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 23/1/2018: Castle Game Engine 6.4, Qt 5.9.4, SQLite 3.22.0

    Links for the day



  2. Confidence in European Patents (EPs) is Eroding and Stakeholders Are Already Suffering

    The rush to grant lots and lots of patents at the EPO is already taking its toll; quality is declining, decisions to grant are being overturned, and the already-overburdened appeal boards are unable to catch up



  3. Even More Uncertain a Future for the Independence of the EPO Boards of Appeal as Judge Corcoran Too Gets Sent to 'Exile'

    The attack on supposedly independent judges at the EPO escalates further; the judge whom the EPO was ordered to reinstate (by ILO) is being constantly pushed around, not just legally bullied



  4. The Response to Accusations of Censorship by Team UPC? Yet More Censorship to Shield UPC From Criticism

    The Empire of Lies upon which the Unified Patent Court (UPC) was conceived is being exposed for its lies; The Empire Strikes Back with yet more censorship



  5. Links 22/1/2018: Linux 4.15 Delayed Again, Libinput 1.9.901

    Links for the day



  6. Team UPC Calls Critics of the UPC Idiots, Deletes Their Comments, and Blocks Them

    A new low for Team UPC, which is unable to cope with reality and has begun literally mocking and deleting comments of people who speak out truths



  7. How the Opposition to CRISPR Patents at the EPO Sent Shockwaves Through the Industry

    Additional reports/coverage on the EPO (European Patent Office) revoking Broad Institute's CRISPR patent show that the issue at hand isn't just one sole patent but the whole class/family of patents



  8. Unified Patents Says That RPX, Which Might Soon be Owned by Patent Trolls, Paid Patent Trolls Hundreds of Millions of Dollars

    Unified Patents, which helps crush software patents, takes note of RPX’s financial statements, which reveal the great extent to which RPX actually helped trolls rather than stop them



  9. IAM Together With Its Partner, IIPCC, is Lobbying the USPTO to Crush PTAB and Restore Patent Chaos

    Having handled over 8,000 petitions (according to Professor Lemley's Lex Machina), PTAB champions patent quality at the USPTO, so front groups of the litigation 'industry' creep in and attempt to lobby the likely next Director of the USPTO (inciting him against PTAB, as usual)



  10. Software Patents Are Still Dropping Like Flies in 2018, Thanks to Alice v CLS Bank (SCOTUS, 2014) and Section 101 (USPTO)

    Section 101 (§ 101) is thriving in the sense that it belatedly throws thousands of patents -- and frivolous lawsuits that depend on them -- down the chute; the patent trolls and their allies in the patent microcosm are very furious and they blame PTAB for actually doing its job (enforcing Section 101 when petitioned to do so)



  11. Patent Troll Finjan Looks Like It's About to Collapse, But Patent Maximalists Exploit It for Software Patents Promotion

    Patent trolls are struggling in their use of software patents; few (if any) of their patents are upheld as valid and those that miraculously remain in tact become the subject of fascination if not obsession among trolls' advocates



  12. The Attacks on PTAB Are Slowing Down and Attempts to Shield Oneself From Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) Are Failing

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reapplies patent eligibility tests/guidelines in order to squash likely invalid patents; The litigation 'industry' is not happy about it, but its opposition to PTAB is also losing steam



  13. Links 21/1/2018: Wine 3.0 Coverage, KaOS 2018.01, Red Hat Among 'Admired Companies'

    Links for the day



  14. Blockchain Patents Are a Catastrophe in the Making as Trolls and Aggressors Accumulate Them

    As patents pertaining to blockchains continue to be granted -- even in defiance of Alice/Section 101 -- it seems likely that patent wars will sooner or later erupt, involving some large banks, IBM, and patent trolls associated with the notorious Erich Spangenberg



  15. Qualcomm/Broadcom/NXP Combination Would Become a Disastrous Patent Thicket Which Benefits Nobody

    Worried by the prospect of mega-mergers and takeovers which would put far too much market power (and monopoly through patents) in one place, governments and corporations speak out



  16. Patent Litigation in East Asia: Huawei, Samsung, HTC, Nintendo and COLOPL

    A quick look at some high-profile cases in which large Asian firms are embroiled; it seems clear that litigation activities have shifted eastwards (where actual production is done)



  17. Patent Litigation in the US is Down Sharply and Patent Trolls' Demise Has Much to Do With It

    Docket Navigator and Lex Machina both show a significant decline in litigation -- a trend which is likely to carry on now that TC Heartland is in tact (not for just half a year but a whole year) and PTAB completes another record year



  18. Cheating the US Patent System is a Lot Harder After TC Heartland

    Some new examples of tricks (and sometimes cheats) attempted by patent claimants and their representatives; it does not go as well as they hoped



  19. RPX Might Soon be Owned by Patent Troll Erich Spangenberg

    RPX, whose top executives are leaving and business is gradually dying, might end up as another 'asset' of patent trolls



  20. Patent Quality (Not Numbers) as an Asset: Oppositions, Appeals and Rejections at the EPO

    Benoît Battistelli wants a rubber-stamping operation (like INPI) rather than a functional patent office, but oppositions at the Office prove to be fruitful and many erroneously-granted patents are -- by extrapolation -- already being revoked (affecting, in retrospect, Battistelli's so-called 'results')



  21. Links 19/1/2018: Linux Journalism Fund, Grsecurity is SLAPPing Again

    Links for the day



  22. The EPO Ignores This Week's Decision Which Demonstrates Patent Scope Gone Awry; Software Patents Brought Up Again

    The worrisome growth of European Patents (EPs) — a 40% jump in one year in spite of decline in the number of patent applications — is a symptom of the poor judgment, induced largely by bad policies that impede examiners’ activities for the sake of so-called ‘production’; this week's decision regarding CRISPR is another wake-up call and software patents too need to be abolished (as a whole), in lieu with the European Patent Convention (EPC)



  23. WesternGeco v ION Geophysical (at the US Supreme Court) Won't Affect Patent Scope

    As WesternGeco v ION Geophysical is the main if not sole ‘major’ patent case that the US Supreme Court will deal with, it seems safe to say that nothing substantial will change for patent scope in the United States this year



  24. Links 18/1/2018: MenuLibre 2.1.4, Git 2.16 Released

    Links for the day



  25. Microsoft, Masking/Hiding Itself Behind Patent Trolls, is Still Engaging in Patent Extortion

    A review of Microsoft's ugly tactics, which involve coercion and extortion (for businesses to move to Azure and/or for OEMs to preload Microsoft software) while Microsoft-connected patent trolls help hide the "enforcement" element in this whole racket



  26. Patent Prosecution Highway: Low-Quality Patents for High-Frequency Patent Aggressors

    The EPO's race to the bottom of patent quality, combined with a "need for speed", is a recipe for disaster (except for litigation firms, patent bullies, and patent trolls)



  27. Press Coverage About the EPO Board Revoking Broad's CRISPR Patent

    Even though there's some decent coverage about yesterday's decision (e.g. from The Scientist), the patent microcosm googlebombs the news with stuff that serves to distract from or distort the outcome



  28. Links 17/1/2018: HHVM 3.24, WordPress 4.9.2

    Links for the day



  29. No Patents on Life (CRISPR), Said EPO Boards of Appeal Just a Few Hours Ago

    Broad spectacularly loses its key case, which may soon mean that any other patents on CRISPR too will be considered invalid



  30. Only Two Weeks on the Job, Judge Patrick Corcoran is Already Being Threatened by EPO Management

    The attack on a technical judge who is accused of relaying information many people had already relayed anyway (it was gossip at the whole Organisation for years) carries on as he is again being pushed around, just as many people predicted


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