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

11.14.17

Decline of Skills Level of Staff Like Examiners and Impartiality (Independence) of Judges at the EPO Should Cause Concern, Alarm

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO insiders say that hiring standards have sunk (more on that soon) and new examiners now rely on algorithms rather than in-depth knowledge

GrandcomputerSummary: Access to justice is severely compromised at the EPO as staff is led to rely on deficient tools for determining novelty while judges are kept out of the way or ill-chosen for an agenda other than justice

THERE are no software patents in Europe. In theory at least. The EPO does not obey the rules and grants software patents anyway — something which the USPTO (birthplace of software patents) is gradually stopping.

What can stop the EPO issuing software patents? Most likely the appeal boards, but they have come under attack from Battistelli and years ago they lost their impartiality. 3 years ago Battistelli went as far as making false claims about one of the judges (painting him as some sort of an armed Nazi) and nothing has been the same since. The appeal boards are still there in spirit (in Haar) and routinely they complain that they are unable to operate as envisioned by the EPC.

IAM’s editor, as one might expect, continues his veiled lobbying for software patents and patent trolls. He has already done that twice in the past week (using the typical euphemisms, FRAND/SEP) and yesterday he carried on by copy-pasting Johann Pitz – a partner of Vossius & Partner in Munich – which speaks of “future EU unitary patent” even though there is no such thing! It’s a fantasy and one of the reasons for that is lack of impariality of judges, including their selection process and renewal of contract. We covered that before. It’s an abomination that would rattle the people behind the EPC (the few who might still be alive).

Also yesterday. IAM wrote this blog post about KIPO (the patent office in Korea) going ‘corporate’, appointing a judge with an obvious conflict of interest (far too many connections to industry). To quote:

The IPTAB is gaining not only a very senior corporate IP figure, but a substantially pro-patent one. Last year, under Kim’s leadership, LG Electronics launched its first US patent litigation campaign as a lead plaintiff, a big step toward extracting further value from its portfolio. In recent years, Kim has closed IP deals with operating companies such as Microsoft, Ericsson, IBM, Technicolor and Amazon, as well as with NPEs [read: patent trolls] including Evolved Wireless, France Brevets, and PanOptis.

This man may have literally brushed shoulders not only with executives whom he’ll see in court but also patent trolls. That certainly can ruin the impression of independence and some officials just don’t seem to mind.

The importance of preventing such ‘revolving doors’ scenario became more obvious yesterday, in light of the following interesting exchange between one who thinks of EPO hirings in terms like “free market”, perhaps not grasping that the EPO (like the court system) enjoys a monopoly and should thus be subjected to higher standards. As IP Kat has already nuked entire comment threads, we have decided to reproduce this exchange below:

Some may view your post as cynical, but when you view ANY business operation – and most all business operations are based on that very same concept – why is it that you think that examiners should be excused from the (seemingly) natural market forces that affect everyone else?

Exactly which “market forces” do you believe are at play with regard to the recruitment of EPO examiners?

The EPO is an international organisation that has a monopoly on dishing out (EPC-wide) monopolies. This means that the EPO does not have any relevant “competition”. It is therefore completely inappropriate to apply “free market” concepts to such an organisation.

Of course, should its “users” so demand, then it might be appropriate for the EPO to look for ways of reducing costs (and hence reducing fees). But even then, one has to balance any drive to reduce costs against other demands that the “users” of the system may have.

At this point, it is important to remember that the “users” of the system include 3rd parties whose freedom to operate will be curtailed by the monopolies that the EPO grants.

It is therefore inconceivable that a majority of the EPO’s “users” would ever be in favour of any cost-cutting that compromised the ability of the EPO to conduct high quality examination. From this perspective, it hard to see what justification there could possibly be for adopting recruitment practices that are aimed at “de-skilling” the EPO’s entire examiner base.

You misunderstand the aim of my earlier comment.

It is not that the EPO “has competition” – or not.
It is nothing whatsoever to do with the “users” of the system (therein lies nothing but dust-kicking).

It is that the EPO may apply what is no more than standard business protocols to its own work.

Or do you think that such is somehow off limits? Under what basis would this power to set as “off limits” come from?

I think that you are rather missing the point.

There is no “standard business protocol” when it comes to a patent office. This is because there is no “business” to speak of.

Patent offices exist for the sole purpose of being the first (and most important) gatekeeper to a state-sanctioned monopoly. A patent office therefore only serves its purpose if it applies adequately (but not overly) stringent criteria to the grant of a monopoly.

So yes, it is “off limits” to consider adopting practices that are liable to render the patent office not fit for purpose.

It is interesting to note that the European Medicines Agency values its “skilled” staff so highly that it believes that the new location for the Agency should only be selected from the cities that staff surveys show would provide a high retention rate.

The EMA is much like the EPO in that it examines applications to check that they meet suitable standards. So if retaining skilled staff is such a high priority for the EMA, why should it be any different for the EPO? Improvements in efficiency are one thing, but my view is that any “improvements” that would render the EPO incapable of performing its function should never even be contemplated.

As we have been arguing for a number of years, people don’t simply “opt in” for the EPO. They can be sued at any time by any other company using patents granted — rightly or wrongly — by the EPO. The EPO can be very dangerous (and powerful in a dangerous way) if put in the wrong hands and UPC would extend the breadth of reach of European Patents, increasingly granted in error by decreasingly skilled staff at the EPO (if not by algorithms which don’t quite work).

EPO Frame Breaking

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. The Quality of European Patents Continues to Deteriorate Under António Campinos and Software Patents Are Advocated Every Day

    The EPC in the European Patent Office and 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the USPTO annul most if not all software patents; under António Campinos, however, software patents are being granted in Europe and the USPTO exploits similar tricks



  2. Team UPC is Still Spreading False Rumours in an Effort to Trick Politicians and Pressure Judges

    Abuses at the European Patent Office, political turmoil and an obvious legislative coup by a self-serving occupation that produces nothing have already doomed the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC); so now we deal with complete fabrications from Team UPC as they're struggling to make something out of nothing, anonymously smearing opposition to the UPC and anonymously making stuff up



  3. Patents on Life and Patents That Kill the Poor Would Only Delegitimise the European Patent Office

    After Mayo, Myriad and other SCOTUS cases (the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 101) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is reluctant to grant patents on life; the European Patent Office (EPO), however, goes in the opposite direction, even in defiance of the European Patent Convention



  4. EPO 'Untapped Potential'

    "Campinos is diligently looking for ways to further increase the Office’s output without increasing the number of examiners," says the EPO-FLIER team



  5. Links 9/12/2018: New Linux Stable Releases (Notably Linux 4.19.8), RC Coming, and Unifont 11.0.03

    Links for the day



  6. Links 8/12/2018: Mesa 18.3.0, Mageia 7 Beta, WordPress 5.0

    Links for the day



  7. The European Patent Organisation is Like a Private Club and Roland Grossenbacher is Back in It

    In the absence of Benoît Battistelli quality control at the EPO is still not effective; patents are being granted like the sole goal is to increase so-called 'production' (or profit), appeals are being subjected to threats from Office management, and external courts (courts that assess patents outside the jurisdiction of the Office/Organisation) are being targeted with a long-sought replacement like the Unified Patent Court, or UPC (Unitary Patent)



  8. Links 7/12/2018: GNU Guix, GuixSD 0.16.0, GCC 7.4, PHP 7.3.0 Released

    Links for the day



  9. The Federal Circuit's Decision on Ancora Technologies v HTC America is the Rare Exception, Not the Norm

    Even though the PTAB does not automatically reject every patent when 35 U.S.C. § 101 gets invoked we're supposed to think that somehow things are changing in favour of patent maximalists; but all they do is obsess over something old (as old as a month ago) and hardly controversial



  10. The European Patent Office Remains a Lawless Place Where Judges Are Afraid of the Banker in Chief

    With the former banker Campinos replacing the politician Battistelli and seeking to have far more powers it would be insane for the German Constitutional Court to ever allow anything remotely like the UPC; sites that are sponsored by Team UPC, however, try to influence outcomes, pushing patent maximalism and diminishing the role of patent judges



  11. Many of the Same People Are Still in Charge of the European Patent Office Even Though They Broke the Law

    "EPO’s art collection honoured with award," the EPO writes, choosing to distract from what actually goes on at the Office and has never been properly dealt with



  12. Links 6/12/2018: FreeNAS 11.2, Mesa 18.3 Later Today, Fedora Elections

    Links for the day



  13. EPO, in Its Patent Trolls-Infested Forum, Admits It is Granting Bogus Software Patents Under the Guise of 'Blockchain'

    Yesterday's embarrassing event of the EPO was a festival of the litigation giants and trolls, who shrewdly disguise patents on algorithms using all sorts of fashionable words that often don't mean anything (or deviate greatly from their original meanings)



  14. The Patent Litigation Bubble is Imploding in the US While the UPC Dies in Europe

    The meta-industry which profits from feuds, disputes, threats and blackmail isn't doing too well; even in Europe, where it worked hard for a number of years to institute a horrible litigation system which favours global plaintiffs (patent trolls, opportunists and monopolists), these things are going up in flames



  15. Links 5/12/2018: Epic Games Store, CrossOver 18.1.0, Important Kubernetes Patch

    Links for the day



  16. Links 4/12/2018: LibrePCB 0.1.0, SQLite 3.26.0, PhysX Code

    Links for the day



  17. EPO Management Keeps Embarrassing Itself, UPC More Dead Than Before, and Nokia Turns Aggressive

    The EPO’s race to the bottom of patent quality continues, it’s now complemented by direct association with patent trolls and law stands in their way (for they repeatedly violate the law)



  18. The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) and IBM Are Part of the Software Patents Problem in the United States

    IBM's special role in lobbying for software patents (and against PTAB) needs to be highlighted; even Ethereum’s co-founder isn't happy about IBM's meddling in the blockchain space (with help from Hyperledger/Linux Foundation)



  19. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Not Falling for Attempts to Prevent It From Instituting Challenges

    In the face of patent maximalists' endless efforts to derail patent quality the tribunal keeps calm and carries on smashing bad patents



  20. Links 2/12/2018: Linux 4.20 RC5, Snapcraft 3.0, VirtualBox 6.0 Beta 3

    Links for the day



  21. The Patent Microcosm Hopes That the Federal Circuit Will Get 'Tired' of Rejecting Software Patents

    Trolls-friendly sites aren't tolerating this court's habit of saying "no" to software patents; the Chief Judge meanwhile acknowledges that they're being overrun by a growing number of cases/appeals



  22. 35 U.S.C. § 101 Continues to Crush Software Patents and Even Microsoft Joins 'the Fun'

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and even courts below it continue to throw out software patents or send them back to PTAB and lower courts; there is virtually nothing for patent maximalists to celebrate any longer



  23. The Anti-Section 101 (Pro-Software Patents) Lobby Looks at New Angles for Watering Down Guidelines and Caselaw

    By focusing on jury trials and patent trolls the proponents of bunk, likely-invalid abstract patents hope to overrule or override technical courts such as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)



  24. Patent Trolls, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu and Section 101

    The world’s most important patent office is now run by a courts-hostile person (an 'American Battistelli') who is happy to ignore the courts’ caselaw and listen to patent trolls instead; this means that science and technology, not to mention the law itself, will suffer



  25. Be Wary of the Latest Lies About the Unified Patent Court (UPC), Courtesy of CIPA and Marks & Clerk (Team UPC)

    It's rather noteworthy that no matter how grim things have become for Team UPC, which drafted and promoted new laws for self-enrichment purposes, these people persist with all the same lies that predate several more barriers, which no doubt will prove fatal to the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)



  26. Links 1/12/2018: 4MLinux 27.0, GNU Wget 1.20 Released

    Links for the day



  27. EPO Management High-Fiving Patent Propaganda Sites Like 'Managing IP' While Granting Illegitimate Patents on Algorithms

    Having mastered the art of hype and buzzwords, the management of the EPO carries on pretending that it does nothing wrong by rubber-stamping abstract patents on mathematics



  28. “ILO Gave the EPO Medical Committee a Good Slapping”

    The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation quits ILO (or its jurisdiction), whose tribunal has just released very few new decisions, only one of which regarding the EPO



  29. Science Minister Sam Gyimah, Who Tactlessly Ratified UPC in the UK, Has Just Resigned

    The collapse of the UPC/A (Unified Patent Court Agreement) continues as expected; Gyimah is the third British politician in just two years to deal with the UPC and then resign



  30. Patent Offices Reward Microsoft for Corruption

    The EPO and Britain's UKIPO join the USPTO in making Microsoft's proprietary format the 'standard' in filing; this merely perpetuates the negative publicity associated with patent offices


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