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

12.13.18

The European Patent Troll Wants as Much Litigation as Possible

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

…And as many granted European Patents as it can get away with

António Campinos FTI

Summary: Patent quality is a concept no longer recognisable at the European Patent Office; all that the management understands is speed and PACE, which it conflates with quality in order to register as much cash as possible before the whole thing comes crashing down (bubbles always implode at the end)

THE European Patent Office (EPO) does not intend to improve patent quality. It does not even acknowledge such an issue. António Campinos is happy enough to personally promote software patents in Europe (even in his blog) and tell concerned stakeholders such as law firms that he just wants to remove the cause/source of criticism rather than properly tackle the issue. Kluwer Patent Blog wrote about it last month and commenters were understandably upset. Who does today’s EPO serve? As we put it some weeks ago, "António Campinos is Working for Patent Trolls at the Expense of Science and Technology" (the original purpose of the Office was to advance science).

Just more than a day ago the EPO was retweeting epi as saying: “Visit us at the EPO Vienna, 5 Feb 19 for the “Opposition & Appeal” seminar supported by the EPO. You get an intensive and practical overview of all relevant legal & practical issues concerning opposition and appeal proceedings before the @EPOorg. https://patentepi.com/r/Opposition_Appeal_seminar …”

As a reminder to our readers, epi very belatedly protested EPO abuses and the same goes for EPLAW [1, 2], whose latest think tank was boosted by IP Kat yesterday. Annsley Merelle Ward from Bristows was boosting this event of patent maximalists looking to sue anyone they can (for profit, for ‘sport’); she quotes colleagues, as usual, which makes the blog look like it has been reduced to ‘mouthpiece’ status of litigators (Team UPC and others). “EPLAW was formed in 2001 to strengthen the network of experienced patent litigators in Europe and to work towards a more harmonized European patent litigation system,” it says. This is what the bullies from Team UPC want. And watch what it says towards the end: “The afternoon concluded with a report from Kevin Mooney (Simmons & Simmons, UK) and Pierre Véron (FR) on the latest progress and recent developments for the UPC and a report from Daan de Lange (Brinkhof, NL) on the highlights of the Judges Conference in Venice.”

So it’s that ‘obligatory’ UPC promotion. Mooney keeps telling lies about the prospects of the UPC in the UK, so we have mentioned him a lot lately.

An article by Abhai Pandey and Joginder Singh (proponents of software patents at LexOrbis, India [1, 2]) has also just been published to promote PPH, a litigation ‘highway’. It mentions the EPO. Lawyers love it when patent quality gets abandoned for the sake of their biggest ‘product’: litigation. “Hurry up,” they say, “you lazy examiners need to issue us patents to sue with! To hell with prior art search and all that ‘nuisance’!”

We have also just noticed this new article by Shelston IP Pty Ltd’s Gareth Dixon. These people are aggressive proponents of software patents and they’re constantly attacking/discrediting anyone in NZ whom they don't like, irrespective of the underlying facts. This article too mentions the EPO. All they want is to sue, sue, sue… that’s where the “Big Money” is.

Speaking of litigation and the EPO, IAM (the patent trolls’ mouthpiece) has just published this piece about a “decision in Monsanto’s appeal against the revocation of a key patent” in India. An article that was supposed to be about India suddenly turned into this (all about EPO):

In view of the absence of any definition for the terms “parts of plants or animals” or “essentially biological process” in the Patents Act, there is no clear statutory guidance for the same. While the DHC relied on the decisions of the European Patent Office (EPO) Enlarged Board of Appeals striking down the so-called “Tomato” and the “Broccoli” patents, it failed to consider that the new varieties of tomato and broccoli were not transgenic and that there was no recombinant construct being introgressed to prepare these varieties with improved traits.

The European Patent Convention (EPC) and Directive 98/44/EC (the Biotech Directive) also exclude “essentially biological processes” from being patented. Article 2(2) of the Biotech Directive, as well as Rule 26(5) of the EPC, state that “a process for the production of plants or animals is essentially biological if it consists entirely of natural phenomenon such as crossing or selection”.

Further, Article 4(1)(b) of the Biotech Directive excludes from patentability essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals. Article 4(3), however, clarifies that Article 4(1)(b) will be without prejudice to the patentability of inventions which concern a microbiological or other technical process or a product obtained by means of such a process. Article 53(b) of the EPC echoes the same.

Thus, methods of making transgenic plants using novel recombinant DNA constructs and even transgenic plants are patentable in Europe. Interestingly, the Board of Appeal of the EPO has just ruled that Rule 28(2) EPC as amended by the Administrative Council in July 2017 is void as it is in conflict with Art 53(b) EPC as interpreted by the Enlarged Board in G 2/12. Thus, as per this latest ruling, even the plants produced by essentially biological processes are now patentable in Europe. We hope that these new developments are brought to the attention of the Supreme Court for the European perspective.

Suffice to say, litigation firms love it. Managing Intellectual Property (another trolls-friendly blog) has just written about it (yet again, this time Patrick Wingrove) and said:

In-house counsel say the EPO Technical Board of Appeal’s conclusion that plants made from essentially biological processes are patentable could usher in another decade of protection uncertainty in the industry

In-house counsel reveal that uncertainty has grown in the agricultural industry after a controversial decision on plant patents from the European Patent Office (EPO) last week.

This tragedy at the EPO is actually a threat to the EPO's reputation (which is already severely damaged for many other reasons), but patent lawyers focused on litigation certainly like it; more lawsuits, more monopolies to feud over…

As some people are rightly point out (not the patent maximalists), one must wonder how much degree of freedom the judges really had. Ellie Purnell (HGF Ltd) echoes the patent maximalists’ line, whereas this insider’s blog (EPO) noted again that “dismissal of a DG3 member [Judge Crocoran] was also political in nature. President Battistelli simply could not accept that they were independent of him, as everybody understood from his later actions.”

Here’s the full post: (we’re assuming not many of our readers are subscribed to Märpel as well)

The December council meeting is upon us and Märpel heard that there was little progress on the disciplinary cases. Remember: Laurent Prunier, Elisabeth Hardon and Patrick Corcoran.

Laurent Prunier and Elisabeth Hardon were dismissed together with other prominent union representatives. Even if the official word is that the disciplinary measures were only grouped on prominent union representatives because of “mere coincidence”, everybody working in the office knows that President Battistelli wanted to bring staff representation to their knees. Apparently, this is what they teach in France at the ENA and the recent events show the results of that policy.

The dismissals were political in nature. It comes therefore at a surprise that President Campinos was able to stall the procedure concerning Mrs Hardon and convince the office internal “independent” disciplinary court to wait for him to negotiate. How convenient that he can tell the Council tomorrow that he is “negotiating”, with full powers to stall the proceedings for as long as he wishes. And is there anything to negotiate when your sole offense was that you were head of the staff union?

The dismissal of a DG3 member was also political in nature. President Battistelli simply could not accept that they were independent of him, as everybody understood from his later actions. Yet, Mr Corcoran was reintegrated to DG3 for a week and has not been seen in the office since that time. Rumour is that he is seriously ill. The council washed their collective hands, satisfied that “justice was done”. Whether the Federal constitutional court shall come to the same opinion remains to be seen.

It is already being suggested that the attack on Corcoran was a warning sign (to judges); so was the attack on staff representatives, which reminded everyone that purely political ‘cases’ can be made up (out of thin air) to punish anyone — especially a staff representative — who ‘rocks the boat’ a little, e.g. by pointing out corruption.

SUEPO has not spoken about patent quality for a long time. It’s not improving, but the gag on SUEPO seems to have improved. The Office sends threatening letters not only to SUEPO but also the CSC when publications get issued. As we noted at the very start, Campinos is working on gagging critical stakeholders as well. In just a couple of months Campinos became what took 2 years (or 3 years) for Battistelli to become. Not a good sign, right?

Here is the EPO promoting software patents in defiance of the EPC — its very founding document (de facto ‘constitution’). Yesterday it wrote: “If innovation is for the benefit of society, there should be as much incentive as possible for innovators to disclose AI innovations. That’s one conclusion from our recent conference on patenting #artificialintelligence: http://bit.ly/AIpatents” (“AIpatents” are just a kind of software patents). It was then followed by: “Steep rise in patent applications for self-driving vehicles at the EPO.” (many of these are computer vision, i.e. a kind of software patents).

Steven M. Shape, Malte Köllner and Cary Levitt (Dennemeyer Group) have also just published this buzzwords salad: “Examiners have to cope with the emergence of multidisciplinary, new and potentially disruptive technologies (eg, internet of things, artificial intelligence, connectivity, big data and blockchain technologies).”

These are just kinds of software patents, ‘dressed up’ in buzzwords. They said this in relation to the EPO.

We certainly hope that EPO examiners realise/understand the underlying concepts and who came up with them. In some cases marketing departments are responsible for these terms.

Addressing the subject of litigation system fragmentation (which UPC would only make worse, e.g. legal/court proceedings in a foreign language), Renate Rieder (Maiwald Patentanwalts und Rechtsanwalts GmbH) explains why, once the EPO granted false patents, it’s incredibly hard and expensive to show they’re void and invalid. In her own words:

In contrast to the numerous infringement proceedings, national court decisions regarding the validity of European patent EP 1 313 508 B1 – which was maintained as granted in the opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office – are rare. In the UK and Swiss proceedings mentioned above, validity was not challenged. Validity was challenged in Germany, but not in the above-mentioned proceedings. Due to the so-called bifurcated system, validity of a patent and patent infringement cannot be dealt with in the same proceedings in Germany. Lack of validity has to be raised in separate proceedings before the German Federal Patent Court (FPC). In July 2018, the FPC revoked the German part of EP 1 313 508 B1 (case no. 3 Ni 23/16 (EP), judgment of July 17 2018). The reasons for this decision were published in November 2018. According to the FPC, the combined use of pemetrexed disodium and vitamin B12 for inhibiting tumour growth is obvious in view of the prior art.

Just think what that means to granted software patents and how terrible things would get if litigation got ‘unified’ in the UPC sense, with an EPO-centric court where judges are pressured to accept abstract patents. There’s a discussion related to this. One person wrote some hours ago:

Proof of the Pudding, I completely agree with everything you have written, but I would also point out the broader set of events that happened. The Enlarged Board ruled that products of essentially biological processes were patentable. The EU Commission disagreed. The EPC rules were changed to comply with the Commission’s view. This is power politics at play, and a reflection of the hard reality. The EU is an ongoing project which is ever-expanding and patents are something it has an interest in. The EU will ultimately not allow the EPO to dissent in any substantial way. Whilst ‘legally’ speaking you are correct, I fear that ultimately the EPO will end up being an EU institution at some point because it does not have the power to resist. The EU has recently proposed changes to SPC rights (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-3907_en.htm). At some point or other it is bound to review patent protection and perhaps how validity is determined, and that will inevitably require the EPO to comply with whatever the EU wants.

“I also agree that the EPO will continue to ensure that, as much as is possible, it acts in accordance with EU law,” said the next comments, but the EPO breaks many laws and then brags that it’s immune from prosecution. Here’s that comment in full:

If by “power politics” you mean a breach of democratic norms (including the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches), then I agree that this is what is currently in play.

I also agree that the EPO will continue to ensure that, as much as is possible, it acts in accordance with EU law. However, I believe that their compliance on this point will be motivated by self-interest, namely avoiding a situation arising where the CJEU holds the EPC to contravene EU law.

From this perspective, I continue to believe that it is extremely unlikely that the EPO will be converted into an EU institution, as the circumstances are unlikely to arise where the pain caused by such a change (which would almost certainly include restricting membership of the EPO to EU states only) wold be seen as “worth it” by all stakeholders.

The comparison to SPCs is inappropriate. EU-wide SPC protection was created for the first time under EU law. The same is not true for (more or less “harmonised”) EU-wide patent protection. We have a well-established (and largely well-functioning) system that exists under international law. The consequences of the EU creating an entire patent system under EU law would therefore be far more profound and unsettling (as well as potentially unpleasant).

The above was said in relation to disagreements over patentability of plants/seeds; the same could be said about software patents. Even though the EU objects to such patents, to the EPO it’s only “as such” (so it keep granting such patents anyway, even when national courts repeatedly reject such patents).

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

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 24/3/2019: Microsoft Does Not Change; Lots of FOSS Leftovers

    Links for the day



  2. Just Published: Irrational Ignorance at the Patent Office

    Iancu and his fellow Trump-appointed "swamp" at the USPTO are urged to consult academics rather than law firms in order to improve patent quality in the United States



  3. Microsoft Paid the Open Source Initiative. Now (a Year Later) Microsoft is in the Board of the Open Source Initiative.

    The progression of Microsoft entryism in FOSS-centric institutions (while buying key "assets" such as GitHub) isn't indicative of FOSS "winning" but of FOSS being infiltrated (to be undermined)



  4. Jim Zemlin's Linux Foundation Still Does Not Care About Linux Desktops

    We are saddened to see that the largest body associated with Linux (the kernel and more) is not really eager to see GNU/Linux success; it's mostly concerned about its bottom line (about $100,000,000 per annum)



  5. Links 23/3/2019: Falkon 3.1.0 and Tails 3.13.1

    Links for the day



  6. The Unified Patent Court is Dead, But Doubts Remain Over the EPO's Appeal Boards' Ability to Rule Independently Against Patents on Nature and Code

    Patents used to cover physical inventions (such as engines); nowadays this just isn't the case anymore and judges who can clarify these questions lack the freedom to think outside the box (and disobey patent maximalists' dogma)



  7. Patent Law Firms Still Desperate to Find New Ways to Resurrect Dead Software Patents in the United States

    There's no rebound and no profound changes that favour software patents; in fact, judging by caselaw, there's nothing even remotely like that



  8. Links 22/3/2019: Libinput 1.13 RC2 and Facebook's Latest Security Scandal

    Links for the day



  9. Why the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) Cannot Ignore Judges, Whereas the EPO Can (and Does)

    The European Patent Convention (EPC) ceased to matter, judges' interpretation of it no longer matters either; the EPO exploits this to grant hundreds of thousands of dodgy software patents, then trumpet "growth"



  10. The European Patent Office Needs to Put Lives Before Profits

    Patents that pertain to health have always posed an ethical dilemma; the EPO apparently tackled this dilemma by altogether ignoring the rights and needs of patients (in favour of large corporations that benefit financially from poor people's mortality)



  11. “Criminal Organisation”

    Brazil's ex-President, Temer, is arrested (like other former presidents of Brazil); will the EPO's ex-President Battistelli ever be arrested (now that he lacks diplomatic immunity and hides at CEIPI)?



  12. Links 21/3/2019: Wayland 1.17.0, Samba 4.10.0, OpenShot 2.4.4 and Zorin Beta

    Links for the day



  13. Team UPC (Unitary Patent) is a Headless Chicken

    Team UPC's propaganda about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has become so ridiculous that the pertinent firms do not wish to be identified



  14. António Campinos Makes Up Claims About Patent Quality, Only to be Rebutted by Examiners, Union (Anyone But the 'Puff Pieces' Industry)

    Battistelli's propagandistic style and self-serving 'studies' carry on; the notion of patent quality has been totally discarded and is nowadays lied about as facts get 'manufactured', then disseminated internally and externally



  15. Links 20/3/2019: Google Announces ‘Stadia’, Tails 3.13

    Links for the day



  16. CEN and CENELEC Agreement With the EPO Shows That It's Definitely the European Commission's 'Department'

    With headlines such as “EPO to collaborate on raising SEP awareness” it is clear to see that the Office lacks impartiality and the European Commission cannot pretend that the EPO is “dafür bin ich nicht zuständig” or “da kenne ich mich nicht aus”



  17. Decisions Made Inside the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Lack Credibility Because Examiners and Judges Lack Independence

    The lawless, merciless, Mafia-like culture left by Battistelli continues to haunt judges and examiners; how can one ever trust the Office (or the Organisation at large) to deliver true justice in adherence or compliance with the EPC?



  18. Team UPC Buries Its Credibility Deeper in the Grave

    The three Frenchmen at the top do not mention the UPC anymore; but those who promote it for a living (because they gambled on leveraging it for litigation galore) aren't giving up and in the process they perpetuate falsehoods



  19. The EPO Has Sadly Taken a Side and It's the Patent Trolls' Side

    Abandoning the whole rationale behind patents, the Office now led for almost a year by António Campinos prioritises neither science nor technology; it's all about granting as many patents (European monopolies) as possible for legal activity (applications, litigation and so on)



  20. Where the USPTO Stands on the Subject of Abstract Software Patents

    Not much is changing as we approach Easter and software patents are still fool's gold in the United States, no matter if they get granted or not



  21. Links 19/3/2019: Jetson/JetBot, Linux 5.0.3, Kodi Foundation Joins The Linux Foundation, and Firefox 66

    Links for the day



  22. Links 18/3/2019: Solus 4, Linux 5.1 RC1, Mesa 18.3.5, OSI Individual Member Election Won by Microsoft

    Links for the day



  23. Microsoft and Its Patent Trolls Continue Their Patent War, Including the War on Linux

    Microsoft is still preying on GNU/Linux using patents, notably software patents; it wants billions of dollars served on a silver platter in spite of claims that it reached a “truce” by joining the Open Invention Network and joining the LOT Network



  24. Director Iancu Generally Viewed as a Lapdog of Patent Trolls

    As Director of the Office, Mr. Iancu, a Trump appointee, not only fails to curb patent trolls; he actively defends them and he lowers barriers in order to better equip them with bogus patents that courts would reject (if the targets of extortion could afford a day in court)



  25. Links 17/3/2019: Google Console and IBM-Red Hat Merger Delay?

    Links for the day



  26. To Team UPC the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Has Become a Joke and the European Patent Office (EPO) Never Mentions It Anymore

    The EPO's frantic rally to the very bottom of patent quality may be celebrated by obedient media and patent law firms; to people who actually produce innovative things, however, this should be a worrisome trend and thankfully courts are getting in the way of this nefarious agenda; one of these courts is the FCC in Germany



  27. Links 16/3/2019: Knoppix Release and SUSE Independence

    Links for the day



  28. Stopping António Campinos and His Software Patents Agenda (Not Legal in Europe) Would Require Independent Courts

    Software patents continue to be granted (new tricks, loopholes and buzzwords) and judges who can put an end to that are being actively assaulted by those who aren't supposed to have any authority whatsoever over them (for decisions to be impartially delivered)



  29. The Linux Foundation Needs to Speak Out Against Microsoft's Ongoing (Continued) Patent Shakedown of OEMs That Ship Linux

    Zemlin actively thanks Microsoft while taking Microsoft money; he meanwhile ignores how Microsoft viciously attacks Linux using patents, revealing the degree to which his foundation, the “Linux Foundation” (not about Linux anymore, better described as Zemlin’s PAC), has been compromised



  30. Links 15/3/2019: Linux 5.0.2, Sublime Text 3.2

    Links for the day


CoPilotCo

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

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts