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

03.18.17

European Directives and Boards of Appeal Desperately Needed to Keep EPO Patent Scope in Check

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Also see: The Boards of Appeal Openly Complain (in the EPO’s Web Site) About Battistelli, But Don’t Tell Battistelli About It…

A shocked Battistelli

Summary: Battistelli’s notorious reign of terror has caused patents to be granted that are bogus and no longer valid (if/once challenged); moreover, it prevents legal firms from lashing out at him publicly while bogus patents continue to pile up, diminishing confidence in European patents (EPs)

AT THE EPO, patent scope has gone awry based on the management's own admission. But depending on the target audience, they might attempt to tell a different story (diversionary tactics). The USPTO, by contrast, has acknowledged similar problems and is actively working to correct them, much to the pain of the patent microcosm in the US. Patents are a man-made concept and they need to be limited based on various factors such as speed of innovation, production costs, cost of research (e.g. drug discovery and facilities), and public interests (e.g. mortality versus luxury). All this is beyond the scope of this post and was covered here hundreds of times before.

“Patents are a man-made concept and they need to be limited based on various factors such as speed of innovation, production costs, cost of research (e.g. drug discovery and facilities), and public interests (e.g. mortality versus luxury).”A few days ago we saw the lawyers’ media publishing “EPO Stay Of Proceedings In Biotech Cases” — in itself not news but more of an analysis and déjà vu. We already wrote several articles about it; EPO management consciously took a swipe at the law by granting such patents in the first place. Patent lawyers and their clients are now understandably concerned that their patents may be worthless, as a result of belated political intervention (which Team Battistelli belatedly decided to obey, for a change). To quote:

Following a Notice of the European Commission related to certain parts of the EU Biotech Directive (98/44/EC), the EPO has decided to stay all examination and opposition proceedings in which the invention is a plant or animal obtained by an essentially biological process.

The Commission Notice appears to be in direct response to decisions of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal in the “Tomato II” and “Broccoli II” cases (G 2/12 and G 2/13). These decisions related to the patentability of products which could be obtained by an essentially biological process. Such essentially biological processes are excluded from patentability by Article 53(b) EPC. However, the Enlarged Board decided that the exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants by Article 53(b) EPC does not have a negative effect on the allowability of a product claim directed to plants or plant material. Therefore, such product claims are potentially allowable under the EPC.

Following these decisions, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution which asked the Commission to look at the patentability of plants and animals obtained by means of essentially biological processes. Surprisingly, we understand that the Commission undertook this review without consulting its own expert working group on biotech patents. The resulting notice sets out the Commission’s view of the intention of the legislator when adopting the EU Biotech Directive 98/44/EC, Article 4(1) of which contains an exclusion drafted in identical terms to Article 53(b) EPC. Their conclusion is that such plants and animals are not patentable under the Directive.

This is a good example of erosion when it comes to confidence in EPs and it is the fault of an Office that decided to disregard directives and common sense.

“See the ramification of Battistelli disregarding the Boards of Appeal?”As for the the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, they cannot function independently anymore (Battistelli lied about them last week in a lame video) as the following new article serves to remind us. Published (as above) by lawyers’ media, it is titled “Antidote to Toxic Divisionals—European Patent Office Rules on Partial Priorities” and it says: “Beginning in 2009, the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) issued a series of decisions that essentially created a new priority law in Europe that allowed members of the same patent family to negate each other’s novelty. Notions such as “poisonous priorities” and “poisonous or toxic divisionals” emerged, threatening patent holders and raising concerns among patent practitioners and scholars. Confirming principles established for priority rights by the Paris Convention, the recent decision G1/15 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO (“EBA” or “Board”) has put an end to this jurisprudence.”

See the ramification of Battistelli disregarding the Boards of Appeal? Or put another way, this is the impact of him choosing to attack/marginalise the Boards of Appeal rather than listen to them. Now there’s a pile of trash granted and enshrined as “EPs”, where the assignees themselves are no longer sure if such EPs are valid at all. Confidence (or certainty) in EPs is the very thing that gives them value, at both ends of negotiation and/or litigation (defendant or licensee included). Look what Battistelli has done!

Confidence (or certainty) in EPs is the very thing that gives them value, at both ends of negotiation and/or litigation (defendant or licensee included). Look what Battistelli has done!”Battistelli has been so drunk on power and so eager to pursue just so-called ‘production’ that he forgot what a patent office actually is and what it is for (maybe he never knew at all, considering the awkward way INPI handles patents).

With Battistelli in charge, the Office makes enemies out of stakeholders (they want Battistelli out) and out of the public. The public interest groups now openly call, yet again, for the EPO to stop patents on beer, so to speak. Two days ago “No Patents on Seeds” circulated the announcement “Call to stop patents on beer” (see original and copies thereof). To quote just a portion of the text:

The protest is targeted at patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) in 2016 (EP2384110, EP2373154 and EP2575433) to the brewing companies Carlsberg and Heineken. The patents claim barley derived from conventional breeding, its usage in brewing beer and the beer produced thereof. However, the patents are simply based on random mutations in the plant’s genome. Just recently, the EU Commission and the EU Member States made it very clear that patents on plants and animals derived from conventional breeding are not allowed. Nevertheless, the EPO wants to continue to grant patents in future on random mutations. Currently, the civil society organisations are demanding that politicians ensure the loopholes in the law are closed.

The patented barley is said to simplify brewing and make it cheaper, the beer will also supposedly keep fresh for longer. The two brewing companies can profit twice over – by selling the beer and from the cultivation of the barley. At the same time, they can prevent other breeders from breeding better barley and also extend their market dominance – to the detriment of farmers, breeders, other breweries and consumers.

See our recent article titled Boards of Appeal Still Under Attack From Team Battistelli While the EPO Proceeds to Granting Patents on Carlsberg BEER!"

“It just comes to show how Battistelli’s notorious reign of terror extends beyond the Office and even silences critical blogs (they tried to silence us too, using several legal threats).”Also bear in mind, as we shall show later tonight, that many in patent law firms are deeply concerned about the above granting of dubious patents, which they never thought merited a grant in the first place (there are analogous stories about the USPTO in the 1990s). These firms, i.e. individual employees, are afraid to speak out against the UPC and the EPO (or Battistelli himself), especially using real names (of firms or staff). Fear of retribution, we suppose, against or from an employer (fear that Battistelli will punish the firm and that the firm will then punish staff) is what keeps them separate and isolated. It just comes to show how Battistelli’s notorious reign of terror extends beyond the Office and even silences critical blogs (they tried to silence us too, using several legal threats). We are dealing not with public servants here but with psychopaths.

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. Amid Constitutional Court Barrier, Unitary Patent (UPC) Looks Dead Even to UPC Proponents, the EPO's UPC 'Study' Comes Under Fire

    This Thanksgiving Day is spent by Team UPC trying to prop up the UPC even though no progress whatsoever is being made and the EPO's 'study' on the UPC is said to be flawed



  2. The European Patent Office Has Become the 'Foxconn' of Patent Offices

    The demise of the EPO, which emulates patent offices that are racing to the bottom, is a life-threatening employer which now jeopardises its very existence



  3. Links 23/11/2017: Lumina and Qt Quick

    Links for the day



  4. EPO is Imploding as Benoît Battistelli Drains Out Work, Talent, and Justice

    Battistelli's vicious assault on the Office, culminating in an attack on justice and the drainage of work (declining/decreasing 'demand' for 'products') necessarily means mass layoffs and nothing to fill the vacuum left



  5. Links 22/11/2017: Qt 5.9.3 Released, FCC v the Internet

    Links for the day



  6. Patent Lawyers' Media Comes to Grips With the End of Software Patents

    The reality of the matter is grim for software patents and the patent microcosm, 'borrowing' the media as usual, tries to give false hopes by insinuating that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) may overturn Alice quite soon



  7. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Foes Manipulate the Facts to Belittle the Impact of PTAB

    In an effort to sabotage PTAB with its inter partes reviews the patent microcosm is organising one-sided events that slam PTAB's legitimacy and misrepresent statistics



  8. Links 21/11/2017: LibreELEC (Krypton) v8.2.1 MR, Mesa 17.3.0 RC5

    Links for the day



  9. PTAB Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) Are Essential in an Age When One Can Get Sued for Merely Mocking a Patent

    The battle over the right to criticise particular patents has gotten very real and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) fought it until the end; this is why we need granted patents to be criticised upon petitions too (and often invalidated as a result)



  10. Chinese Patent Policy Continues to Mimic All the Worst Elements of the American System

    China is becoming what the United States used to be in terms of patents, whereas the American system is adopting saner patent policies that foster real innovation whilst curtailing mass litigation



  11. Links 20/11/2017: Why GNU/Linux is Better Than Windows, Another Linus Torvalds Rant

    Links for the day



  12. “US Inventor” is a “Bucket of Deplorables” Not Worthy of Media Coverage

    Jan Wolfe of Reuters treats a fringe group called “US Inventor” as though it's a conservative voice rather than a bunch of patent extremists pretending to be inventors



  13. Team Battistelli's Attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal Predate the Illegal Sanctions Against a Judge

    A walk back along memory lane reveals that Battistelli has, all along, suppressed and marginalised DG3 members, in order to cement total control over the entire Organisation, not just the Office



  14. PTAB is Safe, the Patent Extremists Just Try to Scandalise It Out of Sheer Desperation

    The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which gave powers to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through inter partes reviews (IPRs), has no imminent threats, not potent ones anyway



  15. Update on the EPO's Crackdown on the Boards of Appeal

    Demand of 35% increases from the boards serves to show that Battistelli now does to the 'independent' judges what he already did to examiners at the Office



  16. 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



  17. 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



  18. 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



  19. 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



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

    Links for the day



  21. 23,000 Posts

    23,000 blog posts milestone reached in 11 years



  22. 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



  23. 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



  24. 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



  25. 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)



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

    Links for the day



  27. 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



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

    Links for the day



  29. 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)



  30. 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


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