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. Links 11/12/2018: Tails 3.11, New Firefox, FreeBSD 12.0

    Links for the day



  2. Number of Filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Highest in Almost Two Years

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs), which [cref 113718 typically invalidate software patents by citing 35 U.S.C. § 101], are withstanding negative rhetoric and hostility from Iancu



  3. With 'Brexit' in a Lot of Headlines Team UPC Takes the Unitary Patent Lies up a Notch

    Misinformation continues to run like water; people are expected to believe that the UPC, an inherently EU-centric construct, can magically come to fruition in the UK (or in Europe as a whole)



  4. The EPO Not Only Abandoned the EPC But Also the Biotech Directive

    Last week's decision (T1063/18, EPO Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04) shows that there's still a long way to go before the Office and the Organisation as a whole fulfil their obligation to those who birthed the Organisation in the first placeLast week's decision (T1063/18, EPO Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04) shows that there's still a long way to go before the Office and the Organisation as a whole fulfil their obligation to those who birthed the Organisation in the first place



  5. Patents on Abstract Things and on Life (or Patents Which Threaten Lives) Merely Threaten the Very Legitimacy of Patent Offices, Including EPO

    Patent Hubris and maximalism pose a threat or a major risk to the very system that they claim to be championing; by reducing the barrier to entry (i.e. introducing low-quality or socially detrimental patents) they merely embolden ardent critics who demand patent systems as a whole be abolished; the EPO is nowadays a leading example of it



  6. Links 10/12/2018: Linux 4.20 RC6 and Git 2.20

    Links for the day



  7. US Courts Make the United States' Patent System Sane Again

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and other factors are making the patent system in the US a lot more sane



  8. Today's USPTO Grants a Lot of Fake Patents, Software Patents That Courts Would Invalidate

    The 35 U.S.C. § 101 effect is very much real; patents on abstract/nonphysical ideas get invalidated en masse (in courts/PTAB) and Director Andrei Iancu refuses to pay attention as if he's above the law and court rulings don't apply to him



  9. A Month After Microsoft Claimed Patent 'Truce' Its Patent Trolls Keep Attacking Microsoft's Rivals

    Microsoft's legal department relies on its vultures (to whom it passes money and patents) to sue its rivals; but other than that, Microsoft is a wonderful company!



  10. Good News: US Supreme Court Rejects Efforts to Revisit Alice, Most Software Patents to Remain Worthless

    35 U.S.C. § 101 will likely remain in tact for a long time to come; courts have come to grips with the status quo, as even the Federal Circuit approves the large majority of invalidations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) panels, initiated by inter partes reviews (IPRs)



  11. Florian Müller's Article About SEPs and the EPO

    Report from the court in Munich, where the EPO is based



  12. EPO Vice-President Željko Topić in New Article About Corruption in Croatia

    The Croatian newspaper 7Dnevno has an outline of what Željko Topić has done in Croatia and in the EPO in Munich; it argues that this seriously erodes Croatia's national brand/identity



  13. The Quality of European Patents Continues to Deteriorate Under António Campinos and Software Patents Are Advocated Every Day

    The EPC in the European Patent Office and 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the USPTO annul most if not all software patents; under António Campinos, however, software patents are being granted in Europe and the USPTO exploits similar tricks



  14. Team UPC is Still Spreading False Rumours in an Effort to Trick Politicians and Pressure Judges

    Abuses at the European Patent Office, political turmoil and an obvious legislative coup by a self-serving occupation that produces nothing have already doomed the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC); so now we deal with complete fabrications from Team UPC as they're struggling to make something out of nothing, anonymously smearing opposition to the UPC and anonymously making stuff up



  15. Patents on Life and Patents That Kill the Poor Would Only Delegitimise the European Patent Office

    After Mayo, Myriad and other SCOTUS cases (the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 101) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is reluctant to grant patents on life; the European Patent Office (EPO), however, goes in the opposite direction, even in defiance of the European Patent Convention



  16. EPO 'Untapped Potential'

    "Campinos is diligently looking for ways to further increase the Office’s output without increasing the number of examiners," says the EPO-FLIER team



  17. Links 9/12/2018: New Linux Stable Releases (Notably Linux 4.19.8), RC Coming, and Unifont 11.0.03

    Links for the day



  18. Links 8/12/2018: Mesa 18.3.0, Mageia 7 Beta, WordPress 5.0

    Links for the day



  19. The European Patent Organisation is Like a Private Club and Roland Grossenbacher is Back in It

    In the absence of Benoît Battistelli quality control at the EPO is still not effective; patents are being granted like the sole goal is to increase so-called 'production' (or profit), appeals are being subjected to threats from Office management, and external courts (courts that assess patents outside the jurisdiction of the Office/Organisation) are being targeted with a long-sought replacement like the Unified Patent Court, or UPC (Unitary Patent)



  20. Links 7/12/2018: GNU Guix, GuixSD 0.16.0, GCC 7.4, PHP 7.3.0 Released

    Links for the day



  21. The Federal Circuit's Decision on Ancora Technologies v HTC America is the Rare Exception, Not the Norm

    Even though the PTAB does not automatically reject every patent when 35 U.S.C. § 101 gets invoked we're supposed to think that somehow things are changing in favour of patent maximalists; but all they do is obsess over something old (as old as a month ago) and hardly controversial



  22. The European Patent Office Remains a Lawless Place Where Judges Are Afraid of the Banker in Chief

    With the former banker Campinos replacing the politician Battistelli and seeking to have far more powers it would be insane for the German Constitutional Court to ever allow anything remotely like the UPC; sites that are sponsored by Team UPC, however, try to influence outcomes, pushing patent maximalism and diminishing the role of patent judges



  23. Many of the Same People Are Still in Charge of the European Patent Office Even Though They Broke the Law

    "EPO’s art collection honoured with award," the EPO writes, choosing to distract from what actually goes on at the Office and has never been properly dealt with



  24. Links 6/12/2018: FreeNAS 11.2, Mesa 18.3 Later Today, Fedora Elections

    Links for the day



  25. EPO, in Its Patent Trolls-Infested Forum, Admits It is Granting Bogus Software Patents Under the Guise of 'Blockchain'

    Yesterday's embarrassing event of the EPO was a festival of the litigation giants and trolls, who shrewdly disguise patents on algorithms using all sorts of fashionable words that often don't mean anything (or deviate greatly from their original meanings)



  26. The Patent Litigation Bubble is Imploding in the US While the UPC Dies in Europe

    The meta-industry which profits from feuds, disputes, threats and blackmail isn't doing too well; even in Europe, where it worked hard for a number of years to institute a horrible litigation system which favours global plaintiffs (patent trolls, opportunists and monopolists), these things are going up in flames



  27. Links 5/12/2018: Epic Games Store, CrossOver 18.1.0, Important Kubernetes Patch

    Links for the day



  28. Links 4/12/2018: LibrePCB 0.1.0, SQLite 3.26.0, PhysX Code

    Links for the day



  29. EPO Management Keeps Embarrassing Itself, UPC More Dead Than Before, and Nokia Turns Aggressive

    The EPO’s race to the bottom of patent quality continues, it’s now complemented by direct association with patent trolls and law stands in their way (for they repeatedly violate the law)



  30. The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) and IBM Are Part of the Software Patents Problem in the United States

    IBM's special role in lobbying for software patents (and against PTAB) needs to be highlighted; even Ethereum’s co-founder isn't happy about IBM's meddling in the blockchain space (with help from Hyperledger/Linux Foundation)


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