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

06.07.18

Marks & Clerk Blames Battistelli’s Victims, the Boards of Appeal, Whose Job Guarded Patent Quality

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

What else can be expected from UPC and software patents proponents such as Marks & Clerk?

A shocked Battistelli
Reference: The Boards of Appeal Openly Complain (in the EPO’s Web Site) About Battistelli, But Don’t Tell Battistelli About It…

Summary: The assault on patent quality at the EPO is partly the fault of the patenting and litigation ‘industry’, which isn’t really interested in justice as opposed to perpetuation of patent disputes (which the lawyers profit from)

AT THE USPTO the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is under a constant attack from the patent microcosm. We write about it every week, even several times per week.

“BoA (sometimes through AMBA) repeatedly complains about it, but it doesn’t seem like the patent microcosm is genuinely interested in the Boards’ side of the story.”The EPO‘s management has basically joined the patent microcosm in attacking its equivalent (sort of) of PTAB, known as BoA (including TBA and EBoA). Their objective is pretty obvious: patent maximalism. The European Patent Convention (EPC) gave BoA complete independence from the Office, but this independence has been brutally shattered by crooked Benoît Battistelli. BoA (sometimes through AMBA) repeatedly complains about it, but it doesn’t seem like the patent microcosm is genuinely interested in the Boards’ side of the story.

Kate Appleby (Marks & Clerk) has just published this self-promotional puff piece about the Technical Board of Appeal, citing the EPC which Marks & Clerk would gladly ignore/override if that means more income. To quote:

According to Article 54 of the European Patent Convention, an invention is considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art. The state of the art comprises everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of a European patent application.

But at what point does a document leave the non-public domain and enter the public domain?

In case T 1050/12, an EPO Technical Board of Appeal was asked to decide on this point in an opposition by Innovacell Biotechnologie AG (IB) to a patent owned by the University of Pittsburgh (UP). The patent concerned skeletal muscle-derived muscle cells, compatible with the tissues of different individuals for use in the repair of smooth muscle. Such cells could be used to treat urinary stress incontinence.

UP’s granted patent was opposed by IB on the ground of lack of novelty over several prior art documents. The most relevant document was an abstract of a presentation at a meeting, referred to as D3, which had two authors, both of whom were inventors named on the patent. Every feature of the claims of the patent was held by the Board to be disclosed in D3.

This wasn’t actually the worst from Marks & Clerk. On almost the same day they also published an ‘article’ by Jennifer Bailey and Stephen Blake (Marks & Clerk) in which they’re blaming the Boards themselves for the outcome of them being victimised, titling it “Backlog at the boards” (a rather shallow analysis regarding an old report). It was first published in a patent maximalists’ site behind a paywall (under the headline “Backlog at the boards” with the following summary: “The proposed changes to the procedures of the BoA at the EPO will (hopefully) improve efficiency while maintaining quality”).

Don’t they realise what’s going on? Are they lying to themselves? Lying for Battistelli? Marks & Clerk — these shameless boosters of the UPC, software patents and the brutal regime at the EPO — fail to mention illegal acts by Battistelli against the Boards of Appeal (the reason for the named issues!) and we doubt it’s a coincidence. Here are some bits from the ‘report’ they’re nowadays cross-posting in lots of lawyers’ sites, e.g. [1, 2]:

The EPO’s Boards of Appeal underwent comprehensive reform in 2017, one of the aims of which was to enshrine their independence by delegating power to the President of the Boards of Appeal. Another aim of the reform –one that will be of particular interest to patentees and opponents – was to increase the efficiency of the Boards. A five-year objective has been set to settle 90% of cases within 30 months, and reduce the number of pending cases to below 7000. However, with almost 9000 appeals pending by the end of 2017, this is no small task.

One question is whether this is realistic; another is the effect that this drive to efficiency could have on the quality of decisions.

The number of new cases filed with the Technical Boards of Appeal in 2017 was 2798, an increase of 1.8% from 2016 and 11% compared to 2013, indicating an upward trend in the number of appeals being filed. Of those filed in 2017, 39% were examination appeals and 61% were opposition appeals. Notably, opposition appeals are slightly quicker to be settled, taking on average 35 months compared to 42 months for examination appeals. While the majority of cases have only been pending for two or three years, some appeals are yet to be decided which were filed as early as 2009. Given the significant length of time of appeal proceedings, it is unsurprising that by the end of 2017 the backlog had grown to over 5200 pending opposition appeals, and over 3600 examination appeals. Furthermore, with an apparent increase in the speed of examination of patent applications by the EPO, it seems likely that the number of appeals being filed will continue to rise.

So, how do the Boards plan to reduce the backlog?

Well, they clearly said hiring would be needed. We wrote about it at the time. Whose fault is this backlog? Battistelli wants patents to be granted fast and appeals to be thrown in some endless pile. That’s getting close to INPI where there’s no examination at all!

Yesterday. coming from another European law firm (NLO) was this article from Caroline Pallard, in which she wrote:

This analysis is based on an EPO Board of Appeal decision (T108/09).

Due to acquired resistance to a particular cancer treatment, it is common for cancer patients to first be treated with a given drug (eg, tamoxifen), then with a second drug (eg, an aromatase inhibitor) as soon as resistance to the first drug occurs, and possibly with a third drug (eg, fulvestrant) as soon as resistance to the second drug occurs. Using fulvestrant as a third line of treatment was considered a novel cancer therapy, although fulvestrant was already known as a first and second-line cancer treatment. Granted Claim 1 reads: “Use of fulvestrant in the preparation of a medicament for the treatment of a patient with breast cancer who previously has been treated with an aromatase inhibitor and tamoxifen and has failed with such previous treatment.”

Need we bring up the issues associated with patents on cancer treatments? These issues were brought before the EPO several times before and were arrogantly ignored [1, 2]. Patent quality and public interest (or ethics) don’t seem to matter. It’s just a rubber-stamping machine. If the Boards cannot keep up or do their job properly, nothing can stop the Office issuing lots of dangerous patents. Such patents would not only harm European businesses but also kill poor Europeans (for the enrichment of some large companies, usually overseas).

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. Reader's Article: Affaire Benalla Strongly Connected to EPO/OEB/EPA and Former President Benoît Battistelli

    A Macron scandal has led French media to finally (and years too late) exploring some of the much more explosive scandals at the EPO, revealing some interesting new details in the process



  2. Language Patent Lawyers Are Using to Warp the Debate and Decrease Public Understanding of Patents

    The patent microcosm, trying to get the public all baffled/confused about the patent system, continues (mis)using words to convey things in misleading ways



  3. USPTO FEES ACT Makes the US Patent Office a Money-Making Machine That Systematically Disregards Patent Quality

    The lingering issues with patent assessment at the US patent office, which unlike US courts isn't quite so impartial an actor (it benefits more from granting than from rejecting)



  4. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli's Epic Abuses)

    Thoughts on the possibility that Battistelli will belatedly be held accountable for his abuses, knowing that a senator representing French Citizens residing Abroad comes from the EPO



  5. A Lot of US Patents Are Entirely Bogus, But Apple Was Willing to Pay for Them

    Apple's resistance to Qualcomm's patent aggression was preceded by very heavy ("thermonuclear" by Steve Jobs' description/words) patent wars against Android and even legitimisation of clearly bogus software patents from Amazon



  6. 'Owning' Nature, Thanks to Patent Insanity and People Who Profit From That

    Questionable patents on things that always existed and are merely being explained or reassembled; those sorts of patents typically serve to merely discredit the patent system and courts too increasingly reject such patents (e.g. SCOTUS on Mayo Collaborative Services and Myriad Genetics, Inc.)



  7. Patents Stranger Than Fiction and 'Protection' From Fictional Things

    Fictional things are being treated like "inventions" and insurance companies now look to exploit fear of fictional things (man-made concepts), such as ownership of mere ideas or words



  8. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO

    Benoît Battistelli's highly aggressive approach has attracted the attention of French media; Battistelli has reportedly refused to comment on that matter, knowing that he lacks a defense (same thing happened after he had hauled millions of EPO euros to his other employer)



  9. Patent Law Firms Have Become More Like Marketing Departments With an Aptitude for Buzzwords

    What we're observing, without much reluctance anymore, is that a lot of patent lawyers still push abstract software patents, desperately looking for new trendy terms or adjectives by which to make these seem non-abstract



  10. Interlude: The Need to Counter Misinformation From the Patent and Litigation 'Industry'

    24,500 posts reached; so we pause and reflect, seeing that many sites/blogs of patent maximalists gradually ebb away



  11. Advocacy of the Unitary Patent System Has Become Almost Identical to the 'Leave' (Brexit) Campaign

    The charades of Team UPC carry on in Kluwer Patent Blog — a blog which for a very long time served no purpose other than Unified Patent Court (UPC) advocacy



  12. Open Invention Network is Rendered Obsolete in the Wake of Alice and It's Not Even Useful in Combating Microsoft's Patent Trolls

    Changes at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and in US courts' outcomes may have already meant that patent trolls rather than software patents in general are a growing threat, including those that Microsoft is backing, funding and arming to put legal pressure on GNU/Linux (and compel people/companies to host GNU/Linux instances on Azure for patent 'protection' from these trolls)



  13. Bogus Patents Which Oughtn't Have Been Granted Make Products Deliberately Worse, Reducing Innovation and Worsening Customers' Experience

    How shallow patents — or patent applications that no patent office should be accepting — turn out to be at the core of multi-billion-dollar cases/lawsuits, with potentially a billion people impacted (their products made worse to work around such questionable patents)



  14. EPO is Like a Patent Litigation (Without Actual Trial) Office, Not a Patent Examination Office

    Examination of patent applications isn't taken seriously by an office whose entire existence was supposed to be about examination; bureaucracy at the top of this office has apparently decided that the sole goal is to create more demand (i.e. lawsuits) for the litigation 'industry'



  15. Philippe Cadre From the French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) Wants to Join António Campinos

    Yet another example of INPI's creeping influence if not 'entryism' at the EPO and this time too patent quality isn't a priority



  16. Links 22/9/2018: Mesa 18.2.1, CLIP OS, GPL Settlement in Artifex/First National Title Insurance Company

    Links for the day



  17. Links 21/9/2018: Cockpit 178, Purism 'Dongle'

    Links for the day



  18. Criticism of Unitary Patent (UPC) Agreement Doomed the UPC and Patent Trolls' Plan -- Along With the Litigation Lobby -- for Unified 'Extortion Vector'

    The Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC) was the trolls' weapon against potentially millions of European businesses; but those businesses have woken up to the fact that it was against their interests and European member states such as Spain and Poland now oppose it while Germany halts ratification



  19. It Wasn't Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The EPO scandals deepen in light of a very major scandal which has occupied the French media for a couple of months



  20. Links 20/9/2018: 2018 Linux Audio Miniconference and Blackboard's Openwashing

    Links for the day



  21. Links 19/9/2018: Chromebooks Get More DEBs, LLVM 7.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  22. Links 18/9/2018: Qt 5.12 Alpha , MAAS 2.5.0 Beta, PostgreSQL CoC

    Links for the day



  23. Today's European Patent Office (EPO) Works for Large, Foreign Pharmaceutical Companies in Pursuit of Patents on Nature, Life, and Essential/Basic Drugs

    The never-ending insanity which is patents on DNA/genome/genetics and all sorts of basic things that are put together like a recipe in a restaurant; patents are no longer covering actual machinery that accomplishes unique tasks in complicated ways, typically assembled from scratch by humans; some supposed 'inventions' are merely born into existence by the natural splitting of organisms or conception (e.g. pregnancy)



  24. The EPO Has Quit Pretending That It Cares About Patent Quality, All It Cares About is Quantity of Lawsuits

    A new interview with Roberta Romano-Götsch, as well as the EPO's promotion of software patents alongside CIPA (Team UPC), is an indication that the EPO has ceased caring about quality and hardly even pretends to care anymore



  25. Qualcomm's Escalating Patent Wars Have Already Caused Massive Buybacks (Loss of Reserves) and Loss of Massive Clients

    Qualcomm's multi-continental patent battles are an effort to 'shock and awe' everyone into its protection racket; but the unintended effect seems to be a move further and further away from 'Qualcomm territories'



  26. Links 17/9/2018: Torvalds Takes a Break, SQLite 3.25.0 Released

    Links for the day



  27. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Helps Prevent Frivolous Software Patent Lawsuits

    PTAB with its quality-improving inter partes reviews (IPRs) is enraging patent maximalists; but by looking to work around it or weaken it they will simply reduce the confidence associated with US patents



  28. Abstract Patents (Things One Can Do With Pen and Paper, Sometimes an Abacus) Are a Waste of Money as Courts Disregard Them

    A quick roundup of patents and lawsuits at the heart of which there's little or no substance; 35 U.S.C. § 101 renders these moot



  29. “Blockchain” Hype and “FinTech”-Like Buzzwords Usher in Software Patents Everywhere, Even Where Such Patents Are Obviously Bunk

    Not only the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) embraces the "blockchain" hype; business methods and algorithms are being granted patent 'protection' (exclusivity) which would likely be disputed by the courts (if that ever reaches the courts)



  30. Qualcomm's Patent Aggression Threatens Rationality of Patent Scope in Europe and Elsewhere

    Qualcomm's dependence on patent taxes (so-called 'royalties' associated with physical devices which it doesn't even make) highlights the dangers now known; the patent thicket has grown too "thick"


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