11.29.18
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: By continuing to lower the quality of patents and pretending the challenge is to remove the causes of criticism (i.e. axe the critics) Mr. Campinos reaffirms that he’s another Battistelli if not something even worse (a better-marketed Battistelli)
AS WE NOTED two posts ago, EPO President António Campinos is a major booster of software patents in Europe (more so than Battistelli and far more so than Brimelow). What is going on? Has the EPC been burned to ashes at the top floor of the EPO’s building in Munich? Is the management drunk at the pub? No, they’re just drunk on power and knowing they’re immune from prosecution they go “all the way” (giving themselves bonuses while diminishing the value of every European Patent ever granted!).
Is Europe about to become a patent trolls’ favourite destination? Where low-quality patents can be used for extortion and blackmail? Against actual innovators? The EPO told examiners that patents were just fluffy cuddly things that “promote innovation”. But if examination cannot be done properly, innovation in Europe will only be harmed, not promoted. It’s innovation — not litigation — that examiners want, right? Unlike law firms…
“According to RPX Corp.,” said this new tweet, “half of the patent suits filed yesterday were filed by patent trolls.”
This is pretty typical. Some days as many as 90% of new lawsuits are filed by patent trolls. They typically use software patents (this is no secret) for all sorts of logistical reasons we’ve covered here for many years.
Imagine how bad things may become for European firms if the EPO continues along the same trajectory. I personally worry but also collectively, both as a programmer and writer who published over 10,000 articles/blog posts about patents.
A day ago the EPO wrote: “Nearly 18 000 patent applications relating to self-driving vehicle technologies have been filed with the EPO in the last decade, almost 4 000 of them in 2017 alone. More interesting findings on patents and self-driving vehicles here: http://bit.ly/SDVstudy #SelfDriving pic.twitter.com/C2mzKuiyCh”
I developed some software in the above area and it's crystal clear to me that they speak of software patents for the most part because the "self-driving" part just means computer vision, i.e. algorithms.
Worryingly enough, the EPO is willing to throw science away; today’s EPO serves neither science nor technology, just big litigation firms. Appalling change in policy. Here it is liaising with CIPA (a Team UPC nest). It retweeted this tweet yesterday: “We are teaming up with @EPOorg to deliver an online services workshop, making online filing easier to understand. 🖥️🖱️ Join us on 13 or 14 Dec at @TheCIPA in #London.”
“I developed some software in the above area and it’s crystal clear to me that they speak of software patents for the most part because the “self-driving” part just means computer vision, i.e. algorithms.”I responded with the simple analogy that when you’re a patent office it is like liaising with oil giants when you’re the EPA (in the US). It’s not appropriate. CIPA, by the way, is lying as usual and it is using terms like “AI” to promote software patents in Europe. This is from yesterday: “At the outset of the Conference, the Chairman, International Liaison Committee introduced the speakers, who were expert in various field of IP Laws. He further enlightened the delegates with highlighting that Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) is agroup of over 2400 Chartered Patent Attorneys in UK qualified to act before European Patent Office (EPO).”
Yes, EPO. And on they move to “AI” by saying: “Various other attorneys shared their experiences on Patent searching, novelty, inventive step to the objections faced during prosecution in comparison with EPO and US practices etc. Among other, the session regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI) by Mr. Saiful Khan was an eye opener about the present scenarios about upcoming automation world. He highlighted AI patents and the role that AI would play in day to day life. The use of AI would omnipresent in everything from home automation to transportation, communication, healthcare, education industries etc. He pointed on the need of developing an IP law that should focus on AI around the Globe. The UK Attorney’s covered almost all areas of technology from pharmaceutical, chemical, biotechnology, biopharma, biology, electrical, electronics, software, communication etc in Patents. Various case laws were discussed that made a mark in the history of UK Laws and IP practices.”
Is CIPA telling the Office what to do? Who does the Office serve or work for?
“Is CIPA telling the Office what to do? Who does the Office serve or work for?”Patrick Wingrove, a Managing IP writer (the site is cheerleading for UPC and patent trolls, which this site’s authors view as the Good Guys™), has just been speaking to lawyers when he framed a trolls’ case outcome (victory) as “helps telecoms and automotive companies” (incredible spin!) and we suppose the target audience includes politicians like Battistelli and Campinos. As we noted some days ago, patent trolls are being made principal speakers at EPO events (even the most notorious trolls, such as Mr. Spangenberg!).
Well, with friends like these one can tell that the EPO lost its mind completely; Erich Spangenberg sent me death wishes and now he is engaging in promotion of software patents under the guise at “AI” (at this think tank of patent lawyers).
Managing IP, covering a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office-centric event, has just said this:
Impact of artificial intelligence on IP strategy
The talk after lunch was about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on IP strategy.
Steve Harris, CTO at Aistemos, talked about how AI can help in the IP world. He said: “AI is particularly suited to making very complex but not strategic decisions.” As a result, it can provide answers about, for example, what patents relate to.
Erich Spangenberg CEO of IPwe, said that AI tools can reveal who owns a patent, regardless of the name of the subsidiary on the cover of the patent. He stated that prices will fall and everyone will be using this technology in the next few years. He added that this will “massively increase productivity” and informed the audience that the result will be that “people other than IP experts will begin asking about metrics”. He later observed that AI will lead to transparency as there will be “so much information sitting on the cover of a patent”.
The EPO has just advertised this similar event (to the one with Spangenberg in it), painting everything with the “blockchain” brush: “EPO experts will attend the @IPRHelpdesk event on blockchain and IP. We look forward to seeing you all there: https://bit.ly/2SelloP”
Meanwhile (also this week) the software patents boosters from Marks & Clerk published “Artificial Intelligence: Is your business ready?”
“”AI-related inventions” in this context is just a nonsensical term for software patent that are banned by the EPO’s founding document, the EPC. Does anyone at the EPO still have a hard copy of it?”So these Team UPC boosters who profit from patent trolls and predation help spin software patents as “AI”. How predictable. The EPO joined in yesterday with this tweet: “Our recent conference on patenting #artificialintelligence came up with some bold suggestions for drafting patent applications for AI-related inventions. To find out what they were, click here: http://bit.ly/AIpatents”
“AI-related inventions” in this context is just a nonsensical term for software patent that are banned by the EPO’s founding document, the EPC. Does anyone at the EPO still have a hard copy of it? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The tone has changed a lot and few remain openly enthusiastic about the UPC’s prospects, e.g. a patent trolls' attorney (Tilman Müller-Stoy) and Kevin Mooney

Image source
Summary: The Unified Patent Court Agreement (“UPCA”) is dead; the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) won’t be ruling on the matter any time soon, leaving it to die on the altar; most of Team UPC, which spent nearly a decade on this horrible legislative coup, is just mortified, shell-shocked and silent
DO NOT expect to hear much about the UPC; we track the subject very closely (with triggers and alerts) and it is quickly grinding to a complete halt/stop. Bristows’ UPC blog, for instance, published only one post in about 3 months and other UPC blogs are completely dead.
IAM’s Adam Houldsworth has just talked about UPC — yet again — in relation to the US (IAM was paid by the EPO‘s PR firm to promote UPC in the US, showing utter lack of ethics and morality, having already intervened in USPTO affairs). Other than that? Almost nothing. Nothing. It’s dead.
Battistelli’s abusive if not seriously illegal behaviour against EPO judges is one of the factors that killed the UPC. As one EPO-centric blog put it yesterday:
The disciplinary case against Elisabeth Hardon should not let us forget that the disciplinary case which keeps the Federal constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) busy at present is about a DG3 member. Are there any news about him? Not really. He is still officially supposed to work at the Hague in a room without a phone number.
Even more puzzling: there were several DG3 members reappointed in the last Council session and new posts were created as well, yet he is still not reintegrated. Märpel thinks he is probably the only DG3 member which did not see his contract renewed.
The Federal constitutional court shall therefore have little choice but notice that DG3 members can be removed at will and therefore are not independent. This will have consequences for the implementation of the UPC, obviously.
[...]
In simple words: President Campinos seeks to increase its power even beyond what “sun-king” President Battistelli had.
A few days ago the pro-Unified Patent Court blog of Kluwer took note of the CJEU Teva-Gilead case, dubbing it “a word of warning for UPC seafarers”. From the relevant part: “Certainly, the move in judgment of 25 July 2018 will disappoint those who pushed for the removal of substantive patent law from the text of Regulation 1257/2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, hoping that this trick would prevent the CJEU from interpreting substantive patent law. From this perspective, the recent Teva v. Gilead decision may be interpreted as a word of warning for Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) seafarers.”
As readers may recall, the Federal Constitutional Court signaled that it may take a very long time to issue a decision. UPCA ratification is extremely unlikely in Germany and the German attorney Thorsten Bausch wrote about it one day after the above, soon to be mentioned by Team UPC, which seems to agree: “Excellent summary on status of UPC vs German constitutional complaint and Brexit as well as on various hypotheticals spread by interested parties.”
Citing a patent trolls’ attorney (Tilman) as ‘proof’ or ‘support’ for the UPC, Bausch wrote:
The prophets forecasting an early decision by the Bundesverfassungsgericht in view of the urgency of the matter for Europe – or perhaps rather for their own pockets, have so far consistently been proven wrong. Dr. Stjerna’s constitutional complaint was filed on 31 March 2017 and has definitely not been decided “by Christmas”, as some predicted (in 2017). It was put on the (wish)list of court cases to be decided in 2018. But this does not mean much, as many cases on this list have been there for years. So much for the facts.
What do the complainant and interested third parties suspect?
Dr. Stjerna himself made abundantly clear that he has no idea when the BVerfG will decide on his case. He complained about this on his website by pointing to the fact that the court does not provide any information about the proceedings and their expected course even to the complainant, who is currently the only party to the proceedings. BTW, he can only know this, if he is the complainant himself, which he has never explicitly conceded, but also never denied.
The German Government also does not know when (and how) the case will be decided, as Dr. Pakuscher from the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection recently confirmed during a seminar in Munich.
[...]
Be that as it may, most observers seem to think that a pre-requisite for the UK to join or stay in the UPCA is a successful closure of the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU. Otherwise, there would be no transition period and the UK would automatically drop out of the EU by virtue of Art. 50 TEU on 29/3/2019, i.e. before the UPCA will enter into force. As the Unified Patent Court shall be a court common to the Contracting Member States (Art. 1 UPCA), the “Contracting Member States” are “Member States” party to the UPCA (Art. 2 c UPCA) and “Member States” are defined as member states of the European Union (Art. 2 d UPCA), the UK’s participation is difficult to argue if the UK ceases to be a “Member State” before the UPCA is even enacted.
How realistic is the successful closure of a withdrawal agreement? Hmm… let us return to this question after the debate in the House of Commons in early December and assume, just for the moment, the best possible scenario from a UPCA point of view, i.e. that a Withdrawal Agreement will be closed by 29 March 2019 and that the German Constitutional complaint will be dismissed in December (aka “the Tilmann/Mooney scenario”).
This scenario will then pose the interesting question what Germany will (or should) do, i.e. proceed with the ratification at the risk that the UK may eventually not agree to the supremacy of Union Law and the CJEU as final arbiter, when push comes to shove, and/or that the EU and the UK will not manage to cut a “deal” on their further political and economic relationship at the end of the transition period. This could then mean an early end of the UK’s participation in the UPC Agreement and result in quite a bit of turmoil.
Mind that first comment:
Thorsten, thank you for sticking to the facts. It is much appreciated. There are, however, one or two points upon which it might be interesting to speculate.
The first point is a question of timing. That is, even if one assumes that Prof. Tilmann is well informed regarding how and when the BVerfG will decide the constitutional complaint (and putting aside the question of how he could have possibly come into the possession of the information upon which he based his statements), will Germany deposit its instrument of ratification for the UPCA before the Agreement governing the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has been ratified by all relevant Parliaments?
The second point is a question of legal mechanisms. That is, given that the UPCA does not contain any provision to (forcibly) expel Participating Member States, what could the EU (Participating) Member States do if the UK refused to withdraw from the UPCA even if (e.g. in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit, or after the transitional period provided by the Withdrawal Agreement) it was no longer bound by judgements of the CJEU?
It is also worth considering how these two points might interact with one another. For example, even if the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified, might it still be foolish for Germany to ratify the UPCA … on the grounds that there are no guarantees regarding the relationship with the UK (and the UK’s approach to judgements of the CJEU) after the end of the transitional period?
Frankly, from considering these points (and others), it appears to me that it would be reckless (to say the least!) for the UPC to be launched unless and until:
(1) the precise nature of the UK’s status after the end of the transitional period (if any) can be determined; and
(2) the CJEU has confirmed that, despite not having the status of an EU Member State, the UK can participate in the UPC without contravening EU law.
My experience is that many UPC enthusiasts are wilfully blind to the true nature of the legal risks for the UPC that are associated with the UK’s departure from the EU. In this regard, I can only hope that Germany will take a more realistic approach than such enthusiasts when it comes to assessing the chances (and the consequences) of the CJEU bringing down any UPC that is based upon the current legislation.
The remaining six (as of this moment) comments show Team UPC creeping in with some typical spin, citing the recent stacked debate with Kevin Mooney in it. Same old boring lies… (and yes, posted anonymously, as usual as of late) █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Recent: EPO Insider: Under António Campinos “the Union Busting Done by the Administration Continues Even Worse Than Before”
Summary: Having failed to make a positive first impression, Campinos is now kindly asked to stop union-busting and silencing of staff representatives; “amnesty should be envisaged” for those who have been subjected to abuse, Union Syndicale Fédérale recommends
THE European Patent Office’s (EPO) promotion of software patents in Europe is a daily routine; we cannot even emphasise strongly enough that it got a lot worse under António Campinos (compared to Battistelli, under whom it hadn’t been done as much). As one EPO blog has just put it: “President Campinos seeks to increase its power even beyond what “sun-king” President Battistelli had.” (we will say more about this separately, in our next post and later we’ll focus on software patents in Europe as well).
SUEPO has just published German and English translations of a letter we mentioned earlier this week. It was in French, the mother’s tongue of Campinos (his mother is French and he was born/studied in France). SUEPO’s English translation [PDF]
shows Bernd Loescher (Union Syndicale Fédérale) speaking about the rulings from the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation*. Here it is as HTML:
Brussels
26 November 2018
To: Mr. Campinos
Mr. President,
The Union Syndicale Fédérale is perfectly aware of the serious difficulties created at the EPO in numerous spheres of activity by your predecessor. Matters relating to union members at the EPO have been widely presented in the media over the past six years. The recent rulings by the Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (proceedings of the 126th session) as well as the proceedings before the national German courts, provide details which are now widely accessible to the public at large.
Some union members have been acquitted, while others are still awaiting the results of internal procedures or proceedings brought before the Tribunal.
The lengthy nature of these proceedings necessarily raises the issue of the individual suffering caused to these union members and the effectiveness of the system of appeals at the EPO.
The USF takes the view that sufficient details of the matters still unresolved at the EPO are known, and these are sufficient to conclude that these conflicts are essentially political in nature, and not of a disciplinary nature.
We therefore propose, both in the interests of the new President of the EPO as well as of the blameless parties concerned, and in the general interest of social dialogue at the EPO, that an amnesty should be envisaged rapidly by the President of the EPO for the whole of the matters of a political nature.
With our respectful regards
Dr. Bernd Loescher
USF President
CC: Mr. Michels
We should meanwhile note that the patent maximalists’ propaganda site Managing IP, a routine booster of the UPC, has just published “The 50 most influential people in IP” [sic], crowning/highlighting António Campinos as “Most influential people in IP” [sic].
Yes, well… it helps to have a violent and corrupt compatriot like Battistelli exchanging seats and swapping influence. █
_____
* There were more rulings from the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation yesterday and it’s our understanding that at least 3 outcomes were favourable to staff, but we await informed analysis, which typically comes from those better familiar with the cases and background to them (it’s hard to guess based on the pertinent decisions alone).
Permalink
Send this to a friend