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

03.12.18

Doubt Over Independence of Judges at the EPO Clouds Reason in Deciding Regarding Patents on Life

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Judges themselves doubt their own independence (publicly even)

A shocked Battistelli

Summary: With the growing prospect of a Board of Appeal (BoA) having to decide on patentability of CRISPR ‘innovation’ (more like explanation/discovery), questions linger or persist about judges’ ability to rule as they see fit rather than what some lunatic wants

LAST WEEK we wrote two articles in which we mentioned how the EPO‘s Judge Corcoran was — without warning — removed from his office (never to return to it since 2014). Apparently Corcoran’s last decision/unfinished work was against a software patent of an EPO partner (maybe a coincidence) and whatever he’s accused of — mainly relaying true information about Team Battistelli — is something that hundreds if not thousands of other EPO workers could be accused of at the time (many messages had been relayed and were circulating regarding Battistelli and his dodgy ‘bulldog’ from Croatia).

“Apparently Corcoran’s last decision/unfinished work was against a software patent of an EPO partner (maybe a coincidence) and whatever he’s accused of — mainly relaying true information about Team Battistelli — is something that hundreds if not thousands of other EPO workers could be accused of at the time (many messages had been relayed and were circulating regarding Battistelli and his dodgy ‘bulldog’ from Croatia).”IP Kat finds no time to cover EPO scandals anymore (we know why). Rose Hughes (Reddie & Grose LLP), however, found time to cover things like this just before the weekend. “Last month,” she wrote, “the EPO published it’s [sic] sixth ever decision granting a petition for review (R 4/17). Granted petitions for review are notoriously difficult to obtain, as the EPO attempts to balance the need for the legal certainty of Board of Appeal (BoA) decisions, and the right to challenge flagrant violations of EPO procedure.”

Well, haven’t violations of EPO procedure/s become far too routine under Battistelli? We’ve lost count of how many such violations of EPO procedures we already covered. Including against BoA…

“Recently, the EPO Opposition Division opposed CRISPR patents, or at least one such patent loosely representative of the whole lot.”“Even if has [sic] been summarily dismissed,” noted the commenter. “it does not appear that the opposition division did exercise its discretion in an improper way. It look more than a hidden clarity objection. It is in any case doubtful that the proprietor will consent to this ground be introduced in the new appeal procedure.”

We remain rather disturbed/worried that after Judge Corcoran had been thrown somewhere (probably in another country, for the mere pretense of minimal compliance with ILO-AT rulings) the EPO’s management got away with it. As usual. Above the law.

Recently, the EPO Opposition Division opposed CRISPR patents, or at least one such patent loosely representative of the whole lot. The CRISPR situation at the EPO was covered here almost a dozen times this year, e.g. in [1, 2].

The patent trolls’ lobby, IAM, revisited the subject before the weekend when it said:

The University of California – which pioneered the foundational CRISPR Cas-9 methods (though it only developed these for use in bacterial cells) – is seeking to invalidate the Broad Institute’s core US patent for the specific use of CRISPR Cas-9 in plant and animal cells on the grounds that it interferes with its own IP rights.

It claims that the Broad Institute’s innovations were, at the time of application in 2012, merely an obvious application of the technology it had already pioneered and filed a patent for. The Broad Institute denies this, arguing that its invention was non-obvious and therefore separately patentable.

This is the US, where CRISPR patents are already in hot waters. What will the EPO’s BoA be able say about CRISPR patents, knowing that a colleague has already been targeted by Battistelli and all the Boards sent to ‘exile’ in Haar, presumably in an act of collective retaliation (like sending a young student to detention near the door, or office space that is merely rented in a distant suburb)? Judges complain about this publicly. Does anyone pay attention? Perhaps FCC judges?

“What will the EPO’s BoA be able say about CRISPR patents, knowing that a colleague has already been targeted by Battistelli and all the Boards sent to ‘exile’ in Haar, presumably in an act of collective retaliation (like sending a young student to detention near the door, or office space that is merely rented in a distant suburb)?”Let’s face it; the EPO is still in a serious crisis — one that IP Kat is unwilling to speak about any longer (no more than a couple times per year).

Patent maximalists other than IAM meanwhile speak about CAFC‘s and the Supreme Court’s decision in Promega Corp. v Life Technologies Corp.

To quote Patent Docs:

In reversing the Federal Circuit and remanding the case, the Supreme Court, in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., determined “that a single component does not constitute a substantial portion of the components that can give rise to liability under §271(f)(1).” As the Supreme Court noted, Life Technologies manufactured all but one component of its kits in the United Kingdom — manufacturing Taq polymerase in the United States and then shipping the Taq polymerase to its United Kingdom facility to be combined with the other four components of the kit.

[...]

The opinion conceded that “[t]his is an unusual case,” noting that “[p]atent owners who prove infringement are typically awarded at least some amount of damages.” However, in this case, Promega waived its right to a damages award “when it deliberately abandon[ed] valid theories of recovery in a singular pursuit of an ultimately invalid damages theory.” The Federal Circuit therefore concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give Promega “multiple chances to correct deficiencies in its arguments or the record.” As a result, the panel also affirmed the District Court’s denial of Promega’s motion for a new trial.

It’s worth noting that this pertains to the United Kingdom, i.e. Europe. The US gets to decide on patent matters abroad. If that sounds familiar if not worrying, think what the UPC strives to achieve. More so in the context of a seriously deficient legal system where a crazed patent maximalist (Battistelli) exercises (abuse of) power over judges.

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 19/10/2018: OpenBSD 6.4 and OpenSSH 7.9 Released

    Links for the day



  2. Ingve Björn Stjerna Has Just Warned That If Team UPC and the European Patent Office Rigged the Proceedings of the German Constitutional Court, Consequences Would be Significant

    The EPO is back to mentioning the Unified Patent Court and it keeps making it abundantly clear that it is only working for the litigation 'industry' rather than for science and technology (or "innovation" as they like to euphemise it)



  3. Links 18/10/2018: New Ubuntu and Postgres

    Links for the day



  4. It's Almost 2019 and Team UPC is Still Pretending Unitary Patent (UPC) Exists, Merely Waiting for Britain to Join

    Refusing to accept that the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) has reached its death or is at a dead end, UPC proponents — i.e. lawyers looking to profit from frivolous litigation — resort to outright lies and gymnastics in logic/intellectual gymnastics



  5. IAM and IP Kat Are Still Megaphones of Battistelli and His Agenda

    IAM reaffirms its commitment to corrupt Battistelli and IP Kat maintains its stance, which is basically not caring at all about EPO corruption (to the point of actively deleting blog comments that mention such corruption, i.e. 'sanitising' facts)



  6. The EPO Under António Campinos Relaxes the Rules on Software Patenting and the Litigation 'Industry' Loves That

    EPO management, which is nontechnical, found new terms by which to refer to software patents -- terms that even the marketing departments can endorse (having propped them up); they just call it all AI, augmented intelligence and so on



  7. Links 17/10/2018: Elementary OS 5.0 “Juno” Released, MongoDB’s Server Side Public Licence

    Links for the day



  8. Improving US Patent Quality Through Reassessments of Patents and Courts' Transparency

    Transparency in US courts and more public participation in the patent process (examination, litigation etc.) would help demonstrate that many patents are being granted — and sometimes asserted — that are totally bunk, bogus, fake



  9. Ask OIN How It Intends to Deal With Microsoft Proxies Such as Patent Trolls

    OIN continues to miss the key point (or intentionally avoid speaking about it); Microsoft is still selling 'protection' from the very same patent trolls that it is funding, arming, and sometimes even instructing (who to pass patents to and sue)



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

    Links for the day



  11. 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)



  12. '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



  13. 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



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

    Links for the day



  15. 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



  16. 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



  17. 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



  18. 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



  19. 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



  20. 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



  21. 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



  22. 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



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

    Links for the day



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

    Links for the day



  25. 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)



  26. 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



  27. 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)



  28. 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



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

    Links for the day



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

    Links for the day


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