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

08.04.18

António Campinos is Not Improving Patent Quality or Even the Social Climate at the EPO (False Promises)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Campinos says he wants to further increase so-called ‘production’ (beyond already-absurd [1, 2] levels)

Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Reference: Bureau of Engraving and Printing

Summary: Exploiting its immunity, the EPO continues to break the law and ignore court orders, rules, examination guidelines and even the EPC because the sole goal nowadays is granting as many patents as possible (even though examiners rightly object to that, citing relevant laws and public interest)

THE management of the EPO — like the management of the USPTO — strives to grant as many patents as possible. The reasons are selfish and purely economic (at the public’s expense). The law restricts its ability to do so, but the EPO famously disregards the law, e.g. when it comes to software patents in Europe (the original/early complaint we had about the EPO).

Have things improved under António Campinos? Of course not. We didn’t expect them to, either.

Here’s Jacobacci & Partners (Italy) lobbying for software patents in Europe (not quite legal) under the guise of "AI" — the guise facilitated/promoted by the EPO. IAM wrote the following a few days ago: “The patentability of artificial intelligence (AI) is a hot topic, mainly due to the tremendous expectations around this emerging, disruptive and pervasive technology. On 30 May 2018 the EPO held an international conference on patenting AI in Munich to explore this topic in detail. The EPO has recently published material and videos of the conference on the e-courses section of its website.”

So the EPO is basically saying, “call your software “AI” and then we’ll probably accept a patent on it.” The same goes for terms like “4IR” and several others. Over the past week alone the EPO wrote about half a dozen tweets to that effect.

One might then ask, “so has Campinos actually improved the climate?” (given that patent scope/quality remains a problem)

The answer appears to be no. SUEPO has just linked to a new article (behind paywall) about SUEPO and the new EPO President, Mr. Campinos. This was published [PDF] in SUEPO’s Web site just before the weekend. SUEPO seems to be growing impatient and as the article puts it: “Campinos’s insistence on maintaining the exhausting pace of patent grants while at the same time boosting patent quality is not a good sign. Campinos had one chance to make a good first impression but missed it by circumventing elected staff representatives and meeting directly with employees, a source close to the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) said in an interview. Contrary to what Campinos trumpeted online, it does not appear to be a priority for him to work on the social agenda, said the source.”

So has anything at all improved under Campinos and his pretty much identical (to Battistelli’s) leadership? From what we can gather, things quieted down because the EPO isn’t saying much. But “quiet before the storm” comes to mind. And without a storm there’s no potential for any improvement/change.

A few days ago we learned about this company called Physna (“Physna is short for physical DNA,” it says) and saw this press release about “Cell and Gene Therapies” patents. Then came another press release, this one about RNA-related patents at the EPO. To quote:

RXi Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NASDAQ: RXII) a biotechnology company developing the next generation of immuno-oncology therapeutics based on its proprietary self-delivering RNAi (sd-rxRNA) therapeutic platform, announced today that the European Patent Office (EPO) and Japan Patent Office (JPO) have granted patents for the Company’s novel self-delivering RNAi (sd-rxRNA®) therapeutic platform. The EPO Patent #: 2949752 B1 and JPO Patent #: 620309 cover composition of matter, specifically structural and chemical attributes of sd-rxRNA. These patents will be set to expire in 2029.

So it certainly sounds as though the EPO still grants what we colloquially refer to as “patents on life”. Does it not matter that European authorities repeatedly say no to such patents? Does the EPO follow the law at all? Considering failure to obey court rulings (even by Campinos), this does not shock us.

Incidentally, a high European court (CJEU) — not just the political ‘pillar’ — has just weighed in on a related subject. To quote:

Last week, the CJEU ruled that organisms obtained by mutagenesis are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO Directive. The implication of this decision is that products produced by gene-editing techniques, such as CRISPR/Cas-9, will be subject to the same regulations as transgenic organisms. The Agritech industry has met the CJEU decision with dismay, arguing that it will further stifle agribiotech innovation in the EU.

[...]

In a dramatic turn-around, on 25th July 2018, the CJEU ruled that organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs and are subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO Directive. The CJEU also particularly ruled that GMO Directive applies to organisms obtained by mutagenesis techniques that have been developed since adoption of the GMO Directive, reasoning that these techniques can now be used to produce organisms similar, from a risk perspective, to those that can be produced using transgenic methods.

In answer to the specific referred question as to whether organisms obtained by mutagenesis are excluded from the GMO Directive by Annex IB, the CJEU first noted that, under EU law, the GMO Directive should be interpreted by consideration of not only its wording “but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives”. The Court noted that the objective of the wording of Annex IB was to exclude organisms that are “obtained through certain techniques of genetic modification which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record”.

[...]

Gene editing technologies are immensely valuable from a research perspective. The relatively permissive regulatory environment for the cultivation of gene edited organisms in the EU also provided a clear commercial advantage to the technologies over transgenics. The CJEU decision has been so far met with dismay by the industry, with the outcry that “classification of genome-edited organisms as falling under the GMO Directive could slam the door shut on this revolutionary technology” (source: Rothamsted Research). Are we likely to see a falling-off in European patent filings directed at gene edited organisms? At the very least, we may expect the urgency to specifically claim a gene edited form of GMO products to lessen.

Following the EPO decision last year in Tomatoes II G 2/12 and Broccoli-II G 2/13, together with the latest CJEU decision, the agritech industry faces ongoing challenges to the development of new plant products in the EU. On the one hand, plants and plant products produced by “natural” breeding methods cannot be protected under the patent system, whilst plants and plant products produced by transgenic, and now gene editing, techniques, are subject to crippling legislation. The EPO and EU must of course balance the promotion of innovation with ethical concerns regarding genetic modification, but has the right balance been struck?

A bunch of comments have been posted there since then, notably those dealing with health implications, including in the case below (potentially) ISDS:

In those matters the precautionary principle should prevail, and I am inclined to find the decision very wise.

I have read some reports that the famous CRISPR/Cas-9 techniques are by far not as precise as it was made us to believe. In this respect, the decision is fully justified.

The safety of the methods themselves, be it for transgenic or mutagenetic modifications, and their impact on our environment has by no means be demonstrated.

The safety regulators are still too much influenced by large lobby groups, when they do not simply put their name on documents provided by industry.

People in Europe are not ready to swallow everything which is put in their dishes, and it is good so.

When looking at the latest blog published on Kluwer Patent blog,

http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/08/01/international-investment-arbitration-extraordinary-remedy-concerning-decisions-european-patent-office-future-unified-patent-court/

I would not be surprised if firms engaged in these techniques will not end up with bringing States before arbitration chambers, the legality and usefulness of which has still to be demonstrated.

Notice how UPC is being exploited by patent maximalists before it even exists (it will never exist). A timely reminder of the agenda of EPO management, which exploits its immunity to ignore the law, disregard the courts and basically grant patents on just about anything.

We’ll deal with the UPC in our next post.

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. From the Eastern District of Texas (US) to Australia Patent Quality Remains a Problem

    Patents on anything from thoughts to nature/life (in the US and in Australia, respectively) demonstrate the wildly wide range (or spectrum) of patents nowadays granted irrespective of their impact on innovation



  2. Alice/35 U.S.C. § 101 and PTAB Are Here to Stay and Even Their Critics (Patent Maximalists) Have Come to Accept That

    Taking stock of the latest PTAB news and rants; the latter has become scarce because efforts to undermine PTAB have all failed



  3. Patent Trolls Roundup: Conversant Wireless Licensing (Formerly Core Wireless) and Blackbird 'Technologies' Still Prey on Real Companies

    A quick recap of recent decisions and motions, which serve to show that patent trolls can be beaten, avoided, and sometimes even 'disarmed'



  4. Links 19/8/2018: Skrooge 2.15.0, Wine 3.14, End of Akademy 2018

    Links for the day



  5. David Ruschke, the PTAB's Chief, is Moving So the Patent Maximalists Push Their Anti-PTAB Agenda

    As the chief judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) moves elsewhere at the USPTO there are those who hope that a replacement will undo PTAB inter partes reviews (IPRs), which generally improve the quality of granted patents



  6. If David Chiles Turned the USPTO Into a 'Microsoft Shop' That Might Explain Three Days (or More) of Outages

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is having profound technical issues; some already point their fingers at David Chiles, alleged to have been hired/promoted for the wrong reasons



  7. Links 17/8/2018: GNU/Linux From ASUS, Debian at 25, Lubuntu Plans

    Links for the day



  8. Links 16/8/2018: MAAS 2.4.1, Mesa 18.2 RC3

    Links for the day



  9. USPTO Craziness: Changing Rules to Punish PTAB Petitioners and Reward Microsoft for Corruption at ISO

    The US patent office proposes charging/imposing on applicants that are not customers of Microsoft a penalty; there’s also an overtly and blatantly malicious move whose purpose is to discourage petitions against wrongly-granted (by the USPTO) patents



  10. The Demise of US Software Patents Continues at the Federal Circuit

    Software patents are rotting away in the United States; it remains to be seen when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will truly/fully honour 35 U.S.C. § 101 and stop granting such patents



  11. Almost Two Months After the ILO Ruling Staff Representative Brumme is Finally Back on the Job at EPO

    Ion Brumme gets his position at the EPO back, owing to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILO-AT) ruling back in July; things, however, aren't rosy for the Office as a whole



  12. Links 15/8/2018: Akademy 2018 Wrapups and More Intel Defects

    Links for the day



  13. 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



  14. 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



  15. 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



  16. 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



  17. 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)



  18. 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)



  19. 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



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

    Links for the day



  21. 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")



  22. 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



  23. 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



  24. 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)



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

    Links for the day



  26. 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



  27. 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



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

    Links for the day



  29. 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



  30. 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


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