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

08.15.17

The Collapse of Patent Quality at the EPO is Inviting to Europe Some of the World’s Worst Patent Trolls

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

European Patents (EPs) too are now weapons of blackmail and extortion

EPO trolls

Summary: As troll litigation soars in Europe we must take a careful look at the sorts of patents granted by the EPO these days and the policies that support such grants

THE utter disregard for patent quality should be a reason for concern if not panic. Patent trolls would benefit greatly from that as they cannot get sued; there’s nothing for them to get sued for/over. So the broader the scope of patents, the worst off society will be. There’s a reason why sites funded by and/or connected to trolls push so hard for patent maximalism; worth noting is also the correlation (in my experience) between blowhard Conservative Trump proponents and patent trolls; they want more and more deregulation; they want chaos. To them, from chaos comes income.

“To them, from chaos comes income.”Battistelli, a Conservative politician, is pushing towards patent chaos in Europe. It’s not just the UPC (the EPO was pushing for this lame duck earlier this week and also in this very recent tweet). Earlier today, for instance, the trolls-connected Rovi showed up in news from Belgium, wielding what seems like an EP on software:

The recent CJEU judgment and subsequent national interpretation in Rovi Guides v Telenet will have a significant impact on the predictability of legal costs and should be taken into account when setting up an IP litigation strategy in Belgium, as Steven Sarlet and Ben Brigou explain

Rovi Guides Inc (previously United Video Properties (UVP)) initiated an infringement action against Telenet NV on June 7 2011 based on European patent 1327209 (systems and methods for providing storage of data on servers in an on-demand media delivery system)….

We have written extensively about Rovi; it’s connected to the world’s largest patent troll, Intellectual Ventures. They’re reaching out for Europe already. Crossing the Atlantic bridge for litigation purposes…

“The farce of patent “quality” at the EPO under Battistelli has lowered the bar even below the USPTO’s and applicants are starting to notice.”As noted here earlier this year, the EPO openly promotes software patents even though they should all be disallowed. As of this week, moreover, the EPO is openly promoting such patents yet again, this time under the guise of “CII”. “Guidance on EPO procedures for US CII applicants at this event in Palo Alto,” it wrote, pointing to this seminar whose programme says “EPO CII approach – Christian Platzer, Director, Information & Communications Technology, EPO” and two sessions are titled “Guidance on EPO procedures for US CII applicants” (CII is just a synonym for software patents).

“By all means, unless the EPO manages to get patent quality under control again (this would also mean invalidating many patents granted under Battistelli), too few stakeholders would be willing to pay application and renewal fees.”Morever, based on this article from earlier this week, the EPO is granting a patent (monopoly) on life yet again. Are CRISPR patents next to be thrown away? Why are they being granted at all? The EU has been very clear in its opposition to such patents and Allen & Overy LLP has just published this analysis titled “EPO reverses its position on the patentability of products obtained by essentially biological processes” (can be viewed as applicable to the above too). “The firm,” says the article, “a subsidiary of pharmaceutical giant Merck KGaA, said the EPO has issued a ‘Notice of Intention to Grant’ a broad patent for the company’s CRISPR technology.”

Why are these patents being granted? The farce of patent “quality” at the EPO under Battistelli has lowered the bar even below the USPTO‘s and applicants are starting to notice. Even legal firms are noticing and saying so to audiences at public events.

There was this discussion yesterday regarding the “abstract idea” test in the US and the infamous “technical effect” test. Here are just two of the more relevant comments:

I agree with the notion of allowing the case law to evolve. Some of the arguments against having a specialist patent appeal court in the US are that it would allow other case law doctrines to evolve if more than one court was involved, and ultimately that makes case law richer and more dynamic, but also of increase uncertainty. There will be directions that are ultimately found to be unhelpful and so case law then has to change direction, etc.

However in terms of what a claim is, I don’t think it can be said to be the same as the ‘technical effect’. Sometimes applicants will want to voluntarily limit their claim scope (for example due to an agreement with another party), or to minimise the chance of an opposition happening (I have been in that situation). And so the literal scope is important as a sign of what the applicant chose to pursue at that time (and chose to limit to in examination). I therefore think that whilst the technical effect is an important component in determining claim scope it cannot be only one. And I agree that the system needs to be thrown into this new uncertainty to decide whether we want to think in terms of a ‘flag’, and whether a usable test based on that can emerge. [People of course do not like uncertainty and so this will be a painful journey]

I think the ‘abstract idea’ test in the US is interesting because the Supreme Court has chosen to say little about it, and it is being allowed evolve at the hands of the Federal Circuit, where it will I am sure end up being the same as a ‘technical effect’ test. You will be familiar with the level of criticism that that test has encountered, but I think it is a great experiment. The Supreme Court had the wisdom to be minimalist about it, and let it evolve, realising the test was too complex to be derived by simply thinking of one. A test will come into being which is found to be useful in the cases that the Federal Circuit has before it.

I agree with you on “abstract” and I agree that fixing the scope of protection is not the same as identifying the technical effect. I like the Neuberger evolved version of the Catnic Questions.

Courts need a residual degree of wiggle room to do justice. Neuberger gives them just enough, but no more than that. Like the EPO’s Problem and Solution for framing the obviousness debate, the Neuberger 3 Question rubric gives the parties a framework for efficient debate on scope of protection.

In my view, the evolved Three Question routine represents an optimal compromise between fair protection for the patent owner and reasonable legal certainty for those under threat from the patent.

By all means, unless the EPO manages to get patent quality under control again (this would also mean invalidating many patents granted under Battistelli), too few stakeholderx would be willing to pay application and renewal fees. Paying for something that’s already worthless (or can be rendered invalid overnight, without even a trial) is like falling for a scam.

The EPO was supposed to be a world leader in terms of solid, defensible patents. What it’s becoming more and more like over time is a facility which fuels patent trolling (already soaring in Germany).

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