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. IRC Proceedings: Friday, January 24, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, January 24, 2020



  2. Links 24/1/2020: GNU/Linux in Russia and More New Openings

    Links for the day



  3. When EPO Press Coverage Boils Down to Lobbying, Press Releases, EPO Lies, and Bribery

    Any attempts to properly assess and explain what happens in Europe's patent landscape are being drowned out by EPO-bribed and law firms-connected media; to make matters worse, the EPO's bribes have expanded to academia, so even scholarly work in this domain is corrupted by money of special interest groups



  4. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, January 23, 2020

    IRC logs for Thursday, January 23, 2020



  5. Links 23/1/2020: Qubes OS 4.0.3, EasyOS 2.2.5, GhostBSD 20.01

    Links for the day



  6. Passion of the Microsoft

    A rough timeline of Microsoft’s interactions with Linux and the Linux Foundation since 2015



  7. The Patent Microcosm is Really Panicking as European Patents on Life and Other Spurious Junk (Invalid Patents) Are Successfully Rejected

    European Patents (EPs) may be revoked en masse if what we're seeing is the gradual emergence of 'European Mayo' (and maybe soon 'European Alice')



  8. Distractions From Microsoft's Gigantic Tax Evasion and Contribution to Denial of Climate Science

    Microsoft (connected to oil companies) wants us to think of it as a "green" company; not only does it contribute to climate denial but it also evades tax, which is a serious crime that costs tens of billions of dollars (the public pays this money instead)



  9. Confirmation: System1/Startpage Offered Pay to People Who Pushed for (Re)Listing in Privacy Directories

    The debate is now settled; those arguing in favour of listing Startpage as privacy-respecting are in fact secretly 'compensated' by Startpage (in other words, they're Startpage 'shills')



  10. Vandana Shiva: “Bill Gates is Continuing the Work of Monsanto”

    A recent interview on what Bill Gates is really up to in that sham ‘charity’ of his



  11. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, January 22, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, January 22, 2020



  12. Extending Linux With DRM, Azure and exFAT

    An insufficiently 'conservative' Linux ceases to be freedom-respecting



  13. Linux Foundation (LF) Now Dominated by Lots of Microsoft People and LF Chiefs Join Microsoft in Smearing GPL/Copyleft

    We continue to see additional evidence which serves towards reinforcing our view that the so-called 'Linux' Foundation is actually hostile towards many things that are associated with Linux (unlike those looking to exploit/hijack Linux for proprietary ends)



  14. Links 22/1/2020: Wayland 1.18 Alpha, ODF 1.3 Approved

    Links for the day



  15. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 21, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 21, 2020



  16. Poor Excuses for Granting Poor (and Often Illegal/Invalid) Patents

    A quick look at some of the latest examples of software patents advocacy (not by actual software professionals, obviously) and why it's deeply misguided (or guided solely by greedy law firms)



  17. A Simple Plan For a Universal Free Software Community

    "For software to be free as in freedom, we need more people to care personally about software freedom."



  18. Links 21/1/2020: Wine 5.0 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Beta

    Links for the day



  19. Startpage/System1 Almost Definitely Pay for People to Lie About Their Surveillance

    A longterm investigation suggests that there are forces in the debate that aren't objective and are being super evasive and dodgy; this typically happens only when somebody has much to hide



  20. The Internet is an Appalling Medium for News and It Has Only Gotten Worse

    Something ought to change in the way people gather and assess news; at the moment — as proper journalism runs out of steam (and budget) — things only deteriorate and quality suffers; this rapidly exacerbates as people come to rely on — and then relay — hearsay, not fact-checked bodies of work



  21. Media Reactions to the EPO Coming to Grips With Fake Patents That It Granted (Spoiler: the Media is Controlled by Lawyers of Monopolists and EPO Partners)

    Appalling quality of reporting and truly awful bias in the media, primarily owing to the fact that it is dominated/manned not by actual reporters but the firms looking to patent life itself; they use their lawyers and operatives who are literally funded by these lawyers (wearing "journalist" badges to mislead)



  22. Links 21/1/2020: EarlyOOM Fedora Decision and AMD Zen 3 Microcode

    Links for the day



  23. IRC Proceedings: Monday, January 20, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, January 20, 2020



  24. Links 20/1/2020: MNT Reform, Linux 5.5 RC7, KMyMoney 5.0.8

    Links for the day



  25. Mansion of Pedophilia – Addendum: Accessing and Assessing Court Documents

    How anyone out there can do the job the media failed to do (after an apparently unprecedented arrest at the home of Bill Gates)



  26. Mansion of Pedophilia – Addendum: Progress on Police Request

    9 updates from the police department of Seattle but still nothing material/concrete, only promises and major delays



  27. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, January 19, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, January 19, 2020



  28. Mansion of Pedophilia – Part VIII: More Than 4 Months of Waiting for Police Department to Send Over the Files They Claim to Have an Issue Opening

    The police department (PD) of Seattle is unable to open its own files about arrest for pedophilia at Bill Gates' home; it has been unable to open these files for several months, it claims...



  29. Starting a GNU Replacement for GitHub, Possibly Based on GitLab

    "It might be easier if we start from the GitLab software," Stallman said



  30. European Commission Pushes for Even Greater Patent Maximalism Instead of Rationality, Patent Zealots' Site Cherry-Picks China as Whipping Boy

    Fear of China is being leveraged to promote an agenda of patent maximalists; the general idea they promote is that granting millions of low-quality patents is the only way to compete, even if in reality that merely handicaps the whole market


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

Recent Posts