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 15/8/2018: Akademy 2018 Wrapups and More Intel Defects

    Links for the day



  2. Antiquated Patenting Trick: Adding Words Like 'Apparatus' to Make Abstract Ideas Look/Sound Like They Pertain to or Contain a 'Device'

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) still maintains that abstract ideas are not patent-eligible; so applicants and law firms go out of their way to make their ideas seem as though they're physical



  3. Open Invention Network (OIN) Member Companies Need to Become Unanimous in Opposition to Software Patents

    Opposition to abstract software patents, which even the SCOTUS and the Federal Circuit nowadays reject, would be strategically smart for OIN; but instead it issues a statement in support of a GPL compliance initiative



  4. President Battistelli 'Killed' the EPO; António Campinos Will 'Finish the Job'

    The EPO is shrinking, but this is being shrewdly disguised using terms like "efficiency" and a low-profile President who keeps himself in the dark



  5. Links 14/8/2018: Virtlyst 1.2.0, Blender 2.8 Planning Update, Zorin OS 12.4, FreeBSD 12.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  6. Berkheimer Changed Nothing and Invalidation Rates of Abstract Software Patents Remain Very High

    Contrary to repetitive misinformation from firms that 'sell' services around patents, there is no turnaround or comeback for software patents; the latest numbers suggest a marginal difference at best — one that may be negligible considering the correlation between expected outcomes and actions (the nature of risk analysis)



  7. Lockton Insurance Brokers Exploiting Patent Trolls to Sell Insurance to the Gullible

    Demonstrating what some people have dubbed (and popularised) "disaster capitalism", Lockton now looks for opportunities to profit from patent trolls, in the form of "insurance" (the same thing Microsoft does)



  8. Patent Lawyers Writing Patent Law for Their Own Enrichment Rather Than for Innovation

    We have become detached from the original goals and come to the point where patent offices aren't necessarily run by people qualified for the job of advancing science and technology; they, unlike judges, only seem to care about how many patents get granted, irrespective of their quality/merit



  9. Links 13/8/2018: Linux 4.18 and GNU Linux-libre 4.18 Arrive

    Links for the day



  10. PTAB is Loathed by Patent Maximalists Because It Can Potentially Invalidate Thousands of Software Patents (More Than Courts Can Handle)

    The US patent system has become more resistant to software patents; courts, however, are still needed to invalidate such patents (a potentially expensive process) because the USPTO continues to grant these provided some fashionable buzzwords/hype waves are utilised (e.g. "facial recognition", "blockchain", "autonomous vehicles")



  11. Gene Quinn and 'Dallas Innovates' as Couriers of Agenda for Patent Trolls Like iPEL

    Failing to hide their real purpose and malicious agenda, sites whose real purpose is to promote a lot of patent litigation produce puff pieces, even for patently unethical trolls such as iPEL



  12. Software Patents, Secured by 'Smart' and 'Intelligent' Tricks, Help Microsoft and Others Bypass Alice/Section 101

    A look at the use of fashionable trends and buzzwords to acquire and pass around dubious software patents, then attempting to guard these from much-needed post-Alice scrutiny



  13. Keep Boston (and Massachusetts in General) From Becoming an Infestation Zone for Patent Litigation

    Boston, renowned for research and innovation, has become somewhat of a litigation hotbed; this jeopardises the state's attractiveness (except perhaps to lawyers)



  14. Links 12/8/2018: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Mesa 18.1.6 Release Notice, New Linux Imminent

    Links for the day



  15. Thomas Massie's “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA) Would Put the US Patent System in the Lions' (or Trolls') Mouth Again

    An anti-§ 101 and anti-PTAB bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) strives to remove quality control; but by handing the system back to patent trolls he and his proponents simply strive to create more business of litigation, at the expense of innovation



  16. EPO-Style Problem-Solution: Tackling Backlog by Granting Lots of Low-Quality (Bogus) European Patents, Causing a Surge in Troll/Frivolous Litigation

    The EPO's lack of interest in genuine patent quality (measuring "quality" in terms of speed, not actual quality) may mean nothing but a litigation epidemic; many of these lawsuits would be abusive, baseless; those harmed the most would be small businesses that cannot afford a legal defense and would rather settle with those who exploit questionable patents, notably patent trolls



  17. Links 11/8/2018: PGP Clean Room 1.0, Ring-KDE 3.0.0, Julia 1.0

    Links for the day



  18. Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

    The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples



  19. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Still Try to Undermine Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), Refusing to Accept Patent Quality

    The patent maximalists in the United States, seeing that the USPTO is moving away from patent maximalism, is desperate for a turnaround; prominent patent maximalists take it all out on PTAB



  20. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement is Paralysed, So Team UPC is Twisting Old News

    Paralysis of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) means that people are completely forgetting about its very existence; those standing to benefit from it (patent litigation firms) are therefore recycling and distorting old news



  21. Patents as Profiteering Opportunities for Law Firms Rather Than Drivers of Innovation for Productive Companies

    A sample of news from yesterday; the patent microcosm is still arguing about who pays attorneys’ fees (not whether these fees are justified) and is constantly complaining about the decline in patent litigation, which means fewer and lower attorneys’ fees (less work for them)



  22. Links 9/8/2018: Mesa 18.2 RC2, Cockpit 175, WPA-2 Hash Cracking

    Links for the day



  23. Patent Maximalists -- Not Reformers -- Are the Biggest Threat to the Viability of the Patent System and Innovation

    Those who strive to infinitely expand patent scope are rendering the patent system obsolete and completely losing sight of the very purpose of the patent system, whose sanity US courts and lawmakers gradually restore (one ruling and one bill at a time)



  24. WeMove.EU Tackles Low Patent Quality at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The breadth of European Patents, which now cover even nature itself, worries public interest groups; Team UPC, however, wants patent scope to expand further and António Campinos has expressed his intention to further increase the number of grants



  25. Links 8/8/2018: KDE Neon for Testing, New LibreOffice Release, Dart 2.0

    Links for the day



  26. Links 7/8/2018: TCP Vulnerability in Linux, Speck Crypto Code Candidate for Removal

    Links for the day



  27. PTAB Needs to Expand and Become More Accessible to More Challengers of Wrongly-Granted Patents

    Challenges to US patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are helping to raise the bar for litigators; those who value the quality of patents should welcome rather than condemn PTAB and PTAB ought to be expanded to facilitate more scrutiny of granted patents



  28. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Precedents Might Make District Courts (Outside Texas) More Sceptical of Patents

    As patent lawsuits scatter around the United States (not as concentrated around Texas anymore) there's a real chance of turnaround in terms of outcomes; we look at some recent cases



  29. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is Cleaning Up the United States' Patent System

    The highest patent court (bar the US Supreme Court, SCOTUS) is rejecting a lot of patents, not only software patents; this is long overdue and is bad news to patent lawyers (not to companies that actually create and sell things)



  30. Racing to the Bottom, the António Campinos-Led EPO Continues to Promote Software Patents, Just Like China

    The EPO is being transformed into 'SIPO Europe', a dangerous gamble which would leave European firms more susceptible to frivolous litigation and generally reduce the value of previously-much-coveted European Patents


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