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

08.09.17

When It Comes to Software Patents, the EPO Has Become Among the Worst in the World

Posted in America, Asia, Europe at 3:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

CII at EPO
This EPO presentation spoke of software patents (“CII”). Photo credit: EPO Patent Information Conference 2016 (Grant Philpott)

Summary: Software patents, which were never meant to be granted by the EPO, are nowadays being granted quite leniently and easily (whereas other patent offices growingly reject these, deeming them too abstract and not beneficial)

THE EPO does not seem to mind the law (or any of the laws). It exists in a vacuum and it grants software patents in Europe in defiance of directives, the public interest, and the EPC.

Earlier today Graham McGlashan from Marks & Clerk said that a “computer program itself can potentially be patented at the European Patent Office” because the EPO has gone rogue and the subject isn’t even up for debate anymore; the EPO promotes these patents in public events and by doing so it metaphorically spits at the Parliament, at the European public, and on the EPC.

Here is the relevant paragraph:

The European Patent Office will potentially allow a patent if the claimed subject matter is novel and inventive and has a technical character – even if the invention is computer implemented. A computer program itself can potentially be patented at the European Patent Office if it is capable of bringing about, when running on a computer, a further technical effect going beyond the “normal” physical interactions between the program (software) and the computer (hardware) on which it is run.

This was published by people who put misleading puff pieces in British media and promote software patents, the UPC etc.

The above is of course the old mumbo-jumbo where general-purpose computers on which programs run are used to attribute some magical physical properties to code. It’s a clever trick, but it’s all just a sham. Yet it helps bypass examiners.

Several months ago Marks & Clerk said in a public event that it had become easier to patent software at the EPO than at the USPTO. How revealing a statement!

Looking elsewhere in the news today, IAM published another marketing piece (this one for Bereskin & Parr LLP) with nothing in it about patent scope as CIPO (Canada’s patent office) is having a consultation and there’s no sign of growing tolerance towards software patents. Innofy’s Katherine Rock wrote about software patents in Australia, taking stock of quite a few recent cases and concluding that “Australian Patent Office Says No” (to software patents).

From the concluding part:

On the face of it, the decision issued in July by the Australian Patent Office may be discouraging as the apparent rejections relate to a broad range of fields of innovation – from collection and analysis of data, targeting advertising, statistical optimisation for assay analysis, and insurance policy management.

However, it does appear that the Patent Office is operating on a case by case basis, and in addition looking to authorities which ostensibly require a demonstrable technical effect (see, eg, Aerotel), a concrete, physical effect (see, eg, Grant), and/or distinctions from a generic computer system(s). Therefore, we would advise that when seeking to apply for patent protection in Australia, you consider these authorities and seek a professional opinion – so feel free to contact us with any questions.

Notwithstanding the above, given the contention around the issue of patent eligibility of software, and the fact that the interpretation of the Patents Act may be subject to change as more cases are brought before the courts, we could well see a relaxing (or tightening) of these requirements in years to come.

Is it harder to get software patents in Australia than it is in Europe? Remember that in the US even if one manages to get a software patent, this patent is very unlikely to be upheld in courts. We have heard that the same is becoming true in Japan (the only other stronghold of software patents*). These patents just lack potency and would be worthless if asserted, which is why patent trolls prefer going after small firms which would settle out of court.

Earlier today we spotted this announcement about purchase [sic] (reassignment) of patents that are basically on software but are painted as “mobile” (to bypass abstractness tests). Here are the patents:

USPTO 8,369,828 “Mobile-to-Mobile Payment System and Method”;
USPTO 8,073,895 & 8,572,166 “System and Method for Delivering Web Content to a Mobile Device”;
USPTO 8,315,184 “Computer to Mobile Two-Way Chat System and Method”

This seems like a waste of time and money. Maybe they just didn’t get the ‘memo’ about software patents in the US.

So how did the EPO become a laughing stock for low patent quality? (or broad scope)

Part of the problem, we suspect, is Battistelli's attack on the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (BoA), which exist to help guard — independently — the integrity and quality of the EPO. “In Decision T 488/16,” we learned today, BoA “have revoked EP 1 169 038…”

Here are the details:

In Decision T 488/16, the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (BoA) have revoked EP 1 169 038, which protected the blockbuster protein tyrosine kinase (PTK) inhibitor dasatinib (Sprycel®). The only request on file — a single claim directed to dasatinib per se or a salt thereof — was found to lack inventive step in view of the absence of evidence in the application as filed (and the common general knowledge) which rendered the activity of dasatinib in inhibiting PTK “plausible”. A general statement in the application as filed that “Compounds described in the following Examples have been tested in one or more of these assays, and have shown activity” was not by itself considered enough to render it credible to the skilled person that the described compounds were PTK inhibitors. In the absence of a plausible disclosure of activity against PTK in the specification as filed, the objective technical problem was defined by the Board of Appeal as merely “the provision of a further chemical compound”. The extensive clinical data which became available after the filing date of the patent evidencing biological activity was not taken into account when determining inventive step.

The Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office have for many years imposed a requirement that claims for large molecules (e.g., proteins) must be supported by a plausible disclosure of biological activity in the application as filed (see, for example, T 1329/04). A similar requirement for a plausible disclosure of activity in the original specification has also been required to support medical use claims (see, for example, T 0609/02). However, this Decision indicates that the Boards are willing to apply the same strict standards when assessing claims for small molecule drugs per se.

Based on recent reports, the BoA may already be ‘in transit’, having been exiled by Battistelli with help from Kongstad (who will be leaving the EPO next month). We are very worried that the EPO without a strong and independent BoA will take the European patent regime into total oblivion.
_____
* Japan has long been known as the ‘twin’ of the US when it comes to software patents, with Korea highly reluctant to follow suit and only China relaxing the rules as it opens the floodgates to just about any patent (not just on software).

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 24/3/2019: Microsoft Does Not Change; Lots of FOSS Leftovers

    Links for the day



  2. Just Published: Irrational Ignorance at the Patent Office

    Iancu and his fellow Trump-appointed "swamp" at the USPTO are urged to consult academics rather than law firms in order to improve patent quality in the United States



  3. Microsoft Paid the Open Source Initiative. Now (a Year Later) Microsoft is in the Board of the Open Source Initiative.

    The progression of Microsoft entryism in FOSS-centric institutions (while buying key "assets" such as GitHub) isn't indicative of FOSS "winning" but of FOSS being infiltrated (to be undermined)



  4. Jim Zemlin's Linux Foundation Still Does Not Care About Linux Desktops

    We are saddened to see that the largest body associated with Linux (the kernel and more) is not really eager to see GNU/Linux success; it's mostly concerned about its bottom line (about $100,000,000 per annum)



  5. Links 23/3/2019: Falkon 3.1.0 and Tails 3.13.1

    Links for the day



  6. The Unified Patent Court is Dead, But Doubts Remain Over the EPO's Appeal Boards' Ability to Rule Independently Against Patents on Nature and Code

    Patents used to cover physical inventions (such as engines); nowadays this just isn't the case anymore and judges who can clarify these questions lack the freedom to think outside the box (and disobey patent maximalists' dogma)



  7. Patent Law Firms Still Desperate to Find New Ways to Resurrect Dead Software Patents in the United States

    There's no rebound and no profound changes that favour software patents; in fact, judging by caselaw, there's nothing even remotely like that



  8. Links 22/3/2019: Libinput 1.13 RC2 and Facebook's Latest Security Scandal

    Links for the day



  9. Why the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) Cannot Ignore Judges, Whereas the EPO Can (and Does)

    The European Patent Convention (EPC) ceased to matter, judges' interpretation of it no longer matters either; the EPO exploits this to grant hundreds of thousands of dodgy software patents, then trumpet "growth"



  10. The European Patent Office Needs to Put Lives Before Profits

    Patents that pertain to health have always posed an ethical dilemma; the EPO apparently tackled this dilemma by altogether ignoring the rights and needs of patients (in favour of large corporations that benefit financially from poor people's mortality)



  11. “Criminal Organisation”

    Brazil's ex-President, Temer, is arrested (like other former presidents of Brazil); will the EPO's ex-President Battistelli ever be arrested (now that he lacks diplomatic immunity and hides at CEIPI)?



  12. Links 21/3/2019: Wayland 1.17.0, Samba 4.10.0, OpenShot 2.4.4 and Zorin Beta

    Links for the day



  13. Team UPC (Unitary Patent) is a Headless Chicken

    Team UPC's propaganda about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has become so ridiculous that the pertinent firms do not wish to be identified



  14. António Campinos Makes Up Claims About Patent Quality, Only to be Rebutted by Examiners, Union (Anyone But the 'Puff Pieces' Industry)

    Battistelli's propagandistic style and self-serving 'studies' carry on; the notion of patent quality has been totally discarded and is nowadays lied about as facts get 'manufactured', then disseminated internally and externally



  15. Links 20/3/2019: Google Announces ‘Stadia’, Tails 3.13

    Links for the day



  16. CEN and CENELEC Agreement With the EPO Shows That It's Definitely the European Commission's 'Department'

    With headlines such as “EPO to collaborate on raising SEP awareness” it is clear to see that the Office lacks impartiality and the European Commission cannot pretend that the EPO is “dafür bin ich nicht zuständig” or “da kenne ich mich nicht aus”



  17. Decisions Made Inside the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Lack Credibility Because Examiners and Judges Lack Independence

    The lawless, merciless, Mafia-like culture left by Battistelli continues to haunt judges and examiners; how can one ever trust the Office (or the Organisation at large) to deliver true justice in adherence or compliance with the EPC?



  18. Team UPC Buries Its Credibility Deeper in the Grave

    The three Frenchmen at the top do not mention the UPC anymore; but those who promote it for a living (because they gambled on leveraging it for litigation galore) aren't giving up and in the process they perpetuate falsehoods



  19. The EPO Has Sadly Taken a Side and It's the Patent Trolls' Side

    Abandoning the whole rationale behind patents, the Office now led for almost a year by António Campinos prioritises neither science nor technology; it's all about granting as many patents (European monopolies) as possible for legal activity (applications, litigation and so on)



  20. Where the USPTO Stands on the Subject of Abstract Software Patents

    Not much is changing as we approach Easter and software patents are still fool's gold in the United States, no matter if they get granted or not



  21. Links 19/3/2019: Jetson/JetBot, Linux 5.0.3, Kodi Foundation Joins The Linux Foundation, and Firefox 66

    Links for the day



  22. Links 18/3/2019: Solus 4, Linux 5.1 RC1, Mesa 18.3.5, OSI Individual Member Election Won by Microsoft

    Links for the day



  23. Microsoft and Its Patent Trolls Continue Their Patent War, Including the War on Linux

    Microsoft is still preying on GNU/Linux using patents, notably software patents; it wants billions of dollars served on a silver platter in spite of claims that it reached a “truce” by joining the Open Invention Network and joining the LOT Network



  24. Director Iancu Generally Viewed as a Lapdog of Patent Trolls

    As Director of the Office, Mr. Iancu, a Trump appointee, not only fails to curb patent trolls; he actively defends them and he lowers barriers in order to better equip them with bogus patents that courts would reject (if the targets of extortion could afford a day in court)



  25. Links 17/3/2019: Google Console and IBM-Red Hat Merger Delay?

    Links for the day



  26. To Team UPC the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Has Become a Joke and the European Patent Office (EPO) Never Mentions It Anymore

    The EPO's frantic rally to the very bottom of patent quality may be celebrated by obedient media and patent law firms; to people who actually produce innovative things, however, this should be a worrisome trend and thankfully courts are getting in the way of this nefarious agenda; one of these courts is the FCC in Germany



  27. Links 16/3/2019: Knoppix Release and SUSE Independence

    Links for the day



  28. Stopping António Campinos and His Software Patents Agenda (Not Legal in Europe) Would Require Independent Courts

    Software patents continue to be granted (new tricks, loopholes and buzzwords) and judges who can put an end to that are being actively assaulted by those who aren't supposed to have any authority whatsoever over them (for decisions to be impartially delivered)



  29. The Linux Foundation Needs to Speak Out Against Microsoft's Ongoing (Continued) Patent Shakedown of OEMs That Ship Linux

    Zemlin actively thanks Microsoft while taking Microsoft money; he meanwhile ignores how Microsoft viciously attacks Linux using patents, revealing the degree to which his foundation, the “Linux Foundation” (not about Linux anymore, better described as Zemlin’s PAC), has been compromised



  30. Links 15/3/2019: Linux 5.0.2, Sublime Text 3.2

    Links for the day


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