09.28.18
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
France at the centre, as usual
Summary: The three Frenchmen above are unlikely to ever see a Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court; this is only bad news for patent trolls and law firms that represent them, hoping to make a killing across Europe with frivolous litigation and threats of litigation
THE previous post focused on the decline of patent quality at the USPTO — a problem which has spread to Europe. For the time being, however, courts can compensate for that. Patent maximalists are hoping for bogus courts with lack of oversight and a bias in favour of EPO management, software patents etc. (bypassing national courts)
Such courts would fall under a “Unified Patent Court” or UPC as they call it. If only if ever became a reality. After a series of rebrands and a lot of mischief it has ground to a halt and there’s no escaping the reality that UPC is running out of time. Even patent maximalists and firms that pushed hard for UPC (we call them “Team UPC”) are losing hope. Towards the end of this week we saw one law firm saying: “The implications for the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court depend on whether the Unified Patent Court Agreement comes into force – it will do so if it is ratified by Germany. If it does and there is no deal relating to the UK’s involvement in it, then UK businesses will be able to apply for Unitary Patents and enforce them in the Unified Patent Court. However, UK businesses will only have the option of obtaining a UK patent (whether by applying to the UK Patent Office or through the EPC system) and enforcing their UK patent rights in the UK courts.”
These are pretty loaded statements that rely on the false assumption of a 'continental' UPC ever coming into fruition. It cannot, not outside the UK. Published this morning from Mark Bell of Dehns (part of Team UPC) was an article which says this:
Although the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court have yet to come into force, its subsequent fate may well be affected by the UK leaving the EU.
Were the Unified Patent Court to never come into force, there will be no change for businesses in the UK or the EU at the point that the UK leaves the EU, even though the UK has ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement.
Were the Unified Patent Court to come into force (once Germany has ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement), the UK will seek to remain within the Unified Patent Court and the unitary patent system. However, depending on whether this takes place before the UK leaves the EU (the latest thinking on this is that this seems unlikely) or after leaving the EU, may affect the UK’s ability to participate in these systems.
Were the UK to be part of the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court systems (e.g. before the UK leaves the EU), one scenario is that the UK would need to withdraw from them (e.g. when the UK leaves the EU). Businesses (both in the UK and overseas) would therefore no longer be able to use the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court to protect their inventions within the UK. Instead, as they are able to now, they are able to seek patent protection in the UK via the UK Intellectual Property Office or the European Patent Office (a non-EU institution).
How can Dehns honestly say this after the release of this paper from the Max Planck Institute? People asked this in the comments (so-called ‘interview’ with other Dehns staff) only to hear some excuse about the ‘interview predating this paper. The reality is, they intentionally ignore anything which doesn’t suit their financial agenda, i.e. more of the usual. Bristows went further and smeared the paper, calling it “controversial” even though no controversy exists.
As we said some days ago, "lost in the noise created by Team UPC this week is the simple fact that the British government now admits it’s willing to abandon all Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement (UPCA) plans" and this latest interpretation is more correct than most things lawyers have said about UPC (compare to the infamous two lies). To quote:
The UK has ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement, but it still needs to be ratified by Germany and it is unclear if this will occur before 29 March 2019. If the UPC does not come into force, there will be no changes for UK and EU businesses at the point that the UK exits the EU.
If the UPC does come into force, the notice confirms that the Government will “explore whether it would be possible to remain within” the UPC and UP systems even in a hard Brexit scenario.
By contrast, see what a totally and completely stuffed/stacked panel at the AIPPI event (as one might expect) said (or is reported to have said):
Carr was one of six panellists (all speaking in a personal capacity) who took part in the “Briefing: hot topics in IP” session during the 2018 AIPPI World Congress in Cancún, Mexico, which finished yesterday, September 26.
While refusing to express any views about the wisdom of Brexit itself, Carr noted that one of the most difficult topics to deal with post-Brexit will be IP exhaustion.
[...]
Finally, on the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement and the unitary patent, Carr said: “In my opinion, if we reach a deal then I think the UK will participate … and we have a valuable contribution to make. If there’s no deal, I think it’s unlikely that we will participate … I don’t think it would be in the interests of other European countries to allow us to do so.”
Also in the session, Judge Klaus Grabinski of the German Federal Court of Justice discussed the UPC Agreement in more depth.
“When you look into the UPC’s life, you may get a feeling that we are now in a situation which is rather unclear. Europe has been struggling to get a common court in the patent field for more than 60 years,” he said, before adding that Brexit and a constitutional complaint in Germany are the two main roadblocks to the UPC.
The above isn’t to be mistaken for the constitutional court, or FCC. A different court, the German Federal Court of Justice, is named above. IP Kat wrote about it a couple of days ago in relation to this case now referred to CJEU. What the above suggests is that even judges can recognise the seriousness of the barriers, and the constitutional complaint isn’t the sole barrier.
It should be noted that the above event promoted patent trolls’ agenda, as one might expect from AIPPI World Congress. Bristows did coverage of it in two parts [1, 2] for IP Kat and irony wasn’t overlooked by Benjamin Henrion, who wrote: “Consumers not invited to the FRAND conference: “Tadanobu Andou concluded by reminding the meeting that patent licence fees are in the end paid by end users. In setting licensing fees have to consider how much end users are ready to pay.””
Well, Bristows are “liars and patent zealots,” I told him, as they “push SEP/FRAND agenda” for their clients that are patent trolls. This is why they’re also pursuing UPC like they’d go bankrupt if it fell through. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The EPO’s new “away” uniform?
EPO logo with white background (whitewashing)
Summary: By lowering patent quality for the sake of faked ‘growth’ (in patent awards, not innovation) the patent offices merely harm the perception of patents as valid until/unless proven otherwise
THE EPO and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) both have a patent quality problem. The new USPTO Director seems not to care if SCOTUS narrowed patent scope (recall Iancu's speech at an IPO event). Neither does the ITC, unlike the Federal Circuit, which typically affirms Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs), citing 35 U.S.C. § 101. As for the EPO, it regularly promotes software patents in Europe, more so under António Campinos. They use all sorts of buzzwords and three-letter acronyms (sometimes two- and four-letter acronyms), but the net effect is the same. Abstract patents, which national courts would likely reject, get granted.
What good are patents if or when there’s no legal certainty associated with them? It almost defeats the very essence and purpose of patents.
Professor Dennis Crouch has just taken note of this utterly ridiculous patent which looks like something a child would draw on a chalkboard. The USPTO would become a laughing stock for patents like these. As Crouch put it: “Morgan Irons patented “Ecological System Model” is pretty cool — although deceptively simple. U.S. patent No. 9,970,208 — focusing on space agriculture.”
Crouch has also just noted a decline in the number of patents granted in the US (as projected earlier this year). The overall number is still far too high and many of these are bunk, bogus, worthless as courts would reject them anyway. “We’ve reached the end of FY2018,” Crouch wrote. “During the year, the USPTO has issued just over 300,000 patents. This is a small drop from FY2017, but the second highest year on record.”
Professor James Bessen has meanwhile noted (on Twitter) a new article titled “China Claims More Patents Than Any Country—Most Are Worthless”. This doesn’t surprise us at all as we have been saying this repeatedly for years. The trouble is, Europe and the US go down the same path now; desperate to ‘catch up’ with China, they too try to lower patent quality and grant a lot of dubious patents.
World Intellectual Property Review has just written about the EPO using China as somewhat of role model for patents (even though Chinese patents are regarded as somewhat of a joke). “EPO and CNIPA sign bilateral co-operation agreement,” IPPro Patents said in its headline.
IP Watch, which stopped covering EPO scandals (and its chief took selfies with Campinos, which may or may not say something), wrote some time yesterday about Korea’s patent office (KIPO) using buzzwords to help applicants bypass their own restrictions on software patenting. They even use the EPO’s favourite buzzword/term, “4IR”. To quote this new interview: “To this end, KIPO will strive to secure strong, high-quality patents to have competitiveness in key technical fields of the 4IR such as artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT).”
“They even use the EPO’s favourite buzzword/term, “4IR”.”So does KIPO too lower patent quality, in the name of facilitating/respecting buzzwords? The trouble is, affirmation rates in courts are rather low, which means that a lot of awarded patents can now be presumed invalid. So what good are these really? A paid press release (blocked in EU due to GDPR) was released this week and it’s titled “TFF Pharmaceuticals Receives Notice of Intention to Grant European Patent for Its Thin Film Freezing Process, Providing IP Protection in Europe until 2028″ (but is it valid?)
In the US, even patent maximalists are currently sceptical of the situation. They don’t believe that being more lenient in granting is the ‘solution’ but making the courts more lenient should the goal (i.e. lowering the patent bar). As one patent maximalist put it: “Likely example of what Iancu’s standard will stop: PTO INVENTING NEW categories of judicial exceptions: “claims are directed to the abstract idea of “using categories to organize, store and transmit information” https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2018001127-09-13-2018-1 …”
That would not, in any way whatsoever, change how courts view these patents. Director Iancu is like a ‘mole’ of lawyers (like himself); he or his firm had worked for Trump before he became Director and IPPro Patents belatedly covered his speech as follows: “The US must stop commingling the categories of invention with the conditions of patentability, according to US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) director, Andrei Iancu.” [via]
But again, that would not change what courts decide. “Iancu says guidance is needed on patentable subject matter eligibility to get out of a “rut”, particularly on the how Section 101 is different from Sections 102, 103 and 112,” Michael Loney wrote. Maybe what’s needed is higher patent bar, even if that means far fewer patents being granted. As Benjamin Henrion put it: “Iancu could have just copy/pasted the European Patent Convention art52, but he just wanted software patents back, and abolish Alice for its clients…”
Well, Iancu does not obey courts; like the President who appointed him, he just overrides the courts. He thinks he’s a lawmaker or something.
“Really,” said one reasonable observer, “it’s Iancu who needs to get on the same page as the courts — particularly the Supreme Court, which does get the final say in these matters until and unless Congress acts. Iancu doesn’t get to make the rules; that’s just how it goes.”
She was citing/quoting the maximalists as saying: “So its nice that Iancu is working on 101, but the courts also need to get on the same page. Whats the point of the PTO fixing their 101 issues only to have the courts kill patents on the same 101 issues a few years later when the patents are enforced?”
This maximalist later clarified to her: “I agree. Proposing all of these changes on 101 is a waste if the courts are going to kill on the same issues. What’s the point? IP still not enforceable. […] While issued patents are valid they aren’t worth the ink or the paper unless they can be enforced. So the pto stops rejecting on 101 and issues SW patents again at a higher rate. PO tries to enforce in court down the line and gets killed due to 101. Massive waste of time & money…”
She later added (lots more in there from her): “Issued patents are *presumed* valid; they are not conclusively valid as an evidentiary matter. If a defendant in an infringement case proves by clear and convincing evidence that the patent was erroneously issued, then the presumption is defeated.”
Therein lies the danger to the EPO. What good are European Patents that aren’t presumed valid or likely to be considered invalid by courts? Lawyers may benefit, but nobody else…
“That’s called the “Rule of Law”,” Henrion remarked on the above conversation. “US is lucky, in Europe we have the EPO that is not bound by any court, and don’t give a damn if for ex the French courts are saying their practice to grant swpat [software patents] don’t have a legal ground. So you are lucky.”
“That’s separation of powers and rule of law for you,” another person remarked.
We cannot have patent offices deciding the rules by which they’re governed. That would be even a laughable proposition in a country like China. We’ll say a lot more about it in the weekend (in relation to the US). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA