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

11.12.16

Decline in Patent Quality at the EPO Increasingly Reaffirmed by More Branches, Insiders, and Even the European Commission

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Not everything under the Sun needs to be patented after all…

“The only patent that is valid is one which this Court has not been able to get its hands on.”

Supreme Court Justice Jackson

Summary: The lowered quality control at the European Patent Office gives reasons for concern and legitimises those who worry about Europe losing its edge in pursuit of misguided goals

The quality of EPs (European Patents at the EPO) is declining. Their quality is poor not only in the eyes of longtime workers who cross horns with Battistelli as even new workers tell me that the workplace encourages quantity, not quality. As one examiner put it, “I feel bad to say that because it brings bad reputation to EPO, to EPC, and maybe to my colleagues.”

If workers do not manage to save the EPO from Battistelli’s misguided plan that culminates in massive layoffs, then the Office will likely collapse or become a shadow of its former self, damaging Europe’s economy in the process. Watch what a burden the USPTO became to the US economy. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has openly complained about this recently; then the FTC did too (taking note of the parasitic role of patent trolls).

According to an article that IP Kat published yesterday, the European Commission belatedly steps in with an effort to enforce the Biotech Directive and prevent the EPO from granting patents on tomatoes (among other natural things like seeds and plants). We covered this last week, but it’s still in the news. To quote:

The Commission argues that the EPO was not bound to take the legislative history of the Biotech Directive into account and thus came to a different conclusion (but it did take it into account…). While admitting that the final wording of the Biotech Directive does not contain a provision on the patentability of products obtained through essentially biological processes, according to the Commission, “having regard to the preparatory work related to the Directive, as summarised above, certain provisions of the Directive are only consistent if plants/animals obtained by essentially biological processes are understood as being excluded from its scope”, referring to Articles 3(2), 4(1) and 4(3) of the Biotech Directive.

George Lucas of Marks & Clerk wrote about the role of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in this. It said:

Following the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in G 2/12 (Tomatoes II/State of Israel) that “… Article 53(b) EPC does not have a negative effect on the allowability of a product claim directed to plants or plant material…”, as reported in our article last year, the appeal that led to this referral to the EBA has been decided. In the decision, T 1242/06 (Tomatoes II/State of Israel), the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) concluded that the subject matter of the claims of auxiliary request I was not excluded under Art 53(b).

The TBA decided to remit the decision to the Opposition Division with the order to maintain the patent, EP1211926, on the basis of auxiliary request I, claim 1 of which is reproduced below.

Another new article from Marks & Clerk also speaks of the EPO Board of Appeals, dealing with the notion of lack of impartiality — something which Battistelli certainly contributes to with his outrageous moves. To quote the opening part:

A recent decision from the EPO Board of Appeals, T 1647/15, deals with, amongst other things, the issue of suspected partiality of a member of the Opposition Division, in this case the chairman.

By all indications, as sad as it may seem, Battistelli’s solution to everything seems to be “UPC”, no matter how undesirable it is to the lion's share of Europe's businesses.

Only days ago the EPO brought its malicious “unitary” agenda to EPOPIC, as according to its own tweets [1, 2, 3]: “Yolanda Sanchéz García presented mock-ups of the Unitary Patent Protection Register. Available soon [...] Unitary Patent Protection Register: part of the EPR, same look & feel, contains info in Rule 16 UPR, allows file inspection…”

The UPR (Unitary Patent Protection) is described in the EPO’s Web site. It’s not quite the same as the UPC, but centralisation and broader enforcement seems to be the trend. There is no UPC landslide for Battistelli and no signs of anything “unitary” or “community” or “EU” (previous buzzwords for the same thing), so why were jobs even advertised for it?

The current trends witnessed inside and outside the EPO give reasons for concern. It lacks quality control and it now works to expand the scope of applicability of rather bad patents which it grants. Trolls would love the idea! So would their patent law firms.

There happens to be some good discussion about this at IP Kat this week. A couple of people correctly point out that applicants have been willing to pay a lot for EPs because of the high (perceived) certainty that courts would rule in their favour and not throw away their patents, costing them a fortune in legal fees (in vain). Patent quality was the focus of all the following comments, namely:

To Dubious, I agree re [patent] quality.

To EP No.
“If you feel the quality has declined, it is your job to defend your applicant’s rights by complaining to the EPO management that the quality you have received has declined.

There is no need to refer to the actual product, but examples can help.

And do it publicly, preferably not anonymously.”

That’s a silly suggestion. My role is to represent my clients’ interests, not to destroy them for political purposes.

“If you won’t do anything for you, we will not risk our job being proactive for you, as we will get problems when we do anything without being prompted to do so.”

Difference is, it is your job to apply the EPC diligently. You have responsibilities the wrong way round.

People from the EPO still tell us (even this week) that patent quality is declining. Battistelli is ruining the whole thing because he ceased to care about the quality of output; the public would pay the price. Here is another comment:

And who decided what is diligently? I think we both know that it is not the examiners. Effectively in this case the judge is pressurising the key to decide within an ever shorter time. The judge thinks he could do it without delay so everyone else should. If the jury spends too long – no matter how complicated the issues are or are made by the parties, the judge will apply sanctions for not meeting his target.
So who has the biggest interest in the jury’s diligence??

And “with current management,” another person said, “chose a very bad system to measure our quality” of patents. Here is the full comment:

Well, I’m not killing my career for political purposes.
I am diligently applying the PC, as far as I am given time to work on the dossier.

And please tell my bosses, that they are here to apply the EPC. (I agree, that’s not your job, and there you could have your career killed. But complaining about our product quality is your right, and likely even your obligation. The arrow would be pointed differently, as in the first case the repercussion arrow would go against the one telling the boss he did it wrong, and in the second case you point the boss’s arrow against the examiner taking shortcuts and producing things you do not want to pay our high fees for.)

If you, as outsider, are not willing to stand up, where the possibilities of repercussion are difficult to obtain by our politicians, how do you expect me to stand up, when my career, my job, my pension, my health insurance depends on it? And when I lose my job, I do not access to unemployment benefits. So I’ll loose my house/home too. And the impact on my family?

Sorry for your client(s), they deserve better. But with current management, which chose a very bad system to measure our quality, and considers quantity a major element of our work quality, I fear we are on an even steeper slippery road than last year.

“Every patent attorney is the same bound by the EPC as every examiner,” Barbi wrote. “If a patent attorney argues against an examiner than he must do it in goof faith and vice versa.”

Here is a response posted in reply to this:

Every patent attorney is the same bound by the EPC as every examiner! If a patent attorney argues agains an examiner than he must do it in goof faith and vice versa.

Well said Barbi !

I’m glad that you didn’t add “The President and the Admin Council are also bound by the EPC! If they argue against staff then they must do it in good faith.”

Let’s all focus on examiner-bashing.
Nobody else could possible be to blame for this mess.

Just like in the old Soviet system:
THE MANAGEMENT IS ALWAYS RIGHT!

Another comment on this topic:

Diligently = a far higher standard than is frequently applied today. Time is important, but only to the extent you are on the right track initially.

Searching for and analysing prior art is a time-consuming task, agreed. A diligent search is at least more than cursory. However, it is not this aspect I am challenging regarding quality. Today, simple misapplication of the law, or to be more precise, a complete lack of application of the law to the case in hand is all too common.

Polymorph patents are granted for merely being novel. Frequently, no benefit is even described, let a lone an arguably unexpected benefit. The EPO no longer even attempt to apply their own guidelines. See the EPO presentations by Dr Sofia Papathoma and others. This is not a time-consuming examination task.

Chemical compound patents are granted with no described industrial utility. I recently read a very detailed IPRP written by an EPO examiner that did the inventors job for them, explaining the utility and inventiveness of the compounds. I had thought that the IPRP must have been repeating the applicant’s arguments from their written opinion response, but no, it was the examiner’s own work. They would certainly make a good patent attorney with their arguments, because the case ultimately granted. Unfortunately, the patent drafter, possibly a non-chemist scientist, hadn’t performed their role competently. Luckily they had the examiner batting for them. The examiner didn’t rush this task, however, they simply failed in their duty to make the most basic of objections.

It is most unfortunate that many of today’s examiners operate to a far lower professional standard than in previous decades.

“EPO management has created conditions in which examiners operate to a far lower professional standard than in previous decades,” said the following person. Some day in the near future we will provide more information about that. Here is the full comment:

It is most unfortunate that many of today’s examiners operate to a far lower professional standard than in previous decades.

Shouldn’t that be redrafted ???

For example:
“It is most unfortunate that today’s EPO management has created conditions in which examiners operate to a far lower professional standard than in previous decades.”

Don’t be so quick to blame the examiners.
Start by looking at Article 10 EPC.

http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar10.html

“No,” said another person in reply to the same thing. “Unless you are saying that PB has ordered the hiring of incompetent staff.”

What the above serves to show is somewhat of a consensus that Battistelli has been lying about patent quality, which truly fell since he took over. No doubt he will lie to his chinchillas about it in December’s meeting.

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 Lobbyists Are Trying to Subvert US Law in Favour of Patent Predators

    Mingorance, Kappos, Underweiser and other lobbyists for the software patents agenda (paid by firms like Microsoft and IBM) keep trying to undo progress, notably the bans on software patents



  2. Patent Trolls Based in East Texas Are Affected Very Critically by TC Heartland

    The latest situation in Texas (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in particular), which according to new analyses is the target of legal scrutiny for the 'loopholes' it provided to patent trolls in search of easy legal battles



  3. Alice Remains a Strong Precedential Decision and the Media Has Turned Against Software Patents

    The momentum against the scourge of software patents and the desperation among patent 'professionals' (people who don't create/develop/invent) is growing



  4. Harm Still Caused by Granted Software Patents

    A roundup of recent (past week's) announcements, including legal actions, contingent upon software patents in an age when software patents bear no real legitimacy



  5. Links 18/11/2017: Raspberry Digital Signage 10, New Nano

    Links for the day



  6. 23,000 Posts

    23,000 blog posts milestone reached in 11 years



  7. BlackBerry Cannot Sell Phones and Apple Looks Like the Next BlackBerry (a Pile of Patents)

    The lifecycle of mobile giants seems to typically end in patent shakedown, as Apple loses its business to Android just like Nokia and BlackBerry lost it to Apple



  8. EFF and CCIA Use Docket Navigator and Lex Machina to Identify 'Stupid Patents' (Usually Software Patents That Are Not Valid)

    In spite of threats and lawsuits from bogus 'inventors' whom they criticise, EFF staff continues the battle against patents that should never have been granted at all



  9. The Australian Productivity Commission Shows the Correct Approach to Setting Patent Laws and Scope

    Australia views patents on software as undesirable and acts accordingly, making nobody angry except a bunch of law firms that profited from litigation and patent maximalism



  10. EPO 'Business' From the United States Has Nosedived and UPC is on Its Death Throes

    Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot further accelerate the ultimate demise of the EPO (getting rid of experienced and thus 'expensive' staff), for which there is no replacement because there is a monopoly (which means Europe will suffer severely)



  11. Links 17/11/2017: KDE Applications 17.12, Akademy 2018 Plans

    Links for the day



  12. Today's EPO and Team UPC Do Not Work for Europe But Actively Work Against Europe

    The tough reality that some Europeans actively work to undermine science and technology in Europe because they personally profit from it and how this relates to the Unitary Patent (UPC), which is still aggressively lobbied for, sometimes by bribing/manipulating the media, academia, and public servants



  13. Links 16/11/2017: WordPress 4.9 and GhostBSD 11.1 Released

    Links for the day



  14. The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) is Rightly Upset If Not Shocked at What Battistelli and Bergot Are Doing to the Office

    The EPO's dictatorial management is destroying everything that's left (of value) at the Office while corrupting academia and censoring discussion by threatening those who publish comments (gagging its own staff even when that staff posts anonymously)



  15. EPO Continues to Disobey the Law on Software Patents in Europe

    Using the same old euphemisms, e.g. "computer-implemented inventions" (or "CII"), the EPO continues to grant patents which are clearly and strictly out of scope



  16. Links 16/11/2017: Tails 3.3, Deepin 15.5 Beta

    Links for the day



  17. Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot Have Just Ensured That EPO Will Get Even More Corrupt

    Revolving door-type tactics will become more widespread at the EPO now that the management (Battistelli and his cronies) hires for low cost rather than skills/quality and minimises staff retention; this is yet another reason to dread anything like the UPC, which prioritises litigation over examination



  18. Australia is Banning Software Patents and Shelston IP is Complaining as Usual

    The Australian Productivity Commission, which defies copyright and patent bullies, is finally having policies put in place that better serve the interests of Australians, but the legal 'industry' is unhappy (as expected)



  19. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defended by Technology Giants, by Small Companies, by US Congress and by Judges, So Why Does USPTO Make It Less Accessible?

    In spite of the popularity of PTAB and the growing need/demand for it, the US patent system is apparently determined to help it discriminate against poor petitioners (who probably need PTAB the most)



  20. Declines in Patent Quality at the EPO and 'Independent' Judges Can No Longer Say a Thing

    The EPO's troubling race to the bottom (of patent quality) concerns the staff examiners and the judges, but they cannot speak about it without facing rather severe consequences



  21. The EPO is Now Corrupting Academia, Wasting Stakeholders' Money Lying to Stakeholders About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court/Unitary Patent (UPC) is a dying project and the EPO, seeing that it is going nowhere fast, has resorted to new tactics and these tactics cost a lot of money (at the expense of those who are being lied to)



  22. Links 15/11/2017: Fedora 27 Released, Linux Mint Has New Betas

    Links for the day



  23. Patents Roundup: Packet Intelligence, B.E. Technology, Violin, and Square

    The latest stories and warnings about software patents in the United States



  24. Decline of Skills Level of Staff Like Examiners and Impartiality (Independence) of Judges at the EPO Should Cause Concern, Alarm

    Access to justice is severely compromised at the EPO as staff is led to rely on deficient tools for determining novelty while judges are kept out of the way or ill-chosen for an agenda other than justice



  25. Links 14/11/2017: GNU/Linux at Samsung, Firefox 57 Quantum

    Links for the day



  26. Microsoft: Sheltering Oneself From Patent Litigation While Passing Patents for Trolls to Attack GNU/Linux

    Another closer look at Provenance Asset Holdings and what exactly it is (connection to AST, part of the cartel Microsoft subsidises to shield itself)



  27. The Patent Trolls' Lobby is Losing the Battle for Europe

    The situation in Europe is looking grim for patent trolls, for their policies and the envisioned system (which they lobbied for) isn't coming to fruition and their main casualty is the old (and functioning) EPO



  28. Unitary Patent (UPC) is Dead to the EPO and ANSERA is Not the Answer as Patent Quality Declines and Talented Staff Leaves

    EPOPIC comes to an end and the EPO does not mention the UPC 'content' in it; ANSERA, in the meantime, raises more questions than it answers and IP Kat makes a formal query



  29. Why Honest Journalism on Patent Matters Barely Exists

    Media coverage in the area of patent law is still appalling as it's dominated if not monopolised by those who benefit from patent maximalism



  30. Patent Maximalism Around the World

    A roundup of stories or spin observed over the past week, mostly favouring those who profit from patents rather than creation of anything


CoPilotCo

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

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts