09.10.17
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 1:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Big Oil-funded institutions in favour of Oil States? No way!
Summary: Ahead of Oil States v Greene’s Energy Group, et al (upcoming Supreme Court decision) the ‘greasy’ academics and publishers greased up by patent law firms are trying to tarnish the image of PTAB, even though the technology sector very much supports PTAB
THE PREVIOUS post took note of attacks on Alice Corp. v CLS Bank International (Supreme Court’s decision), but there are other, overlapping attacks whose purpose is similar — to protect software patents that should never have been granted by the USPTO. In effect, PTAB enables just about anyone to challenge bad patents, in a similar way to oppositions and appeals at the EPO. Patent maximalists like neither, as both mechanisms help guard patent quality, which is a threat to patent maximalists’ bottom line.
“In effect, PTAB enables just about anyone to challenge bad patents, in a similar way to oppositions and appeals at the EPO.”The ideas behind this argument aren’t novel. They are not controversial, either. Some people just want more and more patents to exist, as that comes at the expense of various industries and becomes a form of tax that is neither beneficial nor necessary.
A few days ago Managing IP (patent maximalists) wrote about Nidec Motor v Zhongshan. Patent maximalists are waging a war on PTAB, for obvious reasons, and they want every court (Supreme, Federal, District) to stop patent quality assurance. To them, the very concept of quality — or the notion of quality control — is obscene. To them, the more patents society gets granted, the more innovation will occur (or so they try to tell us). So anyway, in this particular case there was a “concurring opinion in the Nidec Motor v Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor appeal of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision at the Federal Circuit [which] has attracted a lot of attention.”
“Patent maximalists are waging a war on PTAB, for obvious reasons, and they want every court (Supreme, Federal, District) to stop patent quality assurance.”The decision, Nidec Motor v Zhongshan, was covered days later by the same site. It’s worth emphasising that PTAB gets the thumbs up from the Federal Circuit about 80% of the time. There’s not much of a feud there at all, but patent maximalists try to fuel or inflame one. They keep nitpicking/cherry-picking exceptions to the norm (which reveals their own bias) to give the impression that PTAB is naughty or “impotent” (their word). As Managing IP put it just before the weekend: “126 PTAB petitions were filed in August, while the Federal Circuit expressed concern with the Board’s practice of joinder and expanded panels in Nidec Motor v Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, said it abused its discretion for failing to consider material evidence in Ultratec v CaptionCall, and ruled that an IPR petitioner doesn’t need to satisfy Article III standing requirements to participate in a patent owner’s appeal in Personal Audio v EFF…”
They make it sound like the Federal Circuit is very upset at PTAB, but that’s not hard to do by picking apart just a handful (or less) of cases. That’s precisely what Patently-O was doing almost every day in August — a pattern we vocally complained about at the time. Patently-O is in fact still cherry-picking exceptions to the norm (the norm being PTAB doing a good job, the Federal Circuit then reaffirming it). Now it’s this:
In a new decision, the Federal Circuit has ruled that the PTAB erred in its inherency analysis, but ultimately affirmed the claim cancellation after finding the error harmless.
[...]
In its decision, the PTAB (board) used inherency in a particular way – finding first that it would have been obvious to combine the prior art to use the method described; and then finding that the 30% reduction would have inherently resulted from the combination. On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected that analysis – holding that “the Board cited no evidence that a reduction of 30% in the pulling force would necessarily result from the claimed process, which contains no steps that ensure such reduction.” Rather, as the patentee argued, the 30% reduction serves as a guide for selecting the particular lubricants and arrangements.
[...]
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252 (C.C.P.A. 1977). In Best, the court noted that inherency would be properly used in this situation for an anticipation decision, but that for obviousness, the PTO can simply find a prima facie obviousness case.
Cancellation affirmed.
So basically, this is more of the same, i.e. the Federal Circuit agreeing with PTAB (except when it comes to more minor details). Be sure a lot of briefs will be sent to the Supreme Court with a false narrative of PTAB as “impotent” or whatever. That’s just what the patent microcosm is trying to accomplish these days. Here is another new Patently-O post, also indirectly about PTAB. To quote:
The move is designed to prop the patents up against challenge via a tribal sovereign immunity claim. (Several of the transferred patents are being challenged before the PTAB in AIA Trials). Parallel claims have been quite successful for public universities in fending of both IPR and declaratory judgment lawsuits – even when the patents are exclusively licensed to commercial entities
[...]
Allergan is a frequent player of jurisdictional games. Its corporate “headquarters” is in Dublin for the tax benefits, although it is “actually” sited in New Jersey.
Tax dodger, tax evader, whatever. With Patent Boxes in Europe it’s clear that many patent maximalists simply help companies not pay tax. It’s a grey if not a black market.
“With Patent Boxes in Europe it’s clear that many patent maximalists simply help companies not pay tax.”Last but not least we have Adam Mossoff, who not an engineer, just a “law” person that keeps lobbying for the interests of patent trolls and the more radical elements in Texas. We mentioned him many times before. He seems like a de facto lobbyist (connected to Conservative think tanks) and not too shockingly he attacks PTAB now, having chosen a rightwing politcal site to publish his rant. “Anyone can file as many petitions as they want in challenging the validity of any patent,” he said, “and they can file it for any reason whatsoever, such as by an activist organization dedicated to eliminating all patents on computer software.”
If he is referring to EFF as “activist organization dedicated to eliminating all patents on computer software,” then he merely serves to reaffirm where he stands on the subject. He does not develop any software; he’s more like a pundit from the Antonin Scalia (Republican) Law School. Here is his conclusion: “Malone’s tale is now typical for all innovators. Accused infringers and commercial competitors now exploit the PTAB as a way to harass inventors, small businesses, and other innovators. The PTAB was supposed to address the problem of low-quality patents; it now threatens all patents, undermining the foundation of the American innovation economy.”
“We can expect attacks on PTAB to intensify as the SCOTUS decision is near and patent maximalists want to obliterate PTAB, or in other words destroy patent quality.”Got that? To petition PTAB is to “harass”, as if challenging a ludicrous patent asserted by some opportunistic troll is the “harassment”. As for that last sentence, if “the foundation of the American innovation economy” is a bunch of patents on things like one-click shopping, then the economy boils down to nothing but dirt, maybe shopping (not producing).
We can expect attacks on PTAB to intensify as the SCOTUS decision is near and patent maximalists want to obliterate PTAB, or in other words destroy patent quality. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 12:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The patent microcosm is trying to set fire to the software industry in order to make money from the equivalent of reconstruction
Summary: The people who have been sabotaging the software industry for years/decades (taxing it by litigation and other patent-related expenses) are losing momentum and resorting to attacks on Alice Corp. v CLS Bank International (Supreme Court’s decision)
THE long tradition of Alice bashing is older than 3 years. A cult of patent maximalism, i.e. those people who believe that anything on Earth (even thoughts!) should be patented, would even make card decks to that effect (Patently-O actually promoted these last week). For those to whom patents rather than actual work/code/devices are “property” it may make perfect sense (they keep telling each other that patents are the equivalent of innovation), but for those of us who code it’s a major headache and a never-ending struggle (to keep these zealots at bay). They keep bullying any public official who tries to explain that patent trolls have no value to the economy and patents on software aren’t desirable or wanted by actual software professionals.
“They keep bullying any public official who tries to explain that patent trolls have no value to the economy and patents on software aren’t desirable or wanted by actual software professionals.”Will this dispute ever end? It can, but only if those patent maximalists go out of business. It’s unlikely that coders will completely go out of business, even though Microsoft's patent troll Nathan Myhrvold once said: “Intellectual property is the next software.”
As if patents can magically replace actual code and coders.
The eternal push by patent maximalists comes from various Web sites, none of which are composed by software developers. For them to tell software developers what software developers want or need is as ludicrous as it gets. They probably don’t realise how ludicrous it looks to outsiders, either.
“For them to tell software developers what software developers want or need is as ludicrous as it gets.”Here is a new example from Patently-O. Why was such a patent granted by the USPTO in the first place? Why aren’t examiners (or their bosses) realising the dire effect of granting bogus patents? Innocent people are harmed and only the lawyers benefit.
Here is another news item from several days ago — one which mentioned software patents. How did a graduate in the area of physics come to this? To quote: “IP boutique Meunier Carlin & Curfman has added two patent lawyers from a pair of big firms in town. Chris Glass, who was at Troutman Sanders, joins as of counsel, and Jason Huff joins as an associate from Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton. [...] Glass, who has an undergraduate degree in physics, handles patent prosecution and litigation, mostly for electronics, optics (which includes fiberoptics communications), medical device and software patents.”
“Don’t they realise that software patents are passé?”For a physical device, where the invention is demonstrable not on a general-purpose device (e.g. programmable), patents can be fine. But why software? Moreover, what about Alice? Don’t they realise that software patents are passé?
Even the “national law review” (a widely read journal, especially among legal professionals) is coming to grips with death of software patents. Days ago it published this article titled “Patentability Post-Alice: Cracking The Code” and it’s about the 2014 ruling (along with its implications). To quote: “Another digital data conversion patent bites the Alice dust. Frankly, this is no longer a shock. Since the controversial and confusing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International opinion was issued in 2014, courts have been striking software patents left and right. The latest Alice victim, an image-processing patent holder battling Nintendo, has commentators calling rulings like this a threat to software patents worldwide. When it comes to getting through the patent-worthy Alice gate, have you cracked the code?”
Software patents are not worth much in the US. They might even be completely worthless. Software patents are gradually ending in the US and it’s a good thing, albeit a shame it didn’t happen earlier. The latest pro-Alice article of the EFF (part of a series) was published very recently to say “Alice Arrives Too Late to Save A Startup” (Ordrx).
Here is the gist of it:
David Bloom’s startup got off to a good start. He left a “regular job” to found Ordrx, a software company that created ecommerce solutions for local businesses. He secured venture funding and the company was featured in featured in TechCrunch and Inc. Magazine. But then he ran into a patent troll.
Our Saved By Alice posts have told the stories of companies who were helped or saved by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank that an abstract idea does not become eligible for a patent simply by being implemented on generic computers. Unfortunately, David’s story does not really belong in this series. This is because Ordrx was completely wiped out by the massive expense of defending itself in patent litigation. Later, the Federal Circuit would find the troll’s patents invalid under Alice. But that ruling came too late to save Ordrx.
When the EFF posted this in Twitter PTAB and Alice bashers started attacking the EFF over it.
“It would be nice to see the patent micorocosm leaving Alice in tact and in peace, but there are several simultaneous efforts to water down Section 101, in effect derailing Alice (i.e. disrepsecting a Supreme Court’s decision).”Benjamin Henrion responded with: “Why does the state needs to intervene in software development? Sounds like an elephant in porcelain shop.”
Copyrights do not require enforcement unless an infringement is said to have occurred (usually plagiarism or licence violations). Rarely does that require lawyers and attorneys.
It would be nice to see the patent micorocosm leaving Alice in tact and in peace, but there are several simultaneous efforts to water down Section 101, in effect derailing Alice (i.e. disrepsecting a Supreme Court’s decision). We are watching these things closely. Attacks on PTAB will be covered in the next post. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 9:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A reminder that not only patent trolls are the key issue but patents on software in general, including some of Amazon’s (e.g. 1-click patent)
THERE’S MUCH focus on patent trolls and on the EPO these days. What few people are willing to talk about, however, are patents like that notorious Amazon patent which expires in two days. We wrote two articles about it just recently [1, 2] (there are more in past years). How on Earth did it survive 20 years and why did the USPTO tolerate such a patent? Prior to PTAB there was little one could do about it unless/until Amazon decides to sue, so companies had to figure out workarounds.
“It’s probably because the above patent was already old when PTAB came into existence that nobody bothered petitioning to invalidate it.”NPR did a show about the subject 4 days ago. It’s in an interview form and it’s preceded by this introduction: “Our Planet Money team looks back on the early days of the Internet when buying with one click seemed novel enough to warrant a patent, and how this gave Amazon an advantage.”
To understand how much damage was done by this patent and what was prevented by this patent, scroll down to the part which says: “Now with the patent set to expire on September 12, Facebook Google, Microsoft and other big players have been talking about how to develop an internet-wide 1-click checkout, where your credit card information moves with you from site to site. Ken Wilbur teaches business analytics, and he watches these kinds of trends in e-commerce.”
“Where would the Internet be without that stupid, laughable patent?”This patent is a good reason for PTAB’s existence. It’s probably because the above patent was already old when PTAB came into existence that nobody bothered petitioning to invalidate it. Where would the Internet be without that stupid, laughable patent? It’s just one of many such ridiculous patents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Patents at 9:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Printing industry isn’t particularly happy
Summary: Concerns are being expressed by and on behalf of a common target of patent trolls
EARLIER this week there were a couple of articles (same text in both) [1, 2] and more from PRINT 17. This includes a video (above) and says: [via Ashley Roberts]
Harvey Levenson, Professor Emeritus at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo, Calif., and a consultant for Graphic Communication Advisors, discusses the landscape of patent trolls, how they have impacted the printing industry and why the printing industry has been targeted.
As usual, patent trolls attack people who actually produce stuff, From one of these articles:
There were recently three major cases that were ruled in favor of printing industry defendants—printers and OEMs. However, the issue is not behind us. It’s just starting said Cal Poly Professor Emeritus, Dr. Harvey Levenson, who will lead the seminar entitled, “A Case Study of Patent Trolls Attacking the Printing Industry: The Industry Is Winning!”
[...]
Levenson will be accompanied by two “Printing Industry Heroes Among Us,” an attorney who was mainly responsible for the dismissal of the three major cases, and an inventor named on two of the patents who was almost a victim of the trolls, but wound up as their adversary. You will hear their stories, firsthand.
Printers and OEMs are being threatened with lawsuits claiming patent infringement for having equipment used for everyday business practices. Levenson said that no company is immune. “If you are a printer using software-driven technology or an OEM producing software-driven technology (small, medium, or large), and have not yet been faced with the extortion tactics of patent trolls, it’s just a matter of time that you will.”
Earlier this year, in the wake of the infamous Lexmark case, we wrote about the position of the printing industry. It’s sick and tired of patent trolls. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 8:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Although Finjan's lawsuits in the UK go back almost a decade ago
Summary: ESET is apparently the latest target of Finjan’s extortion and blackmail campaign — a campaign which typically targets Microsoft’s competition
ESET, a Slovakian company, has just been sued by Finjan, a patent troll which we have been writing so much about and have just created a Wiki page for.
Finjan is nowadays busy ‘harvesting’ patents (buying them for extortion) and we wrote about it at least thrice last month [1, 2, 3]. Any patents granted by the EPO or the USPTO can end up on this troll’s lap.
The latest lawsuit from Finjan (it started suing quite a lot recently) targets yet another Microsoft competitor, this time ESET. Zuzana Hošalová is quoted in the English-speaking Slovakian media:
Eset is involved in disputes over patents for which it might pay up to €15.5 million, the Hospodárske noviny (HN) daily wrote on September 7. The lawsuits were submitted to the courts in the USA and Germany by the US company Finjan.
Such lawsuits are common under US jurisdiction, Eset’s spokesperson Zuzana Hošalová told HN, adding that Finjan sues nearly every important company active in the cyber security field. She refused to comment on the ongoing disputes. The US company questions the antivirus programmes that allegedly use their solutions protected by licences. One of the two suits, in which Finjan accuses Eset of violating six patents, was submitted to the Californian court in July 2016. The company extended the complaint last month, asking for compensation at €15 million for damages. In Germany, it is asking for €0.5 million.
Notice the part about Germany? German courts have quickly become an infestation zones for patent trolls. Thanks, Battistelli! █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Patents at 7:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The patent craze (and litigation mess) is moving to the East, but not the innovation
Summary: Exacerbating litigation landscape in China and the general atmosphere (full of trolls) become a liability to China as a production giant or the world’s ‘warehouse’
“Qualcomm shares drop,” said this tweet a few days ago, “hearing they lost bid to force Apple (AAPL) contractors to pay royalties…” (Qualcomm is losing the plot here, as its patent shakedown fails yet again)
More has been said about this by Florian Müller, who wrote a blog post to say that “Judge denies Qualcomm motions for preliminary injunctions against Apple [as well as] contract manufacturers” (there was a multipronged attack). To quote:
It’s not like Qualcomm didn’t already have plenty of legal problems. But Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has just (this morning by Pacific Time) handed down two decisions denying a couple of Qualcomm motions for preliminary injunctions. Qualcomm has failed to obtain a preliminary injunction requiring four Apple contract manufacturers to make royalty payments before the matter is adjudicated. I had predicted that one. What isn’t really surprising either, but was much less clear based on how a recent hearing went, is that Judge Curiel also declined to bar Apple from pursuing antitrust cases in other jurisdictions (such as China, Japan, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom).
Obviously, many manufacturers are in China, where Apple has been facing many patent lawsuits (we wrote about some of them last weekend). Having written about a shouting match in China over Apple and patents, IAM now has a more detailed report about what happened. Here are some portions:
More than a few foreign IP practitioners expressed surprise at the idea that legitimate, if pointed, questions from Gao should generate such a hostile response from Cao. Their belief was that a public conference is a good setting in which to have a direct dialogue. After listening to Iwncomm’s presentation, it would have been hard for an Apple partisan to let go the opportunity to present an alternative argument and evidence to the public. But some Chinese practitioners responded that it was not necessarily the adversarial content of Gao’s questions that was the problem, but the way it appeared he seemed intent on embarrassing Cao in public.
Many foreign practitioners, as well as some Chinese nationals who were born, raised or educated overseas, were fairly shocked by the heated nationalist emotion that the episode generated – and offended at Cao implying that Gao’s nationality had a crucial role to play in this case. One overseas born Chinese national who works as a senior IP executive in a Chinese company said that line of thought made him feel very uncomfortable: “Simply, it is a legal dispute and professional matter, but it should not be mixed with nationalist sentiment.” He did observe, though, that a level of nationalist sentiment is something that one needs to be conscious of while conducting negotiations with Chinese companies.
[...]
At a Beijing symposium on SEP & FRAND hosted today by China’s Ministry of Commerce, there was evidence that Cao v Gao had been noticed at the government level. Zhang Yonghua, the director of SIPO’s Department of Treaty and Law, began his remarks by acknowledging the dust-up. He suggested that the “very fierce argument” between smartphone makers and technology developers today stems from systemic issues.
It certainly sounds like SIPO too is taking notice. China has quickly become the world’s new “patent trolls central” and this puts at jeopardy China’s manufacturing industry; it can actually turn away many of the largest companies as they can seek contractors elsewhere (even if at a higher cost). The cost of operating in China is increasing because of patent maximalism. It’s purely self-harming. According to this new blog post from IAM, yet another new patent troll is taking shape, one that’s known as Longhorn: (we mentioned it a few times before)
Longhorn IP on Tuesday announced its first patent assertion in China, a Beijing IP Court lawsuit targeting Taiwan’s HTC. The case marks the second notable NPE campaign to be launched in China in the space of a year following WiLAN’s November 2016 assertion against Sony in Nanjing. But a judge from that Chinese city told local delegates at this week’s China Patent Annual Conference that now is not the time to sound alarm bells.
What IAM calls “monetisation campaign” (even in the headline) is actually a euphemism for lawsuit/s. We can expect to hear a lot more about lawsuits in China because it’s creating a patent bubble similar to the one the USPTO created for a few decades. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Shattering the echo chamber of Team UPC
Summary: Professor Siegfried Broß and Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna among the barriers to the UPC; other barriers, however, are barriers to truth itself (sites that censor any sign of criticism of the UPC)
A FEW days ago we mentioned how IP Kat, which no longer covers EPO scandals, deleted a comment about its plagiarism regarding UPC.
Someone was then having a go at the corrupt EPO Vice-President:
A German minister had to resign as big chunks of his PhD Thesis were copied……
He should have applied for a job at the EPO as a Vice-President.
Since then we have seen further signs of censorship/moderation (comments on UPC). One comment said: “The comments on this thread do not seem to have been updated?”
“Comments do not seem to be getting through,” said another comment. “Is the moderator gone to sleep or is is a deliberate policy of censorship.”
Well, we already know for a fact that on numerous occasions in the past comments about UPC got deleted. So we’re left only with what passed the ‘Kat’ filter, namely comments that say “lobbyists and politicians alike would do well to take heed of the principle outlined last month by Frans Timmermans” (First Vice-President of the European Commission). To quote:
Regardless of what any of us might think about the constitutional complaint, one hopes that the BVerfG will be left entirely to their own devices to make up their minds upon the correctness (or otherwise) of the grounds of complaint.
In this regard, lobbyists and politicians alike would do well to take heed of the principle outlined last month by Frans Timmermans (when discussing the rule of law in connection with Poland) that:
“Everybody living in the EU has the right to rely on an independent national and European judicial system and deserves courts free from any form of interference, including by politicians”.
Another one in relation to this quotes Professor Siegfried Broß:
They would do even better to take heed of the words of Prof. Siegfried Broß recently published in GRUR:
“To begin with it is necessary to point out that the Member States of the EPO and the EU act not only in a contradictory but in a blatantly dishonest manner when they raise serious accusations, for example, against Poland, Hungary and Turkey, because of their unlawful treatment of the judiciary, whereas on the other hand as a result of the serious defects in the drafting of legal agreements in their own house, they leave the door wide open for crude attacks on the individual rights of EPO staff members, and in the end retreat behind the “immunity” of the international organisation which they have created.
http://rsw.beck.de/cms/?site=GRUR-Int
We have published the entire thing here (in German).
Right now it seems like Battistelli is adopting the Turkish model, as we noted earlier today. There are purges and spying that constitutes abuse of human rights.
Regarding CJEU, a central contention point pertaining to Brexit and UPC, someone then said this:
EPLA was submitted to the CJEU, with the result we all know, Opinion 1/09.
Why has the UPC not been submitted as well beforehand?
Would it have been too dangerous for some? One can only wonder why.
We would now be clear, and we could have avoided all the innate discussions about the UK being able or not to participate in the UPC.
As far as the interest for European industry is concerned, I am rather sceptical as not much more than a third of applications at the EPO stem from EU member states. How many from European SMS?
As we have been noting here for almost a decade, UPC is for multi-nations and trolls (and their lawyers who are likely based in Europe or have a branch in Europe). It’s definitely not for the European industry and it should therefore be treated as an utterly undesirable proposal which not only violates numerous constitutions but also harms public confidence in the European Union.
We are waiting to see if German authorities/courts are willing to receive feedback from anyone other than the patent microcosm. They are trying to monopolise the ‘facts’. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Reference: Stasi
Summary: The EPO is preparing new staff to snitch on fellow staff, potentially confusing new recruits as to their actual job
THE EPO used to attract talented staff (before Battistelli ruined it), but nowadays many people are leaving what they perceive to have become an oppressive police state where depression and sometimes suicides are a way of life (or death). In previous months and years we shared some numbers regarding departures and arrivals. It doesn’t look good.
“How to motivate new talents freshly recruited?”
Well, here is an explainer from an insider:
PD [Principal Director Bergot] 43 enjoys digging and seems to have got a brand new stock of shovels.
On their first day of work, newcomers at the EPO are “invited” to attend a welcome meeting organized by Ms Bergot (PD 43, Principal Directorate HR, spouse of the newly shamefully promoted Gilles Requena).
During this highly “inspirational session”, one hour is dedicated to presenting the work of the Investigative Unit, the EPO Code of Conduct (which EPO top management see fit to violate as they please) and the duty to report any witnessed misconduct (not that committed by top management of course).
Together with Mrs Simona Barbieri (Investigator), Ms Bergot seems to enjoy explaining in detail how to fill in the denunciation form. Needless to say, those newcomers are appalled by this session and start their period of work at EPO rather shocked and depressed.
Barbieri was mentioned in this last part of our series about the EPO’s Investigative Unit [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] (back in 2015). These ‘investigators’ have hired more people since; because Stati is more important than examination now that the EPO is preoccupied with lobbying and “production” of low-quality patents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA