04.19.18
Gemini version available ♊︎When News About the EPO is Dominated by Sponsored ‘Reports’ and Press Releases Because Publishers Are Afraid of (or Bribed by) the EPO
The EPO sent Fieldfisher, which seeks to profit from the UPC, to bully us several times
SLAPP action: In their own words
Summary: The lack of curiosity and genuine journalism in Europe may mean that serious abuses (if not corruption) will go unreported
THE EPO scandals will hopefully be covered here as often as they used to be. We’ve slowed down a bit in recent months even though there’s no lack of material to cover. What’s disheartening, however, is seeing how the media no longer writes about EPO scandals. Almost never!
“What’s disheartening, however, is seeing how the media no longer writes about EPO scandals.”
Yesterday we found nothing but this press release about a patent grant, the EPO was mentioned in this sponsored ‘report’ about Asia, and there was another one about Brexit. “UK patent protection will continue to be available through the EPO regardless of how Brexit proceeds,” it says, but nobody ever doubted that (that’s just a talking point of Team UPC in the UK). From the press release:
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (OTCQB: PVCT, www.provectusbio.com) (“Provectus” or the “Company”), a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing PV-10 as the first small molecule oncolytic immunotherapy for solid tumor cancers, today announced that the Japan Patent Office (JPO) had granted and the European Patent Office (EPO) had allowed the Company’s patent application for the combination of PV-10 with systemic immunomodulatory therapy (i.e., immune checkpoint inhibition). Pfizer, Inc. is a co-assignee on the award and allowance.
Shiri Burema and Rene van Duijvenbode (NLO), in this final sponsored ‘report’ at IAM, talk about oppositions at the EPO — something that staff is unable to do under the current regime, due to overload. Here’s their introduction:
The third and fourth installments of our European Patent Office (EPO) opposition series discussed the performance of private patent firms. This highlighted cases where (external) professional representation in opposition was sought by a patentee or an opponent (often a company) (for further details please see “EPO opposition: private practice patent firm’s engagement” and “EPO opposition: private practice patent firm’s core technologies”). However, some EPO oppositions are handled by companies on thier own through in-house patent attorneys (ie, sidestepping the need for external representation).
The fifth and final installment in our series highlights the share, performance and technological expertise of representation by in-house patent attorneys in 2016 EPO oppositions.
Firms like NLO (the authors’) make money from oppositions. In other words, bad quality of patents may mean additional work (and income) for them. Examiners might not like to admit this, but in many ways their interests are opposite of the patent microcosm’s. That includes thugs from Fieldfisher. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA