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

01.09.18

For European Patents to Maintain Value the EPO Must Fix Patent Quality and Attract ‘Expensive’ (High-Calibre) Staff

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 1:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Quality of European Patents is Declining (and With it Patent Justice) While the World is Noticing

Quality Metrics
Reference: Quality Metrics

Summary: After the Battistelli-induced exodus of experienced examiners we continually observe concerns that patents granted by the EPO (EPs) have lost their value and the perception of patent justice is deeply damaged

AS a European and as a software professional, I profoundly worry about the fate of the EPO. We need a strong EPO and strong staff. We don’t need an ‘assembly line’ of patents. But the ‘cheapening’ of the EPO, leading to the exodus of highly-specialised professionals, poses a real threat. Recruitment standards have fallen and working conditions deteriorated beyond belief. The EPO rapidly becomes like a Chinese colony inside Bavaria.

“The Boards of Appeal have historically been responsible for upholding/preserving patent quality and assessing conformity with respect to the EPC.”At the moment, the EPO ought to hire for the Boards of Appeal (BoA), but in practice it is driving out existing staff and engaging in legal bullying, demotions, etc. It ought fix the lack of independence, but instead it does the opposite (for example by sending them all to ‘exile’ in Haar against their will). Adding interns can be a burden to these people, but this is exactly what the EPO bragged about yesterday when it wrote: “Tomorrow [that's today] is the last day you can apply for the Judicial internships at the Boards of Appeal…”

The Boards of Appeal have historically been responsible for upholding/preserving patent quality and assessing conformity with respect to the EPC. That cannot happen anymore. They openly complain about their lack of independence from the Office and the ‘king’ of the Office.

Yesterday this press release was issued to say:

This seminar addresses the parallel, but substantially different, rules for drafting and prosecuting patents required by the Examiners and Appeal Boards of the EPO and USPTO [PTAB].

PTAB is sort of the US equivalent of BoA; that too is under attack (by the patent ‘industry’) — a subject we shall revisit later today.

In the meantime, CIPO and EPO plan to speed up examination even further (what’s needed is accuracy, not speed/haste). Yesterday CIPO wrote about it in English and in French. To quote the English: “#Canada and @EPOorg #Patent Prosecution Highway extension effective January 6, 2018….

So in addition to Early Certainty, PACE and so on they now have a special intercontinental process to help legal aggressors (there’s also one for Australia and Asia). Even lower quality of patents (than before) is assured because burden of speed — not quality — is being put on examiners. If justice is being rushed, then perhaps justice itself isn’t really a priority.

“For the third consecutive time, and even more emphatically than in past years, blogposts about the EPO and its impassive president Benoit Battistelli, the ‘dictator’ or ‘Napoleon of the tenth floor’, as one of our commenters has often written, dominates the top ten of best read articles of the Kluwer Patent Blog.”
      –Kluwer Patent Blogger
What do stakeholders (so-called ‘users’, lawyers etc.) think about all this? Well, they too aren’t particularly happy. A pro-UPC blog, Kluwer Patent Blog, was having uptime issues yesterday (very long downtimes for the site lately). But when it became accessible again we saw this new post which alludes to Battistelli as “the ‘dictator’ or ‘Napoleon of the tenth floor’,” noting that there’s a lot of interest in EPO scandals and in the gradual collapse of the UPC (which won’t materialise as long as justice at the EPO is perceived to be deeply flawed.

Yesterday we also saw this promotion of Drafting a Common Specification for US and EPO Practice — an event in which Sullivan Fountain of Keltie LLP (UPC liars) “will discuss drafting a common specification for filing and prosecution in both the USPTO and the EPO.”

The very fact that the USPTO is treated or dealt with in tandem (to the EPO) is worrying; the USPTO has long been granting an extraordinary amount of low-quality patents. This matter has been all over the news lately and there is even a new paper about it.

In yesterday’s news we also saw this new assessment of new fees at the UK-IPO. For the EPO to be competitive on terms such as price it will need to ensure patent quality is very high, but it might be too late for that. To quote price comparisons:

Official fees for UK patent applications are expected to rise in 2018. Nevertheless, by international standards, the UK will remain inexpensive. For example, UK fees will remain lower than at the EPO, where a granted patent application enforceable in the UK is obtainable through the direct European (EP) or International (PCT(EP)) route.

As detailed below, the UKIPO plans to introduce new fees for excess claims and description pages, and to increase the existing application, search, examination and renewal fees. The changes are expected to take effect from April 6, 2018.

[...]

However, excess claims fees will be payable to the UKIPO only for claim 26 onwards. This is generous compared to the respective 15 and 20 ‘free’ claims currently allowed at the EPO and USPTO. Furthermore, the new UKIPO fee of £20 per claim will be significantly cheaper than the respective €235 per claim and $80 per claim currently charged at the EPO and USPTO.

[...]

The new UKIPO fee of £10 per page will be for description pages beyond 35, for example resulting in an excess fee of £650 for an application having 100 description pages. However, and in contrast to the EPO, we currently understand that the excess fees will not be levied on claims, abstract and drawings pages.

The number of applications for EPs has fallen; it fell very sharply in (or from) the US. After Battistelli implemented his so-called ‘reforms’ we are not sure that the EPO is even competitive.

Yesterday we saw Arecor bragging (in a press release) about a “Notice of Intention to Grant” at the EPO, but does Arecor even know that the Office suffers a patent quality crisis and many granted EPs would turn out to be invalid/null (if tested in court)? Arecor wrote this:

Arecor Ltd is pleased to announce the European Patent Office (EPO) has issued “Notice of Intention to Grant” for Arecor’s patent application protecting the Company’s proprietary technology used in the development of stable, low-viscosity formulations of highly concentrated protein therapeutics, including monoclonal antibodies such as trastuzumab or ustekinumab or fusion proteins such as abatacept.

The prestige associated with EPs is rapidly being lost; EPO insiders can feel it and legal professionals worry deeply about it. If ‘demand’ for EPs is falling, it’s going to hurt them personally. A patent office without proficient and effective quality control (Oppositions and BoA, which is grossly understaffed and overburdened right now) will devolve to become another SIPO, ushering in plenty of patent trolls (also like SIPO). We wrote about that yesterday.

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 1610/2018: Linux 4.19 RC8, Xfce Screensaver 0.1.0 Released

    Links for the day



  2. Judge-Bashing Tactics, Undermining PTAB, and Iancu's Warpath for the Litigation and Insurance 'Industries'

    Many inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) leverage 35 U.S.C. § 101 against software patents; instead of putting an end to such patents Director Iancu decides to just serve the 'industry' he came from (a meta-industry where his firm had worked for Donald Trump)



  3. 'Cloud', 'AI' and Other Buzzwords as Excuses for Granting Fake Patents on Software

    With resurgence of rather meaningless terms like so-called 'clouds' (servers/hosting) and 'AI' (typically anything in code which does something clever, including management of patents) the debate is being shifted away from 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101); but courts would still see past such façade



  4. Corporate Media's Failure to Cover Patents Properly and Our New Hosting Woes

    A status update about EPO affairs and our Web host's plan to shut down (as a whole) very soon, leaving us orphaned or having to pay heavy bills



  5. Links 15/10/2018: Testing Ubuntu 18.10 Release Candidates, KaOS 2018.10 Released

    Links for the day



  6. USPTO FEES Act/SUCCESS Act Gives More Powers to Director Iancu, Supplying Patents for Litigation 'Business' and Embargo (ITC)

    Corruption of the US patent system contributes to various issues which rely on the extrajudicial nature of some elements in this system; companies can literally have their products confiscated or imports blocked, based on wrongly-granted patents



  7. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Decides That USPTO Wrongly Granted Patents to Roche

    Patent quality issues at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) — motivated by money rather than common sense — continue to be highlighted by courts; the USPTO needs to raise the bar to improve the legal certainty associated with US patents



  8. Even Judge Gilstrap From Texas is Starting to Accept That Software Patents Are Invalid

    Amid new lawsuits from Texas (e.g. against Citrix) we’re pleased to see that even “reprehensible” Rodney Gilstrap (that’s what US politicians call him) is learning to accept SCOTUS on 35 U.S.C. § 101



  9. Federal Circuit Doubles Down on User Interface Patents, Helps Microsoft-Connected Patent Trolls Curtail the Prime Competitor of Microsoft Office

    Patent trolls that are connected to Microsoft continue to sue Microsoft rivals using old patents; this time, for a change, even the Federal Circuit lets them get away with it



  10. Let's Hope Apple Defeats All the Abstract Patents That Are Leveraged Against It

    Apple can be viewed as a strategic 'ally' against patents that threaten Android/Linux if one ignores all the patent battles the company started (and has since then settled) against Android OEMs



  11. EPO Insider/Märpel Says President Campinos Already Acts Like Battistelli

    Unitary Patent (UPC) is a step towards making the EPO an EU institution like the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); but it's not making any progress and constitutional judges must realise that Campinos, chosen by Battistelli to succeed him, is just an empty mask



  12. Quality of Patents Granted by the EPO is Still Low and Nobody Will Benefit Except Lawyers, Jubilant Over Growing Lenience on Software Patents

    Deterioration of patent quality at the EPO — a serious problem which examiners themselves are complaining about — is becoming rather evident as new guidelines are very lenient on software patenting



  13. 100 Days Into the Term of Campinos There is Already an EPO Suicide

    A seventh known suicide at the EPO since the so-called 'reforms' began; the EPO continues to pretend that everything is changing for the better, but in reality it's yet more nepotism and despotism



  14. Links 13/10/2018: Ubuntu Touch OTA-5, MidnightBSD 1.0 Ready

    Links for the day



  15. Links 11/10/2018: PostgreSQL 11 RC1 Released, Librem 5 Loves GNOME 3.32

    Links for the day



  16. Friend Brings a Friend, Boss Becomes Subordinate: the EPO Under António Campinos is Starting to Look a Lot Like Team Battistelli 2.0

    The new President of the EPO contributes to the perception that the Office is a rogue institution. Governance is all in reverse at the Office because it still seems like the Office President bosses the Council rather than be bossed by it (as intended, as per the EPC)



  17. UPC Cowardice: Team UPC Uses Cloaks of Anonymity to Discredit Authors of Scholarly UPC Paper They Don't Like

    Team UPC has sunk to the bottom of the barrel; now it uses anonymous letters in an effort to discredit work of Max Planck Institute staff, in the same way (more or less) that ad hominem attacks were attempted against the filer of the constitutional complaint in Germany



  18. New EPO Guidelines: Granting European Patents on Business Methods, Algorithms, Mental Acts and Other Abstract Stuff

    Keeping so-called 'production' high and meeting so-called 'targets' (allegedly set by Battistelli), Campinos relaxes the rules for "computer-implemented inventions" (one among many misleading terms that mean software patents in Europe)



  19. Open Invention Network is a Proponent of Software Patents -- Just Like Microsoft -- and Microsoft Keeps Patents It Uses to Blackmail Linux Vendors

    OIN loves Microsoft; OIN loves software patents as well. So Microsoft's membership in OIN is hardly a surprise and it's not solving the main issue either, as Microsoft can indirectly sue and "Microsoft has not included any patents they might hold on exfat into the patent non-aggression pact," according to Bradley M. Kuhn



  20. Links 10/10/2018: Unreal Engine 4.21 Preview, Red Hat Openshift Container Platform 3.11

    Links for the day



  21. Links 9/10/2018: Plasma 5.14, Flatpak 1.2 Plan

    Links for the day



  22. Greg Reilly Inadvertently Makes a Case for Replacing/Improving the Patent System With a Wiki, Editable by All as Society Moves Forward

    Editable patents make a lot more sense in the age of the Internet and the World Wide Web; companies that rode the wave of the Net are themselves changing their patents on the go, sometimes because they simply attempt to dodge an evolving patenting criterion which nowadays looks down on software patents



  23. The USPTO's Principal Issue is Abstract Patents (or Patent Scope), Not Prior Art Searches

    In spite of the fact that US courts prolifically reject patents for being abstract (citing 35 U.S.C. § 101) Cisco, Google, MIT, and the USPTO go chasing better search facilities, addressing the lesser if not the wrong problem



  24. António Campinos Makes Excuses for Granting European Patents on Software in Spite of the EPC

    Continuing the horrid tradition of Battistelli, António Campinos sends patent quality -- the one aspect which the EPO was once renowned for -- down the drain (or down the shredder, for lack of a better and more timely metaphor)



  25. Antibody Patents Should Not be Allowed (Nor Should CRISPR Patents)

    The patent extremists are still trying to patent life (and/or nature) and their arguments typically boil down to, "there's money in it, so why the heck not?"



  26. Links 8/10/2018: Linux 4.19 RC7, Mageia 6.1, Calculate Linux 18

    Links for the day



  27. The Federal Circuit Continues to 'Lecture' the Patent Office on Patent Scope and Limits, But Iancu Isn't Listening

    Sadly, the district court have not fully caught up (at least not yet) with SCOTUS; they're more USPTO-friendly.



  28. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Under Andrei Iancu Subjected to an Assault on Patent Quality

    Donald Trump has let the litigation industry 'govern' itself at the USPTO; all it has accomplished so far is even greater divergence between USPTO determinations and those of actual courts (which means that the USPTO does not follow the law, there’s a state of lawlessness)



  29. When It Comes to Patent Quality António Campinos Might be Even Worse Than Benoît Battistelli

    The lack of genuine interest in the quality of European Patents is perhaps a greater threat to the whole of Europe — if not the whole world — than well-documented human rights abuses and corruption inside the Office; António Campinos has shown no interest in improving patent quality as he denies such a problem even exists and he reduces transparency



  30. In Spite of Campaigns Against It, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Squashes Software Patents by the Hundreds Per Month, Patent Maximalists Still Try to Stop It

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) achieve exactly what they were set out to do; those who view patent quality as a foe, however, aren't happy and they still try to undermine PTAB IPRs by any means possible (or at least slow them down considerably)


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