11.20.18
Gemini version available ♊︎Appalling Patent Quality at the European Patent Office, More Lies About the Unified Patent Court (UPC), and Assault on Those Who Warned About It All Along
Summary: The EPO’s management prioritises the litigation ‘industry’ and promotes its interests at the expense of those of science, technology, health and so on; in the meantime it also attacks scientists whom it employs or employed as examiners while severely harming their health
THE European Patent Office (EPO) is so deeply defunct; had it not enjoyed a monopoly in Europe (there’s no competition), it would be out of business already. António Campinos has made things worse by further advancing the agenda of software patents in Europe in defiance of courts, European authorities and even the EPC. Yesterday the Office published (warning: epo.org link) this “online consultation on increased flexibility in the timing of the examination process”; they intentionally conflate or mistake timeliness with “quality”; by that standard, no examination at all (instant grant) would be perfect quality. The EPO generally dodges a discussion about the actually important question/matter: the declining quality of European Patents (EPs) that leads to fake EPs.
We needn’t go too far back to see the EPO promoting software patents in Europe; the EPO keeps calling software patents “AI” and similar buzzwords. From yesterday’s tweet:
Patenting #artificialintelligence: how do EPO and industry experts view this fast-growing phenomenon? Find out here: http://bit.ly/AIpatents pic.twitter.com/sevayr2g1W
Here’s another one from yesterday:
New study by @EPOorg shows a sharp rise in patent applications for self-driving vehicles in Europe. Full study available here: http://bit.ly/SDVstudy #AI #AItech #SelfDriving #FutureOfCars pic.twitter.com/jEb9ripgKq
Valea AB’s Anne Keysan has also just promoted this ‘study’ (for software patents “on a car”). That’s just what law firms do, knowing they can profit from overpatenting, at least in the short term.
“That’s just what law firms do, knowing they can profit from overpatenting, at least in the short term.”Team UPC meanwhile spreads the relatively recent lie about the UPC starting in a few months. They keep saying, without any proof and without naming a single source, that a decision from Germany is expected by year’s end even though this false rumour has been refuted by the court itself. Yesterday this lie was noted rather than promoted in a propaganda site which promotes patents on life and nature. It said this:
Turning to the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement and the unitary patent, Schaffner outlined potential scenarios, such as one where the German Constitutional Court rejects a UPC-centred constitutional complaint filed last year.
In June last year, the court announced that it was delaying Germany’s ratification of the UPC Agreement because of the complaint, which was filed by Düsseldorf-based attorney Ingve Stjerna.
“I’m almost sure we won’t get a decision by the end of this year,” said Schaffner during the conference, before adding that the court may “strategically withhold” from making a decision until issues surrounding Brexit are resolved.
As my father once explained to me (in general terms about Germany), in order to save face they’ll never openly admit the abuse, the corruption and the merit of the complaint; they’ll just let time pass and let the subject age, hoping nobody will notice as it fades away. It’s something about pride. So we predict the court will delay the decision just enough for all the UPC hopefuls to lose hope. And for the decision to no longer be relevant. The UPC(A) will die, eventually.
“Team UPC meanwhile spreads the relatively recent lie about the UPC starting in a few months.”In the meantime, those who have long warned about the decline in patent quality (and at the times the UPC as well) are still reprimanded, unemployed, or both. SUEPO has just pointed out yesterday’s article from Barney Dixon; it deals with a letter Techrights published and wrote about last week and to quote Dixon:
In its letter, the CSC remarked on other disciplinary cases against staff representatives and staff union of the EPO (SUEPO) officials and said it “cannot see that the office has learnt from the other cases”.
The CSC specifically referred to the case of Elizabeth Hardon, which was also heard at the ILOAT.
She was dismissed by the EPO, but the ILOAT reversed this, returning the case to the EPO’s disciplinary committee. The tribunal requested that the EPO president consider the possibility of an external reviewer for arbitration or mediation.
[...]
Requests for the letter to be published on the CSC announcement area of the EPO’s intranet were denied by EPO principal director of human resources, Elodie Bergot, who said that the letter included the names of individual staff members whose prior explicit consent is required before such publication could take place.
Elodie Bergot is still being Elodie Bergot (threatening staff representatives) and Campinos is totally tolerating it; he didn’t advertise a job opening to replace her and her husband. The Office gossip is that this “infernal” couple runs the Office and Campinos is just an empty face. █
Recent releases of old material:
- Élodie Bergot’s HR Roadmap Explained by EPO Staff Representatives
- Raw: Battistelli, Topić and Bergot Are Stonewalling Until Staff Representatives Speak to EPO Staff
- Raw: Battistelli’s Circle (Topić and Bergot) Undermines Justice at the European Patent Office
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA