Source (original): Rospatent
Battistelli has (almost singlehandedly!) done so much damage to the EPO. He brought into the EPO some truly dodgy people and former colleagues (and their family members), he attacked the staff representatives, and he even attacked justice itself (putting aside the poetic/Orwellian action of attacking a judge).
"He brought into the EPO some truly dodgy people and former colleagues (and their family members), he attacked the staff representatives, and he even attacked justice itself (putting aside the poetic/Orwellian action of attacking a judge)."How on Earth is Battistelli still working at the EPO and permitted to waste extraordinary amounts of money buying the media while lying to everyone? "In a sane world (not Eponia)," as I put it yesterday, "he'd be asked to pack up his things and leave by day's end." The only people dismissed so far are basically 'whistleblowers', i.e. people who are brave enough to say the truth -- however politely -- about Battistelli. It's like Eponia became a miniature North Korea at the very heart of Europe and politicians lack the authority (sometimes even the will) to intervene.
According to this new article from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP: "In an attempt to tackle the backlog, the EPO has launched a new initiative to encourage applicants to abandon their applications in exchange for a refund of the official examination fee."
"Patent applications will have run out in a couple of years. What then? No more examination at all?"Well done, Battistelli. Great job! So granting/approving (often in error) all sorts of very old applications takes its toll on new ones. What will be left of the EPO other than a fossil if this carries on? Patent applications will have run out in a couple of years. What then? No more examination at all? No examiners? Machine 'examination' alone? All applications accepted by default, irrespective of merit and novelty? Quite a few EPO insiders seem to believe so when they fear the worst and look at the French system, examining its obvious failures.
Another new article from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP says: "In this edition, we consider the IP5 offices’ proscription against the introduction of new subject matter into a patent application that has already been filed. While it is not surprising that all IP5 offices disallow introduction of new matter into a patent application, what constitutes “new matter” differs among the IP5 offices, as discussed below."
IP5 is a collective term referring to large patent offices, including the notorious (for patent quality) USPTO. Mind the fact that the US is moving away from software patents right now (more on that in the weekend), whereas the EPO moves in the opposite direction. As a patent attorney implied the other day, the EPO is now more software patents-friendly than the USPTO. To quote [1, 2]: "I'm working on a family of software patents/apps where EPO allowed patent, surveved [sic] 2 oppos; but US rejected as ineligible. The software patent family is large, many countries. ONLY THE USPTO FOUND SUBJECT MATTER INELIGIBLE."
"If the EPO gets away with granting more and more software patents (UPC would contribute a great deal towards that), then we should expect a lot of patent trolls to park in Europe and damage a lot of businesses (some of which I heard from personally)."The "EPO is corrupt," Benjamin Henrion responded to him, reflecting a change in public perceptions.
If the EPO gets away with granting more and more software patents (UPC would contribute a great deal towards that), then we should expect a lot of patent trolls to park in Europe and damage a lot of businesses (some of which I heard from personally). This, in turn, would suck money out of the economy, elevate prices of things, and make Europe a lot less competitive. But hey, Battistelli can crow about "production, production, production!" (at least until the applications run out and operations dry up)
Yesterday we saw the EPO once again promoting its India-Europe software patents fest. Patent maximalists and boosters like Battistelli (who has no patents and no scientific background) would have us believe that the more the merrier; obviously! See what the page says; it speaks explicitly about software patents which are banned in Europe and also banned in India.
Speaking of which, here we have a British site publishing a new article titled "Patenting the abstract – can you patent code?"
It was published this morning and it talks about Europe and the UK:
Patent applicants, and indeed patent attorneys, can spend a lot of time gazing at that window, occasionally hurling rocks at it: where does the line lie between a computer program ‘as such’ and a computer program which can count as a ‘real’ invention? There is certainly no hard and fast answer to that and each idea must be assessed on its own merits. What we do have is a body of examples from cases which have been considered by the European Patent Office (EPO) and the UK courts which at least may help to clarify the boundary. In the examples which follow, I have made no particular distinction between cases in the UK and before the European Patent Office (EPO) although in fact there are differences (despite a broad intention of conformity). Currently, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) seems much more likely to raise an objection that an idea is excluded from patentability – is a non-invention – than the EPO. That doesn’t mean computer-implemented ideas get a particularly easy ride before the EPO; the EPO’s current practice is only to consider ‘technical’ features as contributing to the inventiveness of an idea and, if your only technical feature is a common computer, the same idea that could be identified as a non-invention at the UKIPO could be determined to be not patentable as it is not inventive when considered at the EPO. That said, if I was asked to choose how to attempt to protect a computer-implemented idea in the UK right now, I’d chose to do so via the EPO – it is my view that the UK IPO is currently less friendly to potential ‘non-inventions’ than the EPO.
Elite technology companies (including TCS, Yahoo, Samsung, Ericsson, Microsoft and Philips) from more than 10 countries had their CRI applications rejected in India in the past six months. Besides rejections, many applicants, including high-tech Indian companies such as Wipro, have started to receive negative examination reports calling for rejection of their patent applications. This can call into question the quality of patent examination in India for inventions in advanced software as well as communication technologies.