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

03.15.16

Consequences of Straining Staff: Patent Quality at the European Patent Office Has Gotten Rather Terrible

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:33 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Squeezing not only staff but also the EPO’s (traditionally) good reputation for short-term gains

Strainer

Summary: A look at some recent news and personal perspectives on the status quo of today’s European Patent Office, where examiners’ performance is measured using the wrong yardstick and patent quality is severely compromised, resulting in overpatenting that the public pays for dearly

THE EPO ‘results’ are being debunked already, but the EPO’s PR team keeps spreading that today, regardless of all the scrutiny [1, 2]. How much longer is this sustainable for?

Earlier today we spotted English language Chinese media citing the EPO’s ‘results’ which are basically embellished if not a half-truth/lie (or intentionally bad statistics).

“How much longer is this sustainable for?”Why is the EPO risking damage to its integrity and record on truth? Well, it already lies to journalists and to staff, so there’s probably not much reputation left to lose.

The other day we noticed EPO-friendly media citing the USPTO‘s Senior Counsel as follows:

USPTO Senior Counsel Mark Cohen notes that aggressive antitrust enforcement like that sought in the Hitachi Metals case could affect patenting activity in general, adding: “This can be of great concern in the non-SEP space, where a patentee may have a choice whether to disclose an invention or keep a proprietary method secret.”

Actually, this is what many in the software field do. They rely on hiding source code, copyright on Free software (that everyone can study, inspect and modify as long as copyleft is respected), and there’s hardly any room for antitrust enforcement in such a setting. There’s no rigid requirement imposed, nor are there patent lawsuits and shakedowns. India has been getting it right on software patents for many years and as WIPR put it a few days ago:

The revised guidelines on computer-related inventions by the Indian Patent Office imply a reversed position on whether software inventions should be patentable. Abhishek Pandurangi of Khurana & Khurana reports.

After the Indian Patent Office (IPO) published the first set of guidelines for examining patents for computer-related inventions in August, in February the office introduced an amended set of rules.

While the previous guidelines were kept in abeyance in response to strong protests by critics, a revision was expected, but surprisingly the IPO has replaced an excessively liberal set of guidelines indicating that any software is patentable with a contrary one which almost indicates that no software patents are allowed.

This article from Abhishek Pandurangi serves to remind us that much of the world (large populations) does not accept software patents, whereas the EPO increasingly does, unlike the US where Alice keeps marginalising them.

“The answers to the questions about patent leniency may actually be found in anonymous comments from insiders.”Simply put, under Battistelli there is a huge patent maximalism problem. Patent scope gets broadened in pursuit of additional profits, rendering any performance requirement invalid (comparing apples to oranges, if not actually patenting apples and oranges, which now seems possible at the EPO). Yesterday we saw this announcement titled “EPO Revokes a Patent of Biogen, Inc.’s (NASDAQ:BIIB) Top-Selling Tecfidera”. Why was this patent granted in the first place? Working under pressure or in rush? Inclination to lower the patent bar and issue/grant bogus patents? Whatever it is, as the article put it: “The European Patent Office (EPO) has revoked European Patent EP2137537, a method of use patent concerning Tecfidera, last week. If left unresolved, the move will take a big hit on Biogen’s balance sheets because sales of Tecfidera account for a third of its overall revenue in 2015.”

The answers to the questions about patent leniency may actually be found in anonymous comments from insiders. While many comments on the debunking of EPO ‘results’ have come from EPO apologists (if not worse) who are simply shooting the messenger, some of them come from insiders who acknowledge the problem (we have been hearing about these problems for a while). To quote:

I accept that life always involves compromises. But it is distressing to see EPO examiners slowly turning into the three wise monkeys (that is, if you don’t look too hard for problematic prior art, and don’t think too hard about strict compliance with all of the provisions of the EPC, then examination becomes a lot simpler… and faster).

I fully understand what is driving this process, as applicants, the EPO and national patent offices all stand to benefit. However, it does look like it could be the beginning of a process of erosion of the fundamental bargain with the public that underpins the whole patent system.

I am not saying that where we stand now is definitely unacceptable. Instead, I am merely pointing out that what appears to be a drive from the EPO for “examination light” represents a potentially dangerous trend that needs counterbalancing with strong input from voices representing the public interest.

I say this not as a “patent denier” but rather someone who believes in the patent system, and who wants to cherish it for many years to come.

Think about it. If the pendulum swings too far in terms of permissiveness, then there are certain to be cases where aggressive patent owners assert blatantly invalid patents against competitors with shallow pockets – potentially aided by the €11k fee at the UPC for filing a counterclaim for invalidity. It will not take many cases where a patent owner can be painted as a bad actor for there to be overreactions in the opposite direction. If you have any doubts about what can happen, then witness the effect that lobbying by anti-patent pressure groups has had on “gene” (or other “natural phenomenon”) patents in the US and Australia. Scary stuff!

I agree that some of the professed aims of the ECFS system are laudable. Indeed, there is no point prioritising cases where everyone is happy to let sleeping dogs lie. However, it is not hard to see that much of what is prioritised by ECFS are the “easy wins”, where examination is very straightforward.

The inevitable short term hike in productivity figures produced by ECFS is not to be welcomed for two reasons. Firstly, it will leave a rump of “clearly difficult” cases that no examiner wants to tackle – because the time taken to sort them out will be too detrimental to the examiner’s apparent productivity. Secondly, it is likely to provide a strong temptation to examiners to keep their productivity figures high by waiving through “borderline” cases – ie. treating them as if they are also “easy wins”.

Nobody expects the EPO’s search and examination to be exhaustive. However, they will be doing us all a favour if a way is found to reward examiners for doing their job properly – and not just speedily. In this respect, it is important to acknowledge that it is impossible to constantly drive down the time taken to search and examine applications without compromising on quality. The best that you can hope for is an acceptable balance between speed and quality. Thus, management initiatives that seek to constantly increase productivity look increasingly like a drive to reach the bottom of the barrel.

Here is another noteworthy and long comment:

Based on our own experience and talking to others in the profession, it seems that for some examiners getting examination reports issued quickly involves being totally unhelpful, simply not dealing with issues or throwing in a load of amendments and gambling on the applicant just accepting what is given to avoid remaining in examination.

I have recently seen a first examination report to issue on amendments filed in 2011 in response to the EESR. Unfortunately, an amendment shown on a manuscript amended copy of the claims filed with the response did not make it into the clean copy of the claims. The amendment was described at length in the covering letter and is shown clearly on the manuscript amended copy. Rather than examine the claims as including that amendment or call the representative to ask him to submit a clean copy of the claims that included the amendment, some four plus years after the filing of the response, the examiner examined the claims as those the amendment did not exist. Furthermore, despite the fact the representative’s letter explained various reasons why other features of claim 1 distinguished over the cited prior art, the examiner has just parroted the objections from the EESR without giving any clue as to why he/she disagrees with the representative’s analysis. So about as helpful as a chocolate teapot. However, somewhat craftily, an allowable dependent claim has been allowed.

In a case of my own, we submitted amended claims on entering the regional phase accompanied by a two-part letter explaining the basis for the amendments. Ahead of the search report we got a note from the examiner saying that no basis for the amendments had been supplied when the amendments were filed and if this was not supplied within a month or two, I don’t remember which now, the amended claims would not be searched. We were given no more information than that so wrote back pointing out that we had filed a two page letter explaining the basis for the amendments. The response from the examiner was to issue a partial search report with the comment that neither our first letter or our second letter explained the basis for amendments. As far as I can make out, since the **** has not been sufficiently helpful to provide any useful indication, he just did not consider the explanation of the amendments to a couple of claims sufficiently complete. Leaving aside whether he is entitled to ask for further detail at that stage, we might have been able to move things forward if he’d just said asked us to provide additional explanation of the amendments made to particular claims instead of sending out a communication which was misleading and, basically, factually incorrect.

These are just two examples I am aware of and I am guessing that neither I nor those I know in the profession are being singled out for special treatment.

Basically we are seeing cases that already suffer from long delays in examination making no meaningful progress because examiners are simply bloody-minded, unhelpful or do not take the trouble to explain the issue. How much this is down to the mindset of individual examiners and how much a response to management pressure, I really do not know; whatever , it is not doing the reputation of the EPO any favours.

As the above put it, “cases that already suffer from long delays in examination [are] not doing the reputation of the EPO any favours.” Discriminatory practices aren’t the solution to this.

Not only delays are the problem; patent quality too is a serious issues, including grants of software patents in spite of the EPC.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

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. The Sad State of GNU/Linux News Sites

    The ‘media coup’ of corporate giants (that claim to be 'friends') means that history of GNU/Linux is being distorted and lied about; it also explains prevalent lies such as "Microsoft loves Linux" and denial of GNU/Free software



  2. EPO President Along With Bristows, Managing IP and Other Team UPC Boosters Are Lobbying for Software Patents in Clear and Direct Violation of the EPC

    A calm interpretation of the latest wave of lobbying from litigation professionals, i.e. people who profit when there are lots of patent disputes and even expensive lawsuits which may be totally frivolous (for example, based upon fake patents that aren't EPC-compliant)



  3. Links 15/9/2019: Radeon ROCm 2.7.2, KDE Frameworks 5.62.0, PineTime and Bison 3.4.2

    Links for the day



  4. Illegal/Invalid Patents (IPs) Have Become the 'Norm' in Europe

    Normalisation of invalid patents (granted by the EPO in defiance of the EPC) is a serious problem, but patent law firms continue to exploit that while this whole 'patent bubble' lasts (apparently the number of applications will continue to decrease because the perceived value of European Patents diminishes)



  5. Patent Maximalists, Orbiting the European Patent Office, Work to 'Globalise' a System of Monopolies on Everything

    Monopolies on just about everything are being granted in defiance of the EPC and there are those looking to make this violation ‘unitary’, even worldwide if not just EU-wide



  6. Unitary Patent (UPC) Promotion by Team Battistelli 'Metastasising' in Private Law Firms

    The EPO's Albert Keyack (Team Battistelli) is now in Team UPC as Vice President of Kilburn & Strode LLP; he already fills the media with lies about the UPC, as one can expect



  7. Microsoft Targets GNU/Linux Advocates With Phony Charm Offensives and Fake 'Love'

    The ways Microsoft depresses GNU/Linux advocacy and discourages enthusiasm for Software Freedom is not hard to see; it's worth considering and understanding some of these tactics (mostly assimilation-centric and love-themed), which can otherwise go unnoticed



  8. Proprietary Software Giants Tell Open Source 'Communities' That Proprietary Software Giants Are 'Friends'

    The openwashing services of the so-called 'Linux' Foundation are working; companies that are inherently against Open Source are being called "Open" and some people are willing to swallow this bait (so-called 'compromise' which is actually surrender to proprietary software regimes)



  9. Microsoft Pays the Linux Foundation for Academy Software Foundation, Which the Linux Foundation is Outsourcing to Microsoft

    Microsoft has just bought some more seats and more control over Free/Open Source software; all it had to do was shell out some 'slush funds'



  10. Links 14/9/2019: SUSE CaaS Platform, Huawei Laptops With GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  11. Links 13/9/2019: Catfish 1.4.10, GNOME Firmware 3.34.0 Release

    Links for the day



  12. Links 12/9/2019: GNU/Linux at Huawei, GNOME 3.34 Released

    Links for the day



  13. Links 12/9/2019: Manjaro 18.1 and KaOS 2019.09 Releases

    Links for the day



  14. EPO: Give Us Low-Quality Patent Applications, Patent Trolls Have Use for Those

    What good is the EPC when the EPO feels free to ignore it and nobody holds the EPO accountable for it? At the moment we're living in a post-EPC Europe where the only thing that counts is co-called 'products' (i.e. quantity, not quality).



  15. Coverage for Sponsors: What the Linux Foundation Does is Indistinguishable From Marketing Agencies' Functions

    The marketing agency that controls the name "Linux" is hardly showing any interest in technology or in journalism; it's just buying media coverage for sponsors and this is what it boils down to for the most part (at great expense)



  16. Watch Out, Linus Torvalds: Microsoft Bought Tons of Git Repositories and Now It Goes After Linux

    Microsoft reminds us how E.E.E. tactics work; Microsoft is just hijacking its competition and misleading the market (claiming the competition to be its own, having "extended" it Microsoft's way with proprietary code)



  17. Links 11/9/2019: Acer in LVFS, RawTherapee 5.7 and Qt 5.12.5 Released

    Links for the day



  18. Linux Foundation Inc. Buys Press About Itself and Media Coverage for Sponsors

    Sponsoring so-called ‘news’ sites is bad enough; it is even worse when such media then covers you and your sponsors, such as Snyk (a Linux Foundation sponsor/member, fancier word for client)



  19. Links 11/9/2019: Django 3.0 Alpha, Sunsetting Python 2

    Links for the day



  20. Web Site Called Linux.com Still Exists Only or Mostly to Promote Anti-Linux Firms and Openwashing

    As the Linux Foundation transitions into the Public Relations (PR) industry/domain we should accept if not expect Linux.com to become an extension of PR business models; the old Linux.com is long gone (all staff fired)



  21. Links 10/9/2019: Krita 4.2.6, Ubuntu 19.10 to Boot Faster

    Links for the day



  22. What the Linux Foundation's Jim Zemlin Really Thinks of Desktop/Laptop GNU/Linux

    Interesting words from Ken Starks resonate well with what we nowadays see in the so-called 'Linux' Foundation, whose dedication to Linux is like that of a circus to a monkeys' sideshow



  23. Links 10/9/2019: Kate Planning and GnuCash 3.7

    Links for the day



  24. The Sad Truth That Linux Foundation Staff is Against GPL/Copyleft and Sometimes Against Linux (Unless It's Run Under Vista 10)

    The Linux Foundation works for whoever pays the Linux Foundation and sadly that usually means companies that aren’t dedicated to Linux, to Software Freedom or even to simple truths and to the Rule of Law



  25. Microsoft Uses the Word “Linux” to Promote Privacy-Infringing Proprietary Software and Spread FUD

    The discussion about “Linux” is being saturated if not replaced by misinformation and marketing of Linux’s competition — owing largely to googlebombing tactics that the Linux Foundation participates in rather than tackle



  26. Patent Charlatans and Frauds Are Doing a Disservice to Europe and to Europe's Patent System

    Tax evasion and UPC lies aren’t going to help the integrity of the patent system; au contraire — those are becoming an existential threat to the system being exploited by law firms (and accountants)



  27. The European Patent Convention (“EPC”) Does Not Allow Patenting of Life Itself

    Unless the underlying rules are respected and Europe's largest patent office actually follows the laws it's governed by, Europe's patent system won't promote innovation; the European Patent Office's decision on Alexion (patent application 3124029 rejected) is good news



  28. European Patent Office's Cooperation and Collaboration With Patent Trolls Instead of Science and Technology

    EPO staff ought to be alarmed by the Office choosing to work with litigation and shakedown 'societies' rather than actual scientists, who may or may not choose patents as part of their strategy



  29. Links 9/9/2019: KStars v3.3.6 and LXLE 18.04.3 Released

    Links for the day



  30. Casual Bribery by Bill Gates Helps Control the Media and Spread Microsoft Lies (Such as “Microsoft Loves Linux”)

    Microsoft's notion of "love" redefines the concept of a corporation and it's reducible to intentional lies that enable a silent, gradual takeover of the competition


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