10.19.18
Gemini version available ♊︎Ingve Björn Stjerna Has Just Warned That If Team UPC and the European Patent Office Rigged the Proceedings of the German Constitutional Court, Consequences Would be Significant
Summary: The EPO is back to mentioning the Unified Patent Court and it keeps making it abundantly clear that it is only working for the litigation ‘industry’ rather than for science and technology (or “innovation” as they like to euphemise it)
EUROPE’S patent system is under attack. It’s under attack from lawyers, who try to hijack the system, taking it away from scientists and technologists (the same thing, incidentally, has been happening at the USPTO, partly due to Trump's awkward appointment this year). Underhanded tactics have been used by a cabal of lawyers to basically undermine the very purpose of patent systems. All they want is lots and lots of lawsuits; for that (litigation galore) they need lots and lots of low-quality — even invalid — patents to be granted and circulated, e.g. among patent trolls.
“There are pressures to grant even software patents in Europe, irrespective of the EPC (the founding document).”It has already become incredibly hard to be a potent patent examiner at the EPO. There are pressures to grant even software patents in Europe, irrespective of the EPC (the founding document).
Regarding “Inventiveness of the cocktail,” a new IP Kat comment said last night (the comments are as usual better than the posts): “According to an English translation of the German description: “Surprisingly, it has been found that this cocktail obtained in this way has a very rounded, mild fruity taste that meets the taste of many”. The EPO Examiner did not raise an inventive step objection, or ask for evidence of the technical effect.”
Blaming the examiners… as if EPO examiners still have time to properly examine patent applications under their corrupt management. They don’t have quality; they just have targets (quantified not in terms of quality). The EPO is basically ‘fast-tracking’ justice and putting it under the control of people who mock and attack justice. People like Battistelli and António Campinos, whose financial past offers room for speculations about whether they belong behind bars.
Last night the EPO again promoted software patents, this time in its Web site rather than its Twitter account (warning: epo.org link). For the first time in a while they’re promoting “computer-implemented inventions” (software patents) and UPC. To quote one paragraph:
EPO staff gave presentations on the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court, Patent Cooperation Treaty Strategy, projects being undertaken by the IP5 (the forum of the five largest intellectual property offices), substantive patent law harmonisation, standard essential patents, Early Certainty and computer-implemented inventions (CII) in view of developments relating to Internet of Things and artificial intelligence. The US members updated Office staff on current developments in US patent legislation and litigation.
Instead of meeting with scientists they meet a bunch of US lawyers. The EPO is a rogue institution that digs its own grave. It keeps showing who it really works for and it’s not scientists.
IAM and a partner law firm have meanwhile paid to repost a celebratory post about EPO pushing fake patents on software under the guise of “AI”. They must be excited by the prospect of all those abstract patents that are null and void (yet are still being granted by the EPO).
The best these people can hope for now is someone corrupt like Battistelli taking over the UPC and overriding all of Europe’s patent courts. Can that happen? Well, never underestimate what criminals from the EPO (with a proven history of serious crime) can accomplish. Not even the Alexandre Benalla scandal can hold them accountable, so what can?
Is UPC dead? “Maybe, maybe not (so quickly),” one reader told us this morning, taking note of the latest ‘paper’ (PDF) from Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna. Published in English and German, the introduction says:
This article tries to provide answers to some of the questions raised in relation to the constitutional complaint against the ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court in Germany.
Never underestimate team UPC’s ability to totally corrupt the political system (basically buying outcomes in Germany).
According to the last couple of paragraphs from the author, Germany might be face a true crisis if Team UPC corrupted the courts like it did the German political system. To quote:
After all, is the outcome of the proceedings already know in certain circles, even before the BVerfG has announce its decision? If this were the case, the significance of the ensuing state political implications could hardly be overestimated. Or are all these just once more astonishing “coincidences”, as they have already been repeatedly observe in the context of the European patent reform?
You be the judge.
If they ever get their way, they hope that Battistelli will be the (chief) judge. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA