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

09.22.18

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

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

It’s already acting like the UPC (with judges controlled by the office), giving way/rise to litigation or shakedown irrespective of the merit of underlying patents

Examination and litigation
Examination fast-tracked for litigation if not blackmail purposes (putting the burden of proof on the accused). See “Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office”.

Summary: 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'

THE EPO is weaponising its monopoly powers and arming patent aggressors; it gives “weapons” to firms that leverage totally bogus patents against rivals (we’ll use Qualcomm as a new example in our next post).

The EPO no longer cares about quality of patents; the only “quality” it seems to understand is speed of granting. It’s a rubber-stamping operation, which the EPO increasingly puts in the hands of proprietary machines rather than humans (examiners). It’s like another INPI. Yesterday the EPO persisted with the usual number of tweets in favour of software patents (same old ‘script’); it has gotten so bad that we see no point even pointing this out anymore; it would be almost spurious because it has become so banal and repetitive. The EPO has no remorse about blatantly and openly pushing software patents in Europe. Any patent will do; just apply. Apply today! Apply now!

“The EPO no longer cares about quality of patents; the only “quality” it seems to understand is speed of granting.”Some firms are looking to exploit these declining standards with self-promotional announcements, seminars, events, brochures and so on. Just before the weekend we saw some in Business Wire (press release) at least a couple of times, the Associated Press wire several times and PR Newswire (press release). They just try to shove lots of patents into the EPO, knowing perhaps that it has gotten a lot easier to have them accepted (even if courts later invalidate these).

What has the EPO become? Who will benefit from this?

We have meanwhile noticed that Liz Cohen from Bristows LLP is writing from the distant past again (27 September 2016). Their CMS is eternally broken and they don’t even know how to use it. So many errors. Maybe she just updated a post of hers from 2 years ago after she had published this little piece and promoted it from an account that they’ve described as “Keeping you up to date with the latest Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent news and developments” (it’s actually a stream of jingoism and lies, sometimes fabrications).

“Wrongly-granted patents need not even go to/on trial; threat of litigation — or blackmail — is often enough.”Cohen desperately uses as evidence of UPC “confidence” (don’t laugh) a litigation ‘industry’ lobby doing a PR charade. This is laughable beyond belief, but this is the sort of propaganda we’ve become accustomed to seeing at Bristows LLP. The EPLIT (European Patent Litigators Association) is cited as “proof” of UPC “confidence” and Cohen says “content of these three courses corresponds to the curriculum for the European Patent Litigation Certificate (EPLC), set out in Rule 3 of the draft EPLC Rules.”

But there’s no UPC; they are promoting a lie. Remember that CIPA lied along with Battistelli about UPC in the UK; that was before the Max Planck Institute issued an almost 200-page-long paper disputing it (recall Bristows' appalling response to it several days ago). Thankfully, if not very much belatedly, English-speaking sites talk about it. IPPro Patents wrote the following yesterday:

The continued participation of the UK in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and unitary patent will “not be possible” post-Brexit, according to Matthias Lamping and Hanns Ullrich of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition.
Lamping and Planck made the comments in a paper covering “the impact of Brexit on unitary patent protection and its court”.

In the paper, Lamping and Planck argued that the unitary patent system rests on two legally different but interconnected pillars.

These are EU Reg 1257/2012, on the implementation of enhanced cooperation by the creation of unitary patent protection, and the Agreement between the Member States of the EU on the establishment of the UPC.

The UPC will have exclusive jurisdiction over invalidation and infringement actions concerning the European patent with unitary effect and/or the classic European (bundle) patent.

However, as Lamping and Planck commented, the link between unitary protection of European patents and the UPC Agreement is not only one of jurisdiction, but also one of “substantive law”.

According to World Intellectual Property Review, which wrote about it yesterday:

Two researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition have argued that the UK will not be able to remain in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement after leaving the EU.

Matthias Lamping and Hanns Ullrich jointly published two studies in a paper called “The Impact of Brexit on Unitary Patent Protection and its Court”, where they argued that the inclusion of a post-Brexit UK in the Agreement will run contrary to the EU’s core values.

They said unitary patent protection cannot be dissociated from the “general legal order of the EU’s internal market” and be extended to the UK once it has left the EU.

The UPC will likely never happen, but the EPO’s abusive behaviour already facilitates the arrival of many patent trolls — a fact that Bristows staff try to deny in vain. Facts do not seem to exist (or are dismissed as invalid) when Team UPC does not like these facts.

BoingBoing has meanwhile caught up with an old paper which is summarised in yesterday’s headline, “Research shows that patent examiners are more likely to grant patents to companies they later work for” — a subject we wrote about back in May. In BoingBoing‘s words:

In their National Bureau of Economic Research working paper From Revolving Doors to Regulatory Capture? Evidence from Patent Examiners (Sci-Hub Mirror), Business School profs Haris Tabakovic (Harvard) and Thomas Wollmann (Chicago) show that patent examiners are more likely to grant patents for companies that they subequently go to work for; they also go easier on patents applied for by companies associated with their alma maters (where they have more connections and will find it easier to get a job after their turn in government service).

Appointments in this fashion aren’t limited to the USPTO; as we showed in our previous post, there are similar and rather profound issues at the management level of the EPO. There’s also the rumour that Battistelli is still trying to head the UPC (if such a thing ever exists), having laid the ground for poor patent quality and thus a lot of frivolous lawsuits.

Does the EPO work for UPC? Is the EPO itself becoming de facto UPC? Wrongly-granted patents need not even go to/on trial; threat of litigation — or blackmail — is often enough.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Slashdot

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 22/10/2020: LibreOffice 6.4.7, Septor 2020.5, Ubuntu 20.10 Released, FreeBSD Quarterly Status Report

    Links for the day



  2. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, October 21, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, October 21, 2020



  3. Living Humbly (With Older Technology or None) is More Compatible With Privacy- and Freedom-Respecting Technological Lifestyle

    Simplicity sometimes trumps so-called 'novelty', especially when it comes to human rights and users' freedom



  4. Reasons Why You (and Everybody Else) Should Join the Fight for Software Freedom

    Society is being closely watched and controlled (more so during/after the latest pandemic) and people must carefully consider the true importance of resisting proprietary technology (controlled remotely by state actors)



  5. Ways and Means to Reduce One's Dependency on Google's Various Monopolies and Near-Monopolies

    Getting rid of Google means a lot more than embracing DumbDumbGo (DDG) or some other sites that spy just like Google; we're taking stock of some options



  6. The European Commission is Still M.I.A. Regarding EPO Corruption (and the EPO's Management Plays Dirty, as Always)

    There's no change in the EU; the EUIPO and EPO enjoy complete and total immunity/impunity, with the Commission being manned by those who are deeply complicit



  7. 10 Reasons Why All This 'Edge for Linux' Coverage is a Total Farce

    The fake hype surrounding "Edge" is an inauthentic hype/buzz campaign made to coincide with anti-Google sentiments spread by Microsoft front/pressure groups



  8. Microsoft's IIS Has Collapsed Again This Past Month (and IIS Will Not and Cannot Survive This Way)

    Netcraft shows that Microsoft's decline further accelerates in the Web servers space; IIS is becoming financially unviable



  9. Links 21/10/2020: Alpine 3.12.1, Tor Browser 10.0.2

    Links for the day



  10. [Meme] US Department of Justice Should Have Taken on Microsoft Again, Not Google

    When lobbying, connections and political sway determine the actions of the American government it's hardly surprising that Bill Gates gets the Trump administration to fight for him (to make him even richer)



  11. [Meme] Banning Words, Gaslighting Volunteers

    What happens when institutions are themselves in violation of a CoC (institutional violation) and massive corporations that fund such institutional violations are defending demonisation of the individual (squashing ‘uncomfortable’ voices, even volunteers’)



  12. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 20, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, October 20, 2020



  13. Links 21/10/2020: $8000 GNU/Linux Desktop, Tails 4.12, Open Infrastructure Foundation and Firefox Release

    Links for the day



  14. Never Feed the Internet Trolls, No Matter How Tempting It Becomes

    The tactics for removing critics of abuse (by framing them as "abusive") have evolved a lot in recent years; the best course of action is to never entertain provocateurs in any way whatsoever (just ignore them, give them no attention which they crave and feed on)



  15. Bill Gates: “I'm Not a Lawyer” (He Dropped Out of College, Where He Studied Law Before and After Breaking the Law Chronically)

    How Microsoft blackmailed other companies into supporting nothing but Microsoft and Windows; Bill Gates repeatedly lied to the interrogators about it, then said "I'm not a lawyer" (IANAL) even though he went to college to become one, just like his father who died last month



  16. Microsoft Has Not Changed Since Being Investigated (and Prosecuted) for Crimes at a Federal Level

    The media keeps telling us a bunch of worthless junk about Gates "saving the world" and Microsoft becoming a "nice" and "gentle" (or "soft") company, but nothing could be further from the truth



  17. Stick a Fork in the Open Source Initiative (OSI). OSI is Dead. Microsoft Bought OSI.

    OSI leadership proudly showing early signs of 'prognosis negative'; the OSI can never and will never recover from this; Microsoft killed it



  18. Links 20/10/2020: OpenZFS 2.0 RC4 and Trisquel GNU/Linux 9.0

    Links for the day



  19. People With God Complex Must Never be Allowed in Positions of Power

    The attack on Linus Torvalds — an attack which at his own expense/peril he fails to recognise/acknowledge — seeks to put both projects that he founded right in Microsoft’s palm



  20. IRC Proceedings: Monday, October 19, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, October 19, 2020



  21. Corporate Media: GNU/Linux Can Only Succeed If/When Microsoft Dominates Everything Inside It

    The corporate takeover (or handover) of GNU/Linux would not have been possible without complicity of corruptible (bribed) media



  22. Bill Gates Explains How Microsoft and Apple Leverage Software Patents in Their Cross-Licensing Deals (to Perpetuate Duopoly/Shared Monopoly)

    A look back at Apple's and Microsoft's use or misuse of bogus software patents in bargaining (in effect excluding those who have not amassed tens of thousands of patents)



  23. Standards and Choices

    GNU/Linux is a very standards-based platform; having lots of choices (e.g. distros to choose from) isn’t the principal problem — or nowhere near the extent sabotage and illegal tactics by Microsoft have been



  24. IBM's “Emb(RACE)” Campaign is an Insult to History and Historians

    IBM wishes to be seen as some heroic saviour and warrior for black girls; this requires serious if not torturous revisionism to be believed



  25. There Are Too Many Types of Cars...

    "Choice is malicious," say the antagonists



  26. Reversal of Narratives by Internet Trolls (Spinning Reaction to Their Trolling as 'Abuse')

    Organisations that engage in demonisation of people (typically those who expose the abuses of such organisations) somehow evade the standards of Codes of Conduct, as if Codes of Conduct are covertly designed not to protect individuals but to empower those who already have all the powers (or front for powerful people/corporations)



  27. Ongoing (Albeit Secret) Campaign of Patent Extortion Against GNU/Linux Distributions Using Software Patents, Even Expired Ones in Europe

    GNU/Linux distros attacked by software patents, even in Europe where no such patents are supposed to exist (or have any legal bearing)



  28. Links 19/10/2020: Linux 5.9-ck1/MuQSS, Linux Kodachi 7.3

    Links for the day



  29. Java's James Gosling is Wrong. Free Software Advocates Never Suggested or Insinuated That Money-Making Was Ethically Wrong.

    The honorable James Gosling mischaracterises the stance of Free software advocacy, portraying it like it is an issue of money rather than respect for users



  30. Maybe This is What Codes of Conduct Were Made for? Or to Prevent? (Updated)

    When people bemoan the abuse they receive from a so-called 'anti-harassment' team (covering up corporate corruption in a project by ousting people) this is the kind of thing they receive from colleagues or former colleagues


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