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

10.28.17

Patent Scope in Europe Should Not be Decided by the Self-Serving Patent Law Firms, But They Totally Dominate the Media

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The screenshot below (taken moments ago) shows how Lexology and the likes of it (law firms lobbying and/or advertising themselves) totally dominate channels of information

Lexology EPO

Summary: Coverage regarding patents in Europe is still (nearly) monopolised by the patent microcosm, i.e. the ‘industry’ that profits when many patents are granted and a lot of lawsuits get filed

LAST month we wrote about Switzerland in relation to Patent Boxes (means for dodging tax). Yesterday, Philipp Groz and Teresa Rudolph from Schellenberg Wittmer wrote two ‘articles’ about patents in Switzerland, noting that “[c]omputer programs as such are not patentable.” (the term “as such” became infamous within the EPO and caused great controversy)

When we say “two articles” we use scare quotes because actually these are two identical self-promotional posts, possibly intended to help occupy more search results pages (SEO). One is titled “Patents in Switzerland” and the other “An overview of patentability in Switzerland”. It’s all the same. Here is the part we’re interested in:

To what extent can inventions covering software be patented?

Computer programs as such are not patentable. However, computer-implemented inventions are patentable (eg, inventions involving the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, where one or more features are realised by means of a computer program).

To what extent can inventions covering business methods be patented?

Business methods as such are not patentable. However, business methods may be patentable if they are combined with technical features.

Yesterday we wrote about a similar self-promotional piece from Keltie LLP (UK) and this morning a pseudonym which seems to be associated with the firm confronted us over it. They promote loopholes by which to mislead examiners and when people criticise them for it they just walk away, as usual…

Also published yesterday was this article from Potter Clarkson LLP (Richard Wells and David Carling to be specific).

It speaks about “inventive step”/”technical effect” at the European Patent Office (EPO) and bemoans the appeal boards “[r]aising the plausibility bar,” which is the very thing these boards exist to ensure. To quote:

In T 0488/16, the board reiterated that it is not essential that the application contains experimental data or results, provided the nature of the invention is such that it relies on a technical effect which is either self-evident or predictable or based on a conclusive theoretical concept.

Nevertheless, it is clear that it is not sufficient merely to assert that the technical problem the application purports to solve is solved. Some form of verifiable evidence is required in the application as filed.

When drafting new European patent applications, applicants should minimise the extent to which they may need to rely on post-published evidence during pre- and post-grant proceedings, bearing in mind that reliance on what is made plausible from the common general knowledge opens up questions of obviousness.

In the absence of adequate experimental results, additional effort should be put into the construction of a strong technical explanation for the purported effect which overcomes the plausibility threshold, thereby enabling the applicant later to rely on post-published evidence.

It is clear from T 0488/16 that it will not always be possible to address this issue even by severely narrowing the scope of the claims.

Great care should, therefore, be taken when considering withholding experimental evidence simply to maintain a commercial advantage.

This decision may also provide useful ammunition for opponents during oppositions. In most cases, the threat of the plausibility issue may result in the delaying of filing new applications until sufficient data become available.

As the EPO’s recent decision brings its approach closer in line with that adopted by other patent offices, most notably those in China and Japan, these choices will be familiar to practitioners handling worldwide patent portfolios.

The authors ought to know that the boards have already been marginalised and oppositions made more difficult (for various reasons). It’s all intended to ensure quick grants and many low-quality patents, which Battistelli is perpetually prepared to lie about (his greatest power is that he’s willing to lie without qualm or guilt).

One last article of interest is this one from Kevin Kabler and Andrew Whitehead. They both work for patent maximalists and software patents lobbyists, Fenwick & West LLP, who can’t help pushing towards patents on life just like they push hard for patents on abstract ideas. Here they are lobbying alongside the EPO (Georg Wimmer) and USPTO (Marjorie Moran):

At the September 21, 2017 symposium, Fenwick’s Kevin Kabler moderated the panel. Sharing insights* into patent eligibility and obviousness considerations in the U.S. were speakers Marjorie Moran (USPTO) and Andrew Whitehead (Fenwick). On the European side, our guests were Georg Wimmer (EPO) and Frances Salisbury (Partner, Mewburn Ellis, UK).

[...]

A: In Europe, make sure you’ve got some intermediates in the application and make sure your technical case is clearly stated. In the U.S., talk to your examiners. At the USPTO, you’ll find that going back and forth in writing, especially with the constantly changing landscape of patent eligibility, causes more confusion sometimes than it solves; so if your case has been picked up for examination, call your examiner at any point in time, it will help shorten your prosecution path considerably in the vast majority of cases.

Yes, the EPO has long advised people not to submit anything without a middle(wo)man which can cost up to $500 per hour. Such is the inane state of affairs and the reason people have reported abuse/sent complaints (some of which we covered here before).

Suffice to say, any financial gain for patent law firms happens at the expense of actual scientists/technologists (like patent examiners).

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. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 15, 2019

    IRC logs for Tuesday, October 15, 2019



  2. No, Microsoft is Not an 'Open Source Company' But a Lying Company

    The world’s biggest proprietary software companies want to be seen as “open”; what else is new?



  3. Meme: Setting the Record Straight

    Stallman never defended Epstein. He had called him “Serial Rapist”. It’s Bill Gates who defended Epstein and possibly participated in the same acts.



  4. EPO Staff Resolution Against Neoliberal Policies of António Campinos

    “After Campinos announced 17 financial measures,” a source told us, “staff gathered at multiple sites last week for general assemblies. The meeting halls were crowded. The resolution was passed unanimously and without abstentions.”



  5. Satya Nadella is a Distraction From Microsoft's Real Leadership and Abuses

    "I’m merely wondering if his image and accolades that we’re incessantly bombarded with by the press actually reflect his accomplishments or if they’re being aggrandized."



  6. Raw: EPO Comes Under Fire for Lowering Patent Quality Under the Orwellian Guise of “Collaborative Quality Improvements” (CQI)

    Stephen Rowan, the President’s (António Campinos) chosen VP who promotes the notorious “Collaborative Quality Improvements” (CQI) initiative/pilot, faces heat from the CSC, the Central Staff Committee of the EPO



  7. Making The Most of The Fourth Age of Free Software

    "For better or for worse, we can be certain the Free Software Foundation will never be the same."



  8. FSF is Not for Free Speech Anymore

    The FSF gave orders to silence people



  9. Links 16/10/2019: Plasma 5.17.0, Project Trident Moves to GNU/Linux, NuTyX 11.2

    Links for the day



  10. ...So This GNU/Linux User Goes to a Pub With Swapnil and Jim

    It's hard to promote GNU/Linux when you don't even use it



  11. How to THRIVE, in Uncertain Times for Free Software

    "The guidelines are barely about conduct anyway, they are more about process guidelines for "what to do with your autonomy" in the context of a larger group where participation is completely voluntary and each individual consents to participate."



  12. When They Run Out of Things to Patent They'll Patent Nature Itself...

    The absolutely ridiculous patent bar (ridiculously low) at today’s EPO means that legal certainty associated with European Patents is at an all-time low; patents get granted for the sake of granting more patents each year



  13. EPO Boards of Appeal Need Courage and Structural Disruption to Halt Software Patents in Europe

    Forces or lobbyists for software patents try to come up with tricks and lies by which to cheat the EPC and enshrine illegal software patents; sadly, moreover, EPO judges lack the necessary independence by which to shape caselaw against such practices



  14. Professor Dr. Maximilian Haedicke on Lack of Separation of Powers at the EPO (Which Dooms UPC)

    Team UPC (“empire of lies”) is catching up with reality; no matter how hard media has attempted to not cover EPO scandals (after the EPO paid and threatened many publishers that tried), it remains very much apparent that EPOnia is like a theocracy that cannot be trusted with anything



  15. As Expected, the Bill Gates Propaganda Machine is Trying to Throw/Put Everyone off the Scent of Jeffery Epstein's 'Incestuous' Ties With Gates

    Media ownership up on display; it's amplifying false claims for a whole month, whereas truth/correct information gets buried before a weekend is over



  16. IRC Proceedings: Monday, October 14, 2019

    IRC logs for Monday, October 14, 2019



  17. [ES] El Kernel de Linux está introduciendo Open Source Privative Software

    Linux, el kernel, continúa su trayectoria o el camino hacia convertirse en software propietario de código abierto (OSPS).



  18. Linux Foundation Board Meeting

    More sponsored keynotes and tweets — like more sponsored articles (or “media partners”) — aren’t what the Linux Foundation really needs



  19. Links 14/10/2019: Linux 5.4 RC3, POCL 1.4, Python 3.8.0

    Links for the day



  20. This Week Techrights Crosses 26,000 Posts Milestone, 3 Weeks Before Turning 13 (2,000+ Posts/Year)

    A self-congratulatory post about another year that's passed (without breaks from publishing) and another milestone associated with posting volume



  21. No Calls to "Remove Gates" From the Board (Over a Real Scandal/Crime), Only to "Remove Stallman" (Over Phony Distraction From the Former)

    Jeffrey Epstein's connections to Bill Gates extend well beyond Gates himself; other people inside Microsoft are closely involved as well, so Microsoft might want to cut ties with its co-founder before it becomes a very major mess



  22. “The Stupidest [Patent/Tax] Policy Ever”

    It’s pretty clear that today’s European patent system has been tilted grossly in favour of super-rich monopolists and their facilitators (overzealous law firms and ‘creative’ accountants) as opposed to scientists



  23. Meme: Software Patents at the EPO

    The evolution of “technical effect” nonsense at the EPO



  24. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, October 13, 2019

    IRC logs for Sunday, October 13, 2019



  25. Firm of Microsoft's Former Litigation Chief Uses Microsoft-Connected Patent Lawsuit Against GNU/Linux (GNOME Foundation) for New Breed of FUD Campaigns

    The patent troll of Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold has fed a patent troll that's attacking GNU/Linux and a firm owned by Microsoft's former litigation chief says it proves "Open Source Software Remains a Target"



  26. "Widespread Adoption" (Did You Mean: Takeover by Monopolies?)

    "Quite a few of them are people that would rather replace David with Goliath, just because he's bigger. Quite a few are already taking money from Goliath."



  27. Links 13/10/2019: Red Hat CFO Fired and KDE Plasma 5.17 Preparations

    Links for the day



  28. Bill's Media Strategy Amid GatesGate

    There are many ways by which to game the media’s news cycle — an art mastered by the groper in chief



  29. Hard-Core Micro-Soft

    The word "core" is increasingly being (mis)used to portray user-hostile proprietary software as something more benign if not "open"



  30. Free Software Timeline and Federation: When Free Software Advocacy/Support is a Monopoly Expansion Becomes Necessary

    Support for Software Freedom — like support for Free software (think Red Hat/IBM and systemd) — should be decentralised and compartmentalised to make the movement stronger and adaptable


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

Recent Posts