11.23.17
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:18 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The EPO is paying for so-called ‘studies’ whose purpose is believed to pressure the court
Summary: This Thanksgiving Day is spent by Team UPC trying to prop up the UPC even though no progress whatsoever is being made and the EPO’s ‘study’ on the UPC is said to be flawed
TEAM UPC refuses to give up on the zombie known as the UPC. We’re already seeing some jokes being thrown around about it. Few in this profession actually believe that the UPC is going anywhere. But Team UPC, having invested a vast amount of time and money in the UPC/A, just cannot let go.
“Few in this profession actually believe that the UPC is going anywhere.”Was this post from ealier today published by Bristows? We don’t know for sure, but we are guessing so (based on recent anonymous posts which echoed Bristows and linked to Bristows). It was posted anonymously. The post is totally nonsensical. Posted anonymously by someone from Team UPC, it spreads the lie that the “industry” wants the UPC (variant of the “UPC for SMEs” lie). To quote a portion:
Ahead of the meeting of the EU Competitiveness Council, 30 November and 1 December 2017 in Brussels, a group of European companies and associations have sent a letter to EU member states urging them to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement and join the Protocol on Provisional Application (PPA) as soon as possible, if they haven’t done so yet.
According to the letter, the Unitary Patent system will ‘encourage investment, spur growth and create new jobs across Europe. The patent reform will substantially contribute to increased European competitiveness.
This post was not accessible this morning because Kluwer Patent Blog was down (yet again) for a long period of time. When we finally managed to read it we just thought, “wow! So much for peer review or quality control at Kluwer!” It’s hogwash from headline, to start, to finish. Anyone reading this would be led to believe that Europe is salivating over the UPC (unless one knows better).
“Posted anonymously by someone from Team UPC, it spreads the lie that the “industry” wants the UPC (variant of the “UPC for SMEs” lie).”A similar lie was then pushed by Bristows itself. Edward Nodder from Team UPC/Bristows (a relatively new name whose employer is a chronic liar) wants us to think that UPC has a chance. It’s total spin and distortion of the actual situation. The blog says:
Both Germany and the UK have parliamentary approval to ratify; the UK is expected to do so shortly but Germany’s ratification (and consent to the PPA) is on hold due to the challenge brought in its Constitutional Court. Other than Germany, action is needed by two more member states before the provisional application phase can start.
They say “on hold” and they also wrongly assume that the UK would soon follow. Both are false assumptions. Even IAM, which was used as a UPC propaganda tool by the EPO, admits that the UPC is in fatal trouble. Earlier on it wrote: “Where things are with the UPC. Basically, German ratification is on hold thanks to the Constitutional Court case; so the whole project is subject to unknown, perhaps permanent, delay.”
Here’s that framing again, “on hold,” followed by “permanent, delay.”
“People are amused by the spin from the likes of IAM and Bristows, whose comments on the UPC are motivated purely by financial agenda.”One EPO insider said about it, “how cute,” to which I responded: “My dog is not dead, he is just “permanently asleep”” (implying that the UPC — like the EPO — is in disarray).
There’s more in that thread. People are amused by the spin from the likes of IAM and Bristows, whose comments on the UPC are motivated purely by financial agenda.
David Pearce, a former Kat (of IP Kat) and UPC sceptic, took note of the EPO’s new ‘study’ (corrupting academia for UPC promotion). He — like many others — also thinks that EPO’s claims are bunk/empty, to put it politely. “I am a bit sceptical about @EPOorg ‘s claims for 14.6 bn Euro increase in trade if the #UP and #UPC come into force,” he wrote. “Seems to rely on dodgy assumption about stronger patent protection leading to greater trade and inward investment. Here’s the full report…”
“The thing is, OSS is not compatible with software patents. At all.”IAM is meanwhile pushing software patents agenda using “CII” as the euphemism of choice for software patents. This weasel term is not new. The EPO has, for a long time (over a decade), used this misleading term to dodge the rules and break the law. We already wrote many articles about how the UPC would usher software patents into Europe. It’s a Trojan horse for plenty of bad things. IAM quotes that what “would be positive, especially for SMEs, is the interplay between open source software (OSS) and patents…”
The thing is, OSS is not compatible with software patents. At all. Surely IAM already knows that. As this one report put it earlier today, Munich’s migration to GNU/Linux was “temporarily put on hold while a study investigates whether it could be derailed by software patents.” That was just before Europe decided to ban such patents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Suicide nets? Instead, windows have been bolted shut at the EPO.
Photo credit: Gizmodo
Summary: The demise of the EPO, which emulates patent offices that are racing to the bottom, is a life-threatening employer which now jeopardises its very existence
THE EPO under Battistelli has already seen nearly seven suicides. Some workers would rather be dead than alive, seeing themselves subjected to Chinese trials (politics or a ‘royal’ decree as arbiter), Chinese human rights, Chinese ‘justice’ (on patents), and SIPO examination standards.
“Some workers would rather be dead than alive, seeing themselves subjected to Chinese trials (politics or a ‘royal’ decree as arbiter), Chinese human rights, Chinese ‘justice’ (on patents), and SIPO examination standards.”It’s no secret that patent quality has sunk. European Patents (EPs) are nowhere near the same level of quality they’ve boasted about for decades. In fact, many were recently invalidated in bulk owing to intervention from outside the Office. Those were patents on life. But the push for patents on plants, as one might expect, carries on. Who’s behind it? People who are trying to ‘own’ plants — as ridiculous as that notion would seem to a farmer and outlandish even to aliens. As IP Watch put it earlier today: “A new “position paper” by a plant breeders industry group revives the argument that plant-related inventions should be patentable. New plant breeding techniques modifying the plant genome are not essentially biological processes, thus should be patentable, the paper says. The group also calls for a worldwide harmonised research exemption on plant variety rights and patents for the purpose of improving the invention.”
EPs on genome made their debut in the EPO this year. Even the USPTO had rejected such patents. Would these be invalidated en masse some time in the next year or two? We don’t know. But this, among other things, is a symptom of the worrying quality of EPs. Many EPs are still being granted on software — a subject we shall deal with separately — even though such patents are banned almost everywhere but China.
China?
“Many EPs are still being granted on software — a subject we shall deal with separately — even though such patents are banned almost everywhere but China.”Yes, China.
I have nothing against China, but their patent system is trouble. It’s also a recipe for disaster. Last year alone the number of patent applications there exceeded one million. It may sound like a joke, but it’s not. That’s an order of magnitude more than countries of the same size. So do such patents represent a surge/boom for innovation in China? Of course not. It’s just a patent gold rush that is being encouraged by the government as a matter of policy.
The United States, by contrast, tightens patent scope. In addition, the number of patent applications from the US (for EPs) nosedived over the past year. The EPO tries hard to hide or at least belittle this nugget of information.
“…the number of patent applications from the US (for EPs) nosedived over the past year.”Earlier today the EPO wrote that “Patent Translate helps you understand patent documents from all over the world,” but as even EPO insiders repeatedly explain, automated translations of technical documents don’t work well. There’s no ‘magic’ bridge for legal purposes. One cannot rely on an incomprehensible document either to study a patent or deal with legal action. I spoke to someone (earlier today) whose application for a European Patent was rejected. I told him not to worry because examiners work too fast, so inevitably mistakes are made. Sometimes applications get rejected based on formalities alone. If it carries on like that, people may stop bothering; they will stop even applying. Patent applications are down at the EPO (not worldwide) and not even growth from China has been enough to balance the books (it was still down year-to-year). So guess where Battistelli is flying. The EPO was proud to state (this afternoon) that Battistelli met (warning: epo.org link) the person whom he had previously met where he's a politician (in the same town in France). If the EPO is aspiring to be close to the worst patent office (in terms of scope/quality), what does that say about Battistelli’s goals?
Check out the last paragraph:
China is a leading country of origin for patent applications at the EPO (6th largest country of origin), and applications from China have grown rapidly in recent years (+25% in 2016). With Huawei (no. 2) and ZTE (no.22), two Chinese companies were among the most active patent filing companies at the EPO last year.
China won’t save the EPO. It will merely destroy the reputation of EPs. There has been this one news report parroting the above and it repeated the same talking point: “Applications from China at the EPO grew by 25 percent in 2016, with Chinese telecommunications company, Huawei, becoming the second most active patent filing company at the EPO last year.”
Notice the wording. It’s almost like a copy-paste job edited somewhat to look original. Maybe the EPO’s PR team ‘shipped’ it over for publication — something which journalists I’ve met in person told me that the EPO certainly does.
“Maybe the EPO’s PR team ‘shipped’ it over for publication — something which journalists I’ve met in person told me that the EPO certainly does.”If this is all that Battistelli has to brag about, then the EPO is in serious trouble. He recently reduced fees and the Office changed methods of payment, probably to offset the declining ‘demand’ for EPs. Earlier today the EPO wrote: “Patent fee payment methods will change on 1 Dec 2017.”
That’s next week. We remind readers that if it seems like there’s an increase in applications (and that’s a big if), one must account for decrease in fees. When granting soars by about 40% and applications decline in the same period of time, well… any scientist can tell that it spells doom. So-called ‘production’ vastly outpaces ‘demand’. The good, experienced examiners (i.e. scientists) won’t relocate to Munich (with family that doesn’t speak German) to work for an Office on a short-term contract and writings on the wall that say “layoffs coming”.
“When granting soars by about 40% and applications decline in the same period of time, well… any scientist can tell that it spells doom.”We are not exaggerating when we say that the EPO faces a mortal danger. Insiders say so too.
Recent articles about SUEPO and sources closest to SUEPO used the following lemon analogy: “One thing is sure, Campinos will find a problematic legacy which no doubt will hinder progress—a squeezed lemon does not produce much.”
Also among the quotes: “With a precarious future, there will be a temptation to squirrel away as much cash as possible for the post-EPO life. Some will do so honourably, others perhaps less so. Employees have access to highly confidential, sensitive industrial secrets worth hundreds of millions of euro.”
Among the more recent quotes, the product pressure is “sabotaging the arrival of Campinos since it will be hard for Campinos to maintain such extravagant production pressure in the future”.
“We are not exaggerating when we say that the EPO faces a mortal danger.”The SUEPO memo is quoted as saying: “The permanent and excessive work pressure and unreachable targets are likely to cause staff members to become sick and exhausted. That is not a good place to be. [...] First of all, illness is always unpleasant. But also, the callous way with which the office treats sick colleagues is not conducive to reduction of the stress levels, and can lock the sick colleagues in a vicious circle.”
Regarding quality, this latter article (cited by SUEPO right now) says “the 15,000-product increase was a problem as it comes suddenly at the end of the year, comes years after a steady increase and puts patent quantity before quality.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
And UPC isn’t happening, contrary to the lies we still see coming from Team UPC
Summary: Battistelli’s vicious assault on the Office, culminating in an attack on justice and the drainage of work (declining/decreasing ‘demand’ for ‘products’) necessarily means mass layoffs and nothing to fill the vacuum left
THINGS have been relatively quiet on the EPO front this week, but that does not mean that the EPO’s management ceased working towards its nefarious goals. Just yesterday, for example, it carried on pushing for UPC, claiming that “high-IP trade and FDI flows to or between EU countries are expected to increase by 2% & 15% respectively.”
“The push for the UPC by Battistelli and the ‘circle’ (Team Battistelli) means that they want to expel the appeal boards.”These EPO-funded talking points have been produced, reportedly, in order to help pressure German courts. It’s part of the lobbying. The EPO also wrote about the exile to Haar, calling it a relocation. This is not a “relocation”, however, but a coordinated attack on the law itself. The push for the UPC by Battistelli and the ‘circle’ (Team Battistelli) means that they want to expel the appeal boards. They want to eliminate auditors of patent quality. They planned it for a long time. It doesn’t seem to matter to them that the UPC is collapsing.
Team UPC’s Robert Burrows wrote yesterday regarding alleged progress, but it’s pretty laughable. In his own words:
Although any MP may attend and speak at a Delegated Legislation Committee meeting, only the Committee members are entitled to vote.
Several new comments in IP Kat show that even stakeholders mock those who believe that the UPC will come to the UK. So this is sheer desperation from Team UPC, which is unable to report any substantial process.
“So this is sheer desperation from Team UPC, which is unable to report any substantial process.”Just a month ago Keltie LLP's Mark Richardson promoted loopholes for software patents and this week he amplifies these UPC lies that the EPO has paid for (corrupted academia).
Currently patent applicants in the EU can file a central application at the EPO and prosecute this as a single application through to grant at which point the granted European patent needs to be validated into a bundle of national patents. The post grant procedure therefore involves multiple validated patents with the associated need to track and renew multiple individual patents. Enforcement of this bundle of nationally validated patents across Europe potentially involves multiple court actions with the chance of conflicting decisions in different territories.
It’s against the above summary of the European patent system that the paper then introduces the “forthcoming” Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court and the possibility that this change to the patent system in Europe will help to alleviate some of the current limitations.
It’s not “forthcoming” at all; it is collapsing. Those who say otherwise have something to gain from it (IAM, for instance, having just published this sponsored ‘article’ for Frederick Nicolle from Carpmaels & Ransford LLP, regarding supplementary protection certificates).
“It’s the end of the EPO (as we know it) and there’s not even a replacement in the horizon.”As we have said and shown before, a lot of media was literally paid for UPC promotion. We continue to see such overt subversion of journalism.
Yesterday, for a change, IPPro Patents published something that’s not spam (advertisement in ‘article’ form). Barney Dixon wrote about SUEPO, relaying some internal messages voicing concerns about decline in patent quality. Much of the article is direct quotes, but here is an introduction.
According to an internal memo from the union, the official target for 2017 of 400,000 ‘products’ has been increased to an unofficial target of 415,000 and could lead to negative consequences for staff health and patent quality.
Products are granted only for a few actions that an examiner is expected to perform: a patent search, a patent grant, or a patent refusal. Examiners are awarded points, which determine whether employees have reached their individual and collective targets.
A source close to SUEPO said that the EPO point system is “perverted” as it “does not reward the issuing of a very solid patent after a thorough search, but, on the contrary in the current work climate where fear of reprisal plays a huge role, it has become an unhealthy incentive to support the mass-production of (low-quality) patents”.
The source said that under the outgoing president of the EPO Benoît Battistelli, the product targets have “increased tremendously”, leading to examiners being forced to cut corners.
This isn’t the EPO I once knew. And judging by the above numbers, the EPO will have run out of work some time next year. Layoffs can therefore be expected. It’s the end of the EPO (as we know it) and there’s not even a replacement over the horizon. The UPC is going nowhere and appeal boards and grossly understaffed. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA