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. Chairman of the Board of Red Hat Explains He Was Introduced to GNU/Linux When It Helped His Regime Change in Haiti

    General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Board of Red Hat, explains (keynote in 2011 Red Hat Summit/JBoss World) that he was introduced to the system as part of a military campaign; it basically helped war, not antiwar



  2. The Faces of 'The Cloud' (Surveillance in Clown Computing/Clothing)

    Consolidation of the world's computers/servers and the stories told by photo ops; we're particularly interested in IBM's relationship with Condé Nast, which owns The New Yorker and Wired



  3. Microsoft is Now in the Technical Advisory Board of the Linux Foundation

    Techrights politely takes note of the growing role (or roles) of Microsoft employees inside the Linux Foundation; there are now at least half a dozen people



  4. Two Things IBM and Microsoft Have in Common: Layoffs and Fake Hype Like 'Clown Computing' and 'Hey Hi' (AI) as Perceived 'Opportunity' for 'Growth'

    The infamous pair of monopolists, Microsoft and IBM, are both suffering during the COVID-19 lock-downs (no matter how hard they try to spin it and/or distract from it)



  5. IBM (Red Hat) Lectured FSF That It Needed More Diversity, But Was It Looking at the Mirror? IBM and Red Hat Are Even Less Diverse.

    Techrights examines Red Hat’s (IBM’s) hypocritical claims about the Free Software Foundation, founded by Richard Stallman back when IBM was the “big scary monopolist”; IBM employees were prominent among those pushing to oust Stallman from the GNU Project, which he founded, as well



  6. IRC Proceedings: Friday, June 05, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, June 05, 2020



  7. Guix Petition Demographic Data, by Figosdev

    That old anti-RMS letter, which called for his removal (or resignation) from GNU (RMS is the founder of the GNU Project), as characterised by metadata of signatories



  8. When You Realise People Who Don't Support RMS Do Not Really Support GNU, Either

    The (in)famous letter against Richard Stallman (RMS), which was signed by many Red Hat employees with Microsoft (GitHub) accounts, doesn’t look particularly good in light of recent revelations/findings; it increasingly looks like IBM simply wants Microsoft-hosted and “permissively” licensed stuff, just like another project it announced yesterday and another that it promoted yesterday



  9. The Gates Press (GatesGate) -- Part III: What Happens When You Tell the Truth About Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation

    One might not expect this from a so-called 'charity'; the Gates Foundation's critics are often met with unprecedented aggression, threats and retribution, which make one wonder if it's really a charity or a greedy cult of personalities (Bill and Melinda)



  10. Links 6/6/2020: Bifrost Meets GNOME, Wine 5.10 is Out

    Links for the day



  11. Links 5/6/2020: LibreELEC (Leia) 9.2.3, Rust 1.44.0, and Hamburg's Pivot to Free/Libre Software

    Links for the day



  12. This Article About GitHub Takeover Never Appeared (Likely Spiked by Microsoft and Its Friends Inside the Media)

    And later they wonder why people distrust so much of the media (where paying advertisers set the agenda/tone)



  13. Raw: How Microsoft and/or the EPO Killed an Important EPO Story About Their SLAPP Against Techrights and Others

    Spiking a story about spiked stories about corruption



  14. The Linux Foundation 'Bootcamp' -- Badly Timed and Badly Named in June 2020 -- Only Uses Linus Torvalds Like a 'Prop' (for Legitimacy) While Promoting Militarised Monopolies

    Sometimes a picture says a lot more than words, especially in light of political events in the US and a certain Chinese anniversary we cannot name (Microsoft censors mentions of it)



  15. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, June 04, 2020

    IRC logs for Thursday, June 04, 2020



  16. The Gates Press (GatesGate) -- Part II: When Media That You Bribe Calls All Your Critics 'Conspiracy Theorists' (to Keep Them Silenced, Marginalised)

    The assault on the media by Bill Gates is a subject not often explored by the media (maybe because a lot of it is already bribed by him); but we're beginning to gather new and important evidence that explains how critics are muzzled (even fired) and critical pieces spiked, never to see the light of day anywhere



  17. GitHub is Not Sharing But 'Theft' by Microsoft

    Microsoft buying GitHub does not demonstrate that Microsoft loves Open Source (GitHub is not Open Source and may never be) but that it loves monopoly and coercion (what GitHub is all about and why it must be rejected)



  18. The Huge Damage (Except for Patent Lawyers' Bottom Line) Caused by Fake European Patents

    The European Patent Office (EPO) keeps granting fake patents that cause a lot of real harm (examiners are pressured to play along and participate in this unlawful agenda); nobody is happy except those who profit from needless, frivolous lawsuits



  19. Red Hat/IBM Got 'Tired' of RMS. Is It Getting 'Tired' of GPL/Copyleft Too?

    After contributing to the cancellation of Richard Stallman (RMS) based on some falsehoods perpetuated in the media we're seeing the sort of thing one might expect from IBM (more so now that it totally controls Fedora and RHEL)



  20. Links 4/6/2020: Proton 5.0-8 Release Candidate, GNU Linux-libre 5.7

    Links for the day



  21. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, June 03, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, June 03, 2020



  22. Social Engineering of Free Software, Based on Corporate Criteria

    What "professional" nowadays means in the context of coding and honest assessment of technical work



  23. Weakening GNU/Linux by Disempowering Its Leaders and Founders, Replacing Them With Microsoft Employees and GNU/Linux-Hostile Moles

    The coup to remove (or remove power from) Stallman and Torvalds, the GNU and Linux founders respectively, is followed by outsourcing of their work to Microsoft’s newly-acquired monopoly (GitHub) and appointment of Microsoft workers or Microsoft-friendly people, shoehorning them into top roles under the disingenuous guise of "professionalism"



  24. Sword Group Violates Its Own Commitment by Working for the EPO

    The European Patent Office (EPO) keeps outsourcing its work to outside contractors (for-profit private entities) to the tune of hundreds of millions if not billions — all this without any oversight



  25. In 2020 Canonical No Longer Fights for Freedom

    Freedom requires a GNU/Linux distro other than Ubuntu, which seems unwilling or unable/incapable of speaking about and promoting the ideals of GNU/Linux



  26. We Need to Use the F Word (Freedom) to Promote Adoption of GNU/Linux

    "People get the government their behavior deserves. People deserve better than that." -Richard Stallman



  27. People Who Want to Explore GNU/Linux With Ubuntu See This Today

    "Wait, am I in a GNU/Linux blog or another Windows blog," a visitor might think... or, is Microsoft 'taking over' messaging at Canonical? (Same with code)



  28. Links 4/6/2020: Septor 2020.3, Nextcloud and Blender 2.83

    Links for the day



  29. Hey, Where's Red Hat (IBM)?

    Red Hat is conspicuously silent at these critical times (in its home country); Must be too busy hailing and cashing in on Trump's military (state) while dishing out shallow and self-contradictory diversity PR/fluff…



  30. Microsoft's Latest Vapourware About Supercomputers

    Microsoft has spent almost two decades dropping supercomputers vapourware on the media, but those misinformation dumps always turn out to be 100% hot air, no substance


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

Recent Posts