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

09.03.17

What Germany and the EPO Could (and Should) Learn From Australia About Patent Scope

Posted in Australia, Europe, Patents at 6:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Public Release of Productivity Commission Final Inquiry Report into Australia’s IP Arrangements
Reference: Public Release of Productivity Commission Final Inquiry Report into Australia’s IP Arrangements

Summary: Patent maximalism, including patenting of software, recognised as an undesirable, but will the EPO accept that rather than publicly advocate software patenting?

Australia — like Canada (subject of our previous post) — is a large developed country with a relatively small population. Both are historically inspired by English/British law.

“Australia’s patent policy seems to be improving, e.g. by reducing the incentive to troll Australian firms.”As we noted the other day, Australia not only recognises the dangers of overpatenting but also does something about it. Australia has just limited patent scope and Peter Leung from Bloomberg did an article about it (“Australia Seeks Tougher Inventiveness Patent Requirements”).

Australia’s patent policy seems to be improving, e.g. by reducing the incentive to troll Australian firms. Here are some portions from Leung’s report, which compares it to the EPO:

Inventors seeking new patents in Australia may have to meet more stringent inventiveness requirements that better match Europe’s under a government proposal aimed at improving the nation’s intellectual property system.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s government’s recent response to recommendations from the Productivity Commission, a government research body, included support for raising the inventive step requirement— analogous to the U.S. requirement that an invention be not obvious. An invention is not obvious if it’s sufficiently different from the known technology at the time.

“As it currently stands, the inventive step bar isn’t as high in Australia as it is at the European Patent Office,” Simon Potter, principal and patent attorney with Spruson & Ferguson in Sydney, told Bloomberg BNA. “Even though the Australian government made some changes back in 2013 with the Raising the Bar Act, the Productivity Commission’s view is that the bar remains too low, and the government apparently agrees.”

[...]

More Like Europe

The government said it supports amendments to the Patents Act to clearly establish that a “scintilla” of inventiveness is not enough to secure a patent. The law should also make clear that the “obvious to try” test used by the European Patent Office can be used to determine whether an invention has an inventive step, it said.

[...]

Rachel Hooke, a partner and patent attorney with FB Rice in Sydney, told Bloomberg BNA adopting an inventive step requirement in line with the EPO’s in theory likely won’t be too controversial, but much will depend on the details and implementation.

The government also supported a related Productivity Commission recommendation requiring applicants to identify the technical features in its patent claims, a practice that the EPO employs. Whether an invention meets the inventive step requirement should turn on the claim’s technical features, so requiring the applicant to lay out those features should help patent examiners come to the right conclusion, the commission said.

[...]

Furthermore, Australia has a “manner of manufacture” test but the EPO doesn’t, which is why the technical features analysis is so important in Europe, Hooke said. Having both seems “unnecessary and confusing,” she said.

Here in Britain patent trolls are quite rare. Software patents are also quite rare if not rarer than lawsuits from overseas trolls like Ericsson’s (earlier this year in London it unfortunately got its way). Perhaps the departure from the UPC would help guard British software companies, which rightly oppose the UPC.

“Here in Britain patent trolls are quite rare.”What about Germany?

The Germany-based EPO receives a lot of patent applications from Germany (far more so than from the UK) and “some similarities exist between German and EPO practice,” say Meissner Bolte’s Dr. Stefan M. Zech, Jochen Kilchert, Dr. Stephan Held, Christian Hess, Tilman Pfrang and Dr. Tobias Wuttke. Their days-old article notes: “Another restriction on software is the requirement under Section 1(1) of the [German] Patent Act that patents are granted to inventions or fields of technology, excluding any subject matter considered to be non-technological” (as is often pointed out by the German patent ‘industry’) and here is the part about the EPO, where software patents are being in granted in defiance of the rules:

When determining novelty, only direct and unambiguous disclosure is relevant. However, this requirement is broadly interpreted when compared to the practice before the European Patent Office (EPO).

With respect to the inventive step, some similarities exist between German and EPO practice. However, the EPO problem-solution approach – although generally known by German patent law practitioners – is of considerably lower importance. The decisive question in Germany is often whether the prior art can provide any motivation or incentive to add further features to an already-known solution of the prior art.

It’s already widely publicised that in Germany there’s a plague of patent trolls; they’re truly surging there. We wrote many articles about that. No doubt it’s good for law firms, especially those that specialise in litigation/prosecution. But what does that mean for the ordinary German software developer? No good…

“It’s already widely publicised that in Germany there’s a plague of patent trolls; they’re truly surging there.”The following portion of text was brought forth to me by an online friend, citing an old book from James Stewart Martin, titled All Honorable Men (1950). It’s about fascism’s history (Patents and Cartels) and the role played by patents at the time. Under “Chief of the Decartelization Branch for Military Government in Germany after World War II” it says this:

The practice of I.G. Farben was to capture the basic patents in each field of synthetic chemistry. They would file applications for patents not only in Germany but also in most of the civilized countries of the world.

Our own patent laws were full of loopholes that helped a great deal. For one thing, despite the legal requirement that a patent specification must be so detailed as to enable a man “skilled in the art” to practice the invention, a vague description of the method of producing a chemical compound is often enough to obtain a patent.

(…)

Further, these loopholes permitted an enterprising firm to file its application for a patent long before the actual “bugs” had been worked out of the production process.

The Germans, between the two wars, made an especially energetic drive to exploit their initial advantage in the field of synthetic chemistry in this way. In many cases they blanketed whole new fields of industrial technology by securing basic patents covering all known or suspected processes for synthesizing important materials.

In some cases they themselves had not discovered how to make these materials, but that mattered very little. If someone else did discover the “know-how,” he would find himself blocked by the patents already issued to some German firm or individual on the basis of a general description of the process.

Confronted with this earlier patent, the new inventor had a simple choice before him : spend anywhere up to ten years and thousands of dollars in arguing a patent interference through the Patent Office and the courts; or make a deal. Most of them chose to make a deal. But each deal included specific and legally enforceable recognition by contract on the part of the newcomer that the German patent was valid and not open to question.

Then he would get a promise from the Germans that as they worked with the new process in their own factories and laboratories, they in turn would make available to him the technical know-how that they might discover.

This made it a mutual enterprise beneficial to both, saved expense of litigation, and besides the two could then join forces against any other inventors who might still be outside the arrangement.

In practice, this meant that if I.G. Farben caught Du Pont on the first go-round with the Farben patents in the United States and made a deal with Du Pont, from then on it was I.G. Farben and Du Pont against, shall we say, Monsanto. And as more outsiders fell in with the scheme the team of solidly organized patentees grew and the chances of the remaining outsiders were less and less.

There’s a true danger that unless Germany ends the gold rush for patents, small- and medium-sized companies will suffer. At the EPO, last year’s statistics show a consistently high number of patents. From 2007 to 2016 the number of German patent filings was: 32,103, 33,384, 30,472, 33,104, 33,447, 33,814, 31,887, 31,691, 31,379, and 31,815 (last year).

“There’s a true danger that unless Germany ends the gold rush for patents, small- and medium-sized companies will suffer.”Compare that to France with: 10,797, 11,487, 11,608, 11,721, 11,865, 12,234, 12,378, 13,194, 13,294, and 12,726 (last year).

The UK is even lower with: 7,260, 7,172, 6,569, 7,142, 6,508, 6,691, 6,510, 6,917, 7,099, and 7,226 (last year).

“If the EPO was to study the reports from Australia, Battistelli would get the boot the following day.”Remember that the EPO is primarily based in Germany, France’s INPI does not really do proper examination, and the UK has the IPO.

France never quite did any quality assessment of patents (it’s more like registration), the UK-IPO is pretty strict, and EPO is nowadays granting patents like mad. Insiders tell us that anything goes, even software patents. If the EPO was to study the reports from Australia, Battistelli would get the boot the following day.

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 19/9/2017: Pipewire, Mir Support for Wayland, DRM in W3C

    Links for the day



  2. Links 18/9/2017: Linux 4.14 RC1, Mesa 17.2.1, and GNOME 3.26 on Ubuntu Artful

    Links for the day



  3. Patent Trolls Update: Eolas, Conversant (MOSAID), Leigh Rothschild, and Electronic Communication Technologies

    Patent trolls are still being watched -- as they ought to be -- even though some of them shy away, hide from the media, engage in dirty tricks, and file more lawsuits



  4. Microsoft is Promoting Software Patents in India in Another Effort to Undermine Free/Open Source Software, Microsoft-Connected Trolls Are Still Suing

    The ongoing patent threat to Free/libre Open Source software (FLOSS) and the role played by Microsoft in at least much of this threat



  5. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Under Attack by IBM and Other Patent Parasites Who Undermine Patent Quality

    The PTAB, which has thus far invalidated thousands of abstract/software patents, is under a coordinated attack not by those who produce things but those who produce a lot of lawsuit



  6. Why the Mohawk Tribe Should Fire Its Lawyers and Dump the Patents Which Now Tarnish Its Name

    In order to dodge the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with its Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), the Mohawk tribe is being exploited -- very much in direct detriment to its reputation and status



  7. Amazon and Google Have Both Become Part of the Software Patents Problem

    The transition from so-called 'defensive' patents to offensive patents (ones that are used to suppress competition) as seen in Amazon and in Google, which is already suing rivals and is pursuing additional patents by acquisition



  8. Unless Physical, Inventions Are No Longer Patent-Eligible in US Courts, But USPTO Ignores Precedence

    Even though the ability to enforce software patents against a rival (or many targets, especially in the case of patent trolls) is vastly diminished, the US patent office continues to grant these



  9. Citing the European Patent Convention, Spanish Court Tosses Lawsuit With EPO-Granted European Patent

    The quality of European Patents (EPs) -- a subject of growing levels of scrutiny -- as demonstrated in Barcelona this summer



  10. Links 16/9/2017: More of “Public Money, Public Code”, Equifax Failed to Patch for Months

    Links for the day



  11. BlackBerry Has Turned Into a Patents and Licensing Company

    The Canadian company that made fairly reputable phones early in this century is left with nothing but the power to sue other companies -- a power to which it increasingly gravitates



  12. European Patent Office Continues to Paint a Rosy UPC Picture Even Though the UPC May Already be Dead

    The European Patent Office (EPO) doesn't let facts get in the way as another week passes with UPC promotion and further staff repressions



  13. Tax Evasion by Patent Boxes and Lies About Small Businesses (SMEs) in the Corporate Media

    The lobbying effort of the patent 'industry' -- and its largest beneficiaries -- paints its own perks as something that's intended for their small/minuscule competitors (whom they actually attempt to misrepresent and crush)



  14. Links 15/9/2017: Mesa 17.2.1 RC, Wine 2.17, WordPress to Ditch React Over Patents

    Links for the day



  15. The UPC Fantasy is Going Nowhere as Complaints and Paperwork Pile Up

    Many submissions and complaints about the Unitary Patent have time to arrive before the end of October as a decision on the matter seems as distant as 2018



  16. At Event of EPO SLAPP Firm, a Suggestion That the UPC Should be Scrapped Because It's Stuck

    Just like the TPP, the UPC is now in a potentially fatal deadlock, so people with a stake in the outcome consider starting again (almost from scratch)



  17. Watchtroll Helps the EPO Peddle Fake News About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) isn't happening; the EPO, however, keeps on pretending that it can already operate as though the UPC got the green light



  18. Links 14/9/2017: Plasma 5.11 Beta, Q4OS 1.8.8, Orion

    Links for the day



  19. Links 13/9/2017: Blender 2.79, Qt 5.10 Alpha, GNOME 3.26 “Manchester”, Parrot 3.8

    Links for the day



  20. Amazon's Infamous Patent is Dead and the World's Richest Man Failed to Fulfill His Promise on Software Patents

    Amazon continues piling up a lot of software patents even though its founder once pretended (only after enormous public backlash) that he would pursue far shorter terms for software patents



  21. EPO Gets Together With Patent Radicals to Promote Software Patents

    Watchtroll, a widely-known site of patent extremists with the agenda of promoting software patents, gets together with the EPO for a puff piece in the form of an "exclusive" interview



  22. Patent Boxes Are for Tax Avoidance, But in the Land of Tax Avoidance (Switzerland) No Avoidance for Software Patents

    The world leader in European Patents (EPs) refuses to acknowledge software patents or barely respects these



  23. Latest Attempts to Blow Air Into the Sails of the Sinking Unitary Patent (UPC)

    A survey of the latest media mentions and interpretations of the UPC, which don't quite stack up when compared to reality



  24. Links 12/9/2017: Linux 4.13.1, digiKam 5.7.0

    Links for the day



  25. Patent Maximalism Duo: Watchtroll and Patently-O Now Conjoined and Mutually Referencing One Another

    Radical sites like Watchtroll are spreading their ideology and harassment tactics to sites such as Patently-O, run by Dennis Crouch from the University of Missouri School of Law



  26. Complaints About Google Patents, R3 Patents, and the EFF's Campaign of Exposing/Disarming Patent Trolls

    A mix of interesting developments surrounding patents, including a nasty campaign by Dominion Harbor Group to smear patent reformers



  27. Latest Assaults on PTAB and More PTAB Bashing, This Time by Anticipat

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which helps eliminate patents granted in error (a lot of software patents), is still besieged by the patent 'industry'



  28. “Reprehensible” Judge Rodney Gilstrap Ignores the Supreme Court of the United States

    In spite of the TC Heartland case, Rodney Gilstrap continues to facilitate and embolden patent trolls, whose experience suggests that Gilstrap is their ally, not quite an objective judge



  29. Ingve Stjerna's Complaint Casts a Shadow Over the Unconstitutional Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    The Unitary Patent is un-Constitutional, according to a lawyer who used to work for UPC-friendly firms but can now say the truth about this abomination



  30. Upcoming EPO Series: Benoît Battistelli's 'Club Med'

    Ahead of the expected coronation of António Campinos Techrights will publish a long series regarding Battistelli and his network of connections (politics the École nationale d'administration way)


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