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

12.27.16

Leaked: Letter to Quality Support (DQS) at the European Patent Office (EPO)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

One has to wonder how many more letters like this are being suppressed (never seen by the outside world) and how widespread these problems really are

Letters

Summary: Example of abysmal service at the EPO, where high staff turnover and unreasonable pressure from above may be leading to communication issues that harm stakeholders the most

THE FOLLOWING IS AN anonymised letter to senior EPO staff, bemoaning what was a horrible (and possibly not exceptional) service from the EPO, which caused enormous financial loss and the loss of many years (stuck in a limbo).

████████████████ ████████████████
Director, Directorate 2.5.2
Quality Support (DQS)
Principal Directorate Quality Management I DG2
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
Germany

Application No: █ █ █ █ █

Dear Mr. ████████████████████,

Re Letter of ██ & ██ ███

Under rule 71 (2): -

‘Any communication under Article 94, paragraph 3, shall contain a reasoned statement covering, where appropriate, all the grounds against the grant of the European patent.’

At the first oral hearing the EPO stated that Claim 1 as set out in document ██ met the EPC criteria for grant. It was recognised that dependent claims along with possible additional IP that could be added. The directions of the chairman were that these small outstanding matters were to be addressed by email. This resulted in submission of ██████. This provided 4 areas for discussion and detailed mark-up of the changes. There was no separate response to this communication. The response that was given was added by way of an addendum to the intention to grant Rule 71 (3) of ████.

In contravention of Rule 71 (2) the response did not include a reasoned response on all grounds. There was no way of telling which mark-up was acceptable and which wasn’t. Had a full response been provided I would have known those part that may have been acceptable or not could have been addressed or incorporated into any further revision. In fact this failure to provide a full response is confirmed by the fact that no sooner than the initial objections were met than further grounds of objection by the EPO were added (see EPO’s later correspondence). The last such revision of objection being set out in the examining divisions letter of ███. Not only have I been subject to a grossly incomplete first response but further objections have been drip fed over months greatly adding to delay. The last of these objections I haven’t even been given an opportunity to contest because the examining division has refused the application in its entirety; not withstanding that the EPO has stated that a patent could be granted. It would appear that if you challenge the EPO you simply lose the IP that is rightly yours. Why was Rule 71 (2) not followed and why am I not given the opportunity to respond and possibly correct objections before my application is refused?

In your letter you state: “A grant can only be given on the basis of text approved by the applicant.” This would suggest that Rule 71 (3) (the intention to grant) is only instigated when agreement has been reached. I am left confused by the approach of the EPO on this front. The first letter of intent to grant was made under Rule 71 (3) on ███. This was later withdrawn. The exact same approach was then adopted on ████. In your letter of ███ you state that the text was not approved by me. The text in both instances was the same. As the text was not approved I do not understand why the EPO moved to issuing a letter of intention to grant. What had changed between the withdrawal of the intention to grant of ██ and later resubmission of the same words in ██? As detailed in the previous paragraph it is clear from the changing grounds of the EPO that discussions with the EPO were ongoing as at ███. Why are applications refused when discussions are ongoing? Does the applicant have no right of reply? Why was the intention to grant issued when clearly agreement had not been reached? The evidence suggests that this approach has simply been used as a procedural move to refuse the application and curtail criticism.

From paragraph 7 of your letter of ███ it would appear that under Rule 71 (3) applicants are allowed to contest wording but if they do so they run the risk of a complete refusal of your application! The right to contest looks more like Russian Roulette. It would appear that the applicant is being restricted from contesting his case. At the point applicants are offered the prospect of contesting wording, the consequences of doing so should be set out in BOLD print. This they are not. In fact the insight in your letter is the first I have heard of this position and it came precisely at the same moment that this action was taken. You have previously provided a full set of references to substantiate the legal basis for the actions of the EPO but alas there are none here. Please could you supply me with the legal basis for this and references as you have done previously. I think it is critical that all applicants should understand when they are genuinely allowed to contest points and clearly when they are not.

In your letter of ████ paragraph ███ you have still failed to address the contradiction that the EPO is claiming inventive step and no inventive step on identical wording. You claim that my suggestion that the division contradicts itself may simply be due to a misinterpretation of the communication of the division (para 11). Please could you tell me what this misinterpretation is because I haven’t clue and you haven’t stated what it is? In para ██ you state that ███ has been deemed inventive with regard to the document ██. This issue concerning contradiction can readily be resolved if you or your examining division simply tell me what this inventive step is. Currently the examiner is complaining about the metal pipes of the heat exchanged as not being inventive, yet the wording concerning the metal pipes is the same in all documents ██, ██ and ██. You have asserted that ██ shows inventive step over ███, please can you tell me what it is? I bet this cannot answered honestly without agreeing with my assertion about contradiction is correct. Why is the inventive step not documented in the minutes of the oral hearings?

In para ██ of your letter ███ you claim that; “the EPO has taken all possible steps to support your constituent (me)”. I ask you then: -

1. Why did the EPO not suggest I seek, or they themselves seek, an adjournment to the oral proceedings when they knew I could not attend due to being on my honeymoon?
2. Why did the EPO not tell me that I may lose my patent all together if I contested the EPO’s wording or lack of dependent claims?
3. Why has the EPO steadfastly refused to address the issue that the EPO contradicts itself?
4. Is the median turn around for applications greater than 6.5 years?
5. Is it normal to simply refuse an application on which the EPO asserts a patent can be granted without first consulting the applicant?
6. Why has the examining division not followed the order of priority for reviewing claims as set out in correspondence? This would have prevented the refusal letter from being submitted.
7. How are my interests served by being forced into an appeals process that will costs a minimum of 1,860 euros for the appeal, probable a further circa 3,500 euros on renewal fees and a further wait of 3 years when it is accepted by invention is patentable!?

In paras ███, ███ and ███ you suggest that I should employ the services of a competent professional. Setting aside the inference that I am not competent and setting aside all possible steps of support that the EPO has given me I have to ask what happens when the lack of competence lies with the EPO?

In the letter of refusal of ███ the examiners claim there is no ███ document on file. Is there little wonder then that I, and probably many others too, lose all faith in the EPO as an organisation when one realises that not only does the document exist on file but it has historically been replied to. This statement that the document does not exist on file has been signed by three of your examiners! What legal options for redress are there available to applicants who find their applications so evidently mistreated? What actions will you be taking to ensure this does not happen again?

In accordance with the spirit of Rule 71 (2) please could I have a full response to all points raised in this letter. May I suggest a response by email will significantly save time.

Regards

████████████ ██████████████████

Have you encountered similarly bad service? If so, please get in touch with us.

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. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  2. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB



  3. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way



  4. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division



  5. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately



  6. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  7. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  8. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels



  9. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)



  10. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles



  11. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers



  12. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)



  13. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  14. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  15. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts



  16. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs



  17. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply



  18. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day



  19. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated



  20. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'



  21. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day



  22. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter



  23. The EPO is Being Destroyed and There's Nothing Left to Replace It Except National Patent Offices

    It looks like Battistelli is setting up the European Patent Office (EPO) for mass layoffs; in fact, it looks as though he is so certain that the UPC will materialise that he obsesses over "validation" for mass litigation worldwide, departing from a "model office" that used to lead the world in terms of patent quality and workers' welfare/conditions



  24. IBM is Getting Desperate and Now Suing Microsoft Over Lost Staff, Not Just Suing Everyone Using Patents

    IBM's policy when it comes to patents, not to mention its alignment with patent extremists, gives room for thought if not deep concern; the company rapidly becomes more and more like a troll



  25. In Microsoft's Lawsuit Against Corel the Only Winner is the Lawyers

    The outcome of the old Microsoft v Corel lawsuit reaffirms a trend; companies with deep pockets harass their competitors, knowing that the legal bills are more cumbersome to the defendants; there's a similar example today in Cisco v Arista Networks



  26. The Latest Lies About Unitary Patent (UPC) and the EPO

    Lobbying defies facts; we are once again seeing some easily-debunked talking points from those who stand to benefit from the UPC and mass litigation



  27. Speech Deficit and No Freedom of Association at the EPO

    True information cannot be disseminated at the EPO and justice too is beyond elusive; this poses a threat to the EPO's future, not only to its already-damaged reputation



  28. No, Britain is Not Ratifying 'Unitary' Anything, But Team UPC Insinuates It Will (Desperate Effort to Affect Tomorrow's Outcome)

    Contrary to several misleading headlines from Bristows (in its blog and others'), the UPC isn't happening and isn't coming to the UK; it all amounts to lobbying (by setting false expectations)



  29. The EPO's Paid Promotion of Software Patents Gets Patent Maximalists All Excited and Emboldened

    The software patents advocacy from Battistelli (and his cohorts) isn't just a spit in the face of European Parliament but also the EPC; but patent scope seems to no longer exist or matter under his watch, as all he cares about is granting as many patents as possible, irrespective of real quality/legitimacy/merit



  30. Andrei Iancu Begins His USPTO Career While Former USPTO Director (and Now Paid Lobbyist) Keeps Meddling in Office Affairs

    The USPTO, which is supposed to be a government branch (loosely speaking) is being lobbied by former officials, who are now being paid by private corporations to help influence and shape policies; this damages the image of the Office and harms its independence from corporate influence


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