alleged mistreatment of small applicants that actually come from Europe (unlike prolific applicants that enjoy a fast lane and come from outside Europe) riles up even the most important stakeholders and creates a desire to sue the European Patent Office

TECHRIGHTS has mostly focused on the serious human rights violations by the EPO in recent years. Prior to that, software patents in Europe were the main subject of focus and earlier this month, opening the year 2016, we also revisited the gross discrimination against small European businesses. The EPO is not European (in the EU sense); it’s an international institution for internationalists, globalists, multinationals or whatever one calls billionaires and their large corporations that are politically connected and often evade tax using all softs of dirty (but legalised by their lobbyists) tricks.

“The EPO is not European (in the EU sense); it’s an international institution…”As recently promised, today we start shedding some more light on how small European businesses feel about the EPO. European businesses that actually had the displeasure of dealing with the EPO that is, not some mythical SMEs that the EPO's PR team speaks of…

We wish to start with the following letter, redacted a little in order to better protect various people’s identities and cases.

President Benoît Battistelli

European Patent Office

80298 Munich


Dear M. Battistelli


Further to my letter of [redcated] I have received a reply from [redcated]. I remain gravely concerned about how inventors, in particular individual inventors, are handled by the EPO.

My concern is that European citizens are able to secure the maximum possible Intellectual Property (“IP”) that they are entitled to in the shortest possible time so that economic value is maximised. This cannot be the case if the EPO refuses applications on which the EPO accepts there is patentable IP and if the EPO takes more than 6 years to arrive at this position.

In the case of my [redcated] EPO agreed to grant a patent on the basis of [redcated] as set out in the document [redcated] and that he could review that claim to ensure all IP was included and submit dependent claims. This resulted in submissions [redcated]. The first, [redcated], addressed the omissions and the subsequent filings were modifications to accommodate EPO objections. Contrary to the refusal letter just sent out [redcated] did not refuse [redcated] per se but was seeking the above augmentation (IP omitted and dependent claims) previously agreed. In accordance with the advice of [redcated] in his submission of [redcated] set out revised arguments and the order by which his claim revisions should be reviewed.


Had this review process been followed then, as a very disappointing minimum, there should have been a letter to grant on the basis of [redcated] and not the refusal [redcated].

Not only have the documents not been reviewed as outlined (they have reviewed [redcated]) but your examiners claim there is no [redcated] on file! If the examiners believed there to be no such document why did they not contact [redcated] to clarify the position? [redcated] is on file dated [redcated].

In addition to losing [redcated], your examiners appear to have lost the inventive step agreed at the first oral hearing. As the diagram below shows all the features present in [redcated] have been migrated into [redcated]. How therefore has the inventive step in [redcated] been lost in [redcated]? The text also shows the correction to the structure and addition of the [redcated].


Most troubling of all the issues is the basis on which the EPO has rejected [redcated]. [redcated] outlines this as follows: -


I am gravely concerned because it would appear that the examiners have themselves created a false inventive step solely for the purpose of rejecting claim [redcated]! Taking features in common between inventions then falsely making out that this is the inventions inventive step is clearly a basis by which all inventions could be refused. If this is so there is a very serious affair to address.

[redcated] has [redcated] for an explanation but none has been forthcoming from any of them. This in itself speaks volumes. [redcated] enquiries should be answered as a matter of urgency. The inventive step agreed at the first oral hearing is surely documented on the file. Please could I see this document? I am keen to understand the truth of this matter. I understand [redcated] has a recording of the first oral hearing which, if necessary, will provide definitive answers. Apparently inventive step was discussed for at least an hour.

I find it unacceptable that the EPO should issue a letter of refusal whilst disputed items are still being debated and to do so without first consulting the applicant. The examiners have written off years of work at the stroke of a pen despite accepting there is patentable IP to be had. The only option for [redcated] is further expense and further delay none of which seems fair or reasonable.

Surely it would be helpful in most instances to talk through the issues with the applicants in advance of reviews to ensure mutuality of understanding. I am dismayed that there has been no attempt on the part of the EPO to have any sort on conversation whether by email or conference call with [redcated]. Considering the process involves highly technical scientific and legal points between people of different cultures and languages I would have thought dialogue absolutely essential and by far the easiest way to remove misunderstandings and expedite matters.

Given the gravity of the situation I would ask that in addition to the specific questions raised that require an immediate response that it would seem appropriate that [redcated] file with the EPO be independently reviewed so that lessons can be learned from his experience and his invention can be considered fairly.

“I believe the action of the EPO has effectively stripped me of all economic value of my invention already,” told us the person who had been victimised above. “I think the only thing that will get them to sit up and pay attention/change is if they are sued. I am not sure if this is possible and what the risks and costs to myself might be. Have you ever heard of them being sued?”

“The EPO has become just an instrument of power to be habitually misused by people in power without them facing any consequences.”As even the Dutch government begrudgingly finds out, this isn’t so simple. The EPO cannot really be sued for various reasons (they cannot sue either, but they threatened to sue me in an effort to intimidate and induce censorship). One can find the reasons for their legal immunity/impunity in our past articles. This is in fact one of the more outrageous things about the EPO. They’re unaccountable and not liable to anyone.

It must be a thrilling experience working inside Team Battistelli, essentially being a tyrant above the law.

As various different factors serve to indicate, today’s EPO is not about invention but about protection or protectionism. The EPO has become just an instrument of power to be habitually misused by people in power without them facing any consequences.

“To us, the moment 8:17 A.M. means something – something very important, if it happens to be the starting time of our daily train. To our ancestors, such an odd eccentric instant was without significance – did not even exist. In inventing the locomotive, Watt and Stevenson were part inventors of time.”

Aldous Huxley

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Ask
  • Digg
  • Mixx
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Alltagz
  • BarraPunto
  • blinkbits
  • BlinkList
  • Bloglines
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Fark
  • Gwar
  • Klickts

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New

  1. Twist and Turn, Show Us Your Face

    A little poem about digital privacy

  2. The Race to the Bottom of Tech Rights

    Tech rights (not to be confused with Techrights the site) are going down the drain; people are made complicit using fear tactics, having been told a lot of lies about so-called contact-tracing borderline pseudoscience

  3. [Humour/Meme] OIN Wants Us to Make Peace With Software Patents

    The way things stand, OIN is really not interested in solving the patent problem the Free software way; rather, it's looking to impose its own way on the Free software community

  4. The Last Thing Open Invention Network (OIN) Needs Right Now is Public Association With a Patent Trolls' and Software Patents' Propaganda Site

    The Open Invention Network (OIN) seems to be choosing rather odd platforms; the above publisher, a judge-bashing software patents extremist, cannot possibly improve OIN's image (by association)

  5. The EPO's Misleading 'Studies' Are Just More of the Same Perception Management Routines

    EPO management pays sites to publish a bunch of EPO-controlled propaganda; and we've meanwhile noticed that almost everyone in the press team of the EPO has left (to be replaced by the President's confidant)

  6. Links 14/7/2020: More Laptop Models With GNU/Linux and WordPress 5.5 Beta 2 is Out

    Links for the day

  7. Microsoft Has Not Changed at All (Only the Shallow Marketing and Control of What's Left of the Media Has Changed)

    Microsoft wants everybody to come closer so that everybody can be crushed; the tactics are largely the same

  8. The Founder of Black Duck Still Works for Microsoft

    Black Duck‘s founder, Doug Levin from Microsoft, isn’t doing a terrific job hiding his real loyalties and ‘masters’

  9. IRC Proceedings: Monday, July 13, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, July 13, 2020

  10. Links 14/7/2020: Claws Mail 3.17.6 and RSS Guard 3.7.0 Released

    Links for the day

  11. Microsoft Has Put the String “0xBIGBOOBS” Inside Linux (Kernel Driver for Microsoft's Windows-Only Proprietary Software, Formerly a GPL Violation); Reddit (Condé Nast) Bans You For Mentioning Such Things

    In this increasingly crazy atmosphere of mass sanctioning and permanent banning (removing everything or everyone that's perceived to be impolite) even "Linux" forums are banning people who point out Microsoft being a rogue corporation that's attacking GNU/Linux

  12. There's Apparently a New Boss (or Policy) at Red Hat/IBM

    The Fedora project doesn’t seem to care much about free speech, no matter one’s seniority in the project; as the person who relayed it to us has just put it, “they even eat their own.” (Longtime contributors) “He’s not a troll. He’s a contributor who rubbed some people the wrong way and now the banhammer is coming out. Fedora KDE was already collapsing and now it finally will.” (Note: Rex Dieter leads or led this project)

  13. There Cannot be Software Freedom Without Free Speech (Which is Nowadays Being Wrongly and Creatively Conflated With Racism)

    The time to speak out in favour of free speech is now; because the next phase typically involves removal (to be sold as "voluntary") of people whose political views are seen as professionally inadequate (recall what they did to Richard Stallman last September)

  14. [Humour/Meme] 'Offensive' Jokes

    Even humour itself is under attack now; people who cannot take/tolerate cartoons and banter are targeting the stand-up comedians, the cartoonists and so on

  15. The Media Does Not Like Talking About Linux (Which It Doesn't Understand Anyway). It Makes the News All About Linus.

    Just like back in May (or every other week) the news about Linux itself is being ignored and the subject is getting personified to make Linux seem rude and unruly

  16. Links 13/7/2020: Linux 5.8 RC5, Qt Creator Beta, Mexico Threatens GNU/Linux

    Links for the day

  17. [Humour/Meme] Embrace, Extend, and Curl

    The Curl project, a high-profile prisoner of GitHub, is again being 'embraced' by Microsoft (which already controls the project through GitHub)

  18. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, July 12, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, July 12, 2020

  19. [Humour/Meme] Half a Decade Has Passed and EPO Management Was Never Held Accountable for Illegal Surveillance

    A lot of people may no longer remember it, but the EPO can break privacy laws — as it still routinely does — with no consequences whatsoever

  20. Cleaning the Code

    War must go on; but it'll be more diverse and inclusive

  21. Why We Care About (Mis)Use of Language in Technology

    Software development communities are being divided over issues that would likely not tackle actual racism in any meaningful and profound way (just a symbolic way)

  22. Links 12/7/2020: KF6 Progress Report, GNUnet 0.13.1, Nano Becomes Default Terminal Text Editor in Fedora

    Links for the day

  23. They Always Worked for Microsoft (Directly and Indirectly) and Were Financially Rewarded for That

    Nat and Miguel, now put in charge of new weapons against software freedom (e.g. GitHub and NPM), have long worked for Microsoft (Nat was also an intern there); Techrights was right all along about this pair

  24. Red Hat Betrayed the Free Software Community With Its Software Patents' Stockpiling Drive and Then a Sale to the Biggest Software Patents Lobbyist

    In 2020 Red Hat is little but a shadow of IBM, whose patent policy continues to threaten software freedom and whose lobbying for software patents (under the guise of "HEY HI") persists uninterrupted; this growing problem oughtn't be unspeakable

  25. Politically Correct Tech

    This new video entitled “Politically Correct Tech” covers a topic we’ve spoken a great deal about

  26. [Humour/Meme] High on Production, Stoned on Pseudoscience

    All-time high ‘production’ levels at the European Patent Office (EPO) do not mean what they want people to think and what they try hard to hide

  27. Missing From EPO Management: Actual Scientists

    Political figures and opportunists with connections occupy top positions at top European agencies; this assures self-destructive policies that diminish progress and cushion corruption

  28. All Software Should Come With a Cheat Mode

    Cheat modes are useful for developers because they enable debugging, and are sometimes called "Debug mode"

  29. Linus Torvalds Checks If It's Still Inclusive Enough to 'Bash' Bad Technology (of the Company Whose TPM Pusher Has Just Successfully Pushed to Remove Many Words)

    In the age of endless control of language (e.g. large corporations pushing for "inclusive" language whilst earning billions from bombing of 'inferior' countries) we see that it is still possible to condemn corporations on technical grounds (at least if you’re Linus Torvalds)

  30. Even Before Microsoft Paid ('Joined') the Linux Foundation Jim Zemlin Had a Preference for Microsofters

    Even years before the Linux Foundation was receiving money from Microsoft it had a tendency to hire Microsoft’s people for key positions (a lot of people no longer remember that, but it’s still in the public record; it was Jim Zemlin who approached if not chased Mr. Ramji to offer him the job and the colleagues saw no problem with that)

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts