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

02.07.19

UPC Part of the Litigation ‘Industry’ Lobby and the Efforts to Change (Significantly Lower) Patent Quality Bar/Scope

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

UPC boat sinks

Summary: Team UPC carries on as if the proceedings of the German Constitutional Court are just a joke; appeals are meanwhile being assessed by afraid judges whose lack of independence should be sufficient grounds for suspending UPC/A (Unified Patent Court Agreement) indefinitely

THE European Patent Office (EPO) has been turning more litigation-friendly (presumption of guilt) in recent years — the same kind of thing that today’s U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is quickly turning into, as we’ve just explained. Many if not most or even all of Team UPC are “litigation” people; they profit from legal battles, from wars…

“One judge whose last document dealt with a software patent (which he rejected) had his office raided and he was forcibly removed during office hours, causing a possible mental breakdown.”What stands in the way of Team UPC is patent quality or courts that insist on quality. They therefore want the likes of Battistelli in charge; they want a high prosecution rate. They will never give up. It seems as though they’re eager to undermine constitutional courts like they already did the German parliament among other parliaments.

Here’s an image of how they immaturely push for a decision:

UPC decision

Team UPC is actually retweeting this repetitive crap (names associated are shown). A lot. These people are constantly shaming and pressuring the court to get out of their way as if justice and law/constitutions are merely a nuisance (standing in the way of litigation profits).

If that’s not enough, see Edward Nodder’s latest ‘masterpiece’ (after that ridiculous clothing post of his, which he has just edited a couple more times almost a month later). We’re asked to believe that UPC is just about to start. It’s a lie. They hope that this lie will influence the outcome.

What do these people want? They want to replace national courts and appeal boards. They want to impose decisions of some court somewhere like Germany on British companies, Slovenian companies, Greek companies and so on. And what sort of decisions? Whose laws? Whose rules?

The patent maximalists from J A Kemp have just written about the EPO’s approach to software patents. Notice how Team Battistelli (or António Campinos) — aided by the patent maximalists in the litigation ‘industry’ — push agenda of abstract patents:

2018 has been a year of increased productivity for at least those Boards of Appeal that cover software inventions (Boards 3.5.01 and 3.5.03 to 3.5.06). In particular Board 3.5.01 has returned to a similar level of productivity as the other Boards now that it has a Chairman. The main controversies continue to be the proper treatment of mixed inventions (those involving non-technical aims or features as well as technical ones) and how to determine what is and is not technical.

[...]

Inventions in the field of computer science can in some cases derive technical character from the technical nature of the data being processed, and in other cases, from a technical improvement in processing data independently of the nature of the data itself. However, inventions where the data is too abstract, or is non-technical in nature, can fall between these two categories.

Thus, it is instructive to contrast T 2707/16 (Dynamically generating multiple hierarchies/MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY with T 0841/16 (Business rule interface/AB INITIO). The latter case concerned a graph-based system for editing and compiling business rules where neither the nature of the data nor the alleged advantage of improved editing were considered technical. In the former case it was held that “the use of caching for dynamically generated data (i.e. the data polyarchy) with an authoritative store is a technical concept that serves as a compromise between higher scalability and fast response times for query processing on the one hand and freshness of the data on the other hand and that this goes beyond the notoriously known use of caching in general. Consequently, the Board considers that the claimed implementation achieves the technical effect of higher scalability of query processing on a server by means of a particular application of caching which reflects further technical considerations.” The claims at issue, which were remitted for further prosecution, did not specify the nature of the data being searched.

Independence of the nature of the program being executed also contributed to technical character in T 2052/15 (Asychronous antivirus processing/KASPERSKY) where an increase in the responsiveness of a computer by using computing resources in an asynchronous manner was considered a technical solution to a problem.

A rare case of the implementation of a non-technical method being considered technical is T 2330/13 (Checking selection conditions/SAP). This concerned a method for checking whether selected options for a “configurable product” (e.g. a car) are consistent before manufacture. The Board considered that the term “configurable product” did not confer technical character because it did not exclude non-technical products, such as insurance policies. However they did consider that “the specific claimed bit (sub-)matrices, bit strings and steps of the method, especially those of splitting the bit matrix, forming bit strings representing the selection and restriction conditions and determining inconsistent pairs of selection conditions when performed by parallel processing, do contribute to the technical character of the invention and should be taken into account when assessing inventive step.” The case was therefore remitted for further prosecution.

One judge whose last document dealt with a software patent (which he rejected) had his office raided and he was forcibly removed during office hours, causing a possible mental breakdown. How can these judges be trusted to do their work independently? They can’t. They even say so themselves as they periodically complain about loss of independence.

Writing about T1085/13, Joshua Price has just highlighted the latest reminder that these judges are beholden to or besieged by patent maximalists:

This recent decision from an EPO Board of Appeal is a rather satisfying development in how patentability (especially novelty) of purity claims is assessed at the EPO. This case may be seen as patentee-friendly, particularly for the pharmaceutical sector, as it likely extends protection for APIs. It will become especially important to review this case law when facing a novelty-only (Art. 54(3)) prior art document cited against a purity claim.

This decision is also likely to have implications for patenting enantiomers and proteins, as well as applications where purity of components is key: high-conductivity applications, high reflectivity surfaces, fuel cells, solar energy applications, catalysts, coatings…the list goes on!

First, a flying summary of the previous case law (T 990/96) is that a single disclosure of a compound together with a way of manufacturing it was considered a novelty-destroying disclosure for that compound in all purities. Even if the claimed level of purity was not disclosed, the EPO would draw upon the skilled person’s general knowledge of purification procedure to arrive at any other purity. To argue against this novelty objection, the applicant would face the burden of showing that the claimed purity could not be achieved – not only with the purification technique disclosed in the prior art document, but by all conventional purification techniques.

We certainly hope that the constitutional judges are aware of the above issues (among others) and are able to recognise the conflict of interest Stephan Harbarth is in. There would be a massive scandal if Harbarth used this court (his new position in it) to advance the agenda of his former employer. The world is watching; EPO insiders too are watching. They don’t like what they see.

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 22/10/2019: MX-19, Tails 4, Mesa 19.1.8 Released

    Links for the day



  2. “Stallman Was Right” is Not Just a Meme as It's Usually True

    The track record of Stallman isn't immaculate, but it's exceptionally good if not impressive



  3. EPO Diplomatic Immunity

    What people can get away with at the European Patent Office (EPO) if their name is Battistelli or António Campinos



  4. Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna Reveals How the German Government Actively Ignored SMEs to Push the Notorious 'Unitary Patent' Sham

    Turning European Patents (which are no longer good patents but expensive or overpriced patent monopolies — patents which European courts will likely reject) into “unitary” ones (i.e. enforceable EU-wide with one legal action) would harm wrongly-accused parties that mostly or only operate in one single country, overriding the authority of those parties’ national laws and courts



  5. Links 22/10/2019: Pacman 5.2, Shame of Disney+ DRM, Microsoft's DRM Scheme, Microsoft Reprimanded for Privacy Abuses

    Links for the day



  6. Patents Need to Exist Only to Pass Information Around and Keep Good Ideas Alive, Not to Feed Litigation Firms and Litigation 'Enthusiasts'

    The current situation or the status quo where legal professionals are advised not to even look at patents means that patents aren’t for “information” and “innovation” anymore; moreover, calling them “intellectual property rights” (or IPRs) is spreading a malicious lie



  7. IRC Proceedings: Monday, October 21, 2019

    IRC logs for Monday, October 21, 2019



  8. SUEPO Protest Tomorrow. All EPO Staff in Munich Ought to Attend and Prepare to Strike Too.

    Tomorrow’s planned protest should be a bridge towards a full strike, which takes more time to plan for and get authorisation for (because of increasingly strict restrictions)



  9. Looking for Explanations About Samsung's DeX and Other FOSS Initiatives Being Canned

    DeX was primarily a threat to the desktop/laptop monopoly of Microsoft, so its sudden abandonment — without even an explanation — continues to attract speculations



  10. EPO Will Need a Lot More Than Photo Ops and Hoax 'Studies' to Restore the Perception of Lawfulness

    Battistelli‘s illegal attacks on European Patent Office (EPO) judges have tarnished any impression that the EPO serves justice and the current regime torpedoes an assessment of these attacks; EPO workers understand that to follow guidelines from the management may be a breach of the EPC



  11. Links 21/10/2019: More on DeX, Disney DRM and Linux 5.4 RC4

    Links for the day



  12. GNU/Linux is Bigger Than Ever (Used More Than Ever Before), But Communication Means and Brands Have Changed

    The GNU/Linux market is alive and healthy; it's how we measure its health that ought to adapt because things are constantly changing, more rapidly in the realm of technology than anywhere else



  13. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, October 20, 2019

    IRC logs for Sunday, October 20, 2019



  14. Samsung Does Not Say Why It's Dropping DeX, But the ASUS EEE Story Might Offer Clues

    It's not at all outlandish or unreasonable to suggest that Microsoft used patents or bribes or kickbacks as incentives for Samsung to abandon GNU/Linux as a desktop platform



  15. EPO: It's Only Getting Worse

    Inhaling Seagull meme for EPO presidents



  16. It Has Begun: EPO Staff Protests Against António Campinos (Starting Wednesday)

    Wednesday marks the resumption of EPO protests; it’s happening for the first time under Campinos and only a year after he took Office. Even Battistelli, the notorious thug, lasted longer before such escalations/actions or — put another way — he did better than that (if one checks the timeline of his presidency)



  17. Links 20/10/2019: GNU/Linux at Penn Manor School District, Wine-Staging 4.18, Xfce 4.16 Development, FreeBSD 12.1 RC2

    Links for the day



  18. Guest Post: Understanding Autism for More Complete Inclusion

    "...assuming that autistic people are all the same isn't only technically wrong, it is misleading and leads to harmful and needless misunderstandings."



  19. Guest Post: Free Software Freedom is Not a Freedom of Choice

    The concept of "Freedom of Choice" and how the ruling class uses it to give a false impression of "Freedom"



  20. Guest Post: Free Software Developers and Pursuing 'Market Share'

    "The only people interested in software freedom are (almost always) free software developers. And users are interested in freedom to a very limited extent: the "free beer" side. Even many free software developers are only interested in the "free beer" part of free software."



  21. The Assertion That Microsoft Uses Communist Tactics Against GNU/Linux and Free/Libre Software

    A study of Taistoism might help understand how Free/libre software is being undermined



  22. European Patent Office and US Patent and Trademark Office Cranks Discovered Buzzwords, Stopped Worrying, Started Granting Patents They Know to be Fake

    The world's patent repositories are being saturated with loads of junk patents or patents that have no legal bearing but can still be leveraged for extortion purposes; the EPO is resorting to lies and artificially-elevated buzzwords to justify granting such fake (yet ruinous) patents



  23. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, October 19, 2019

    IRC logs for Saturday, October 19, 2019



  24. “The True Hypocrite is the One Who Ceases to Perceive His Deception, the One Who Lies With Sincerity,” Said André Paul Guillaume Gide (Nobel Prize in Literature)

    Lies flow like water in the realm of EPO and its publishers, whose sole role is dissemination of deliberate falsehoods, misnomers and misinformation



  25. The EPO Cannot Guard Fake European Patents From Scrutiny (in the Long Run)

    Legal certainty associated with newly-granted European Patents is already pretty low and as long as the EPO refuses to acknowledge that its courts (or boards) lack autonomy the EPO merely brushes a growing problem under the rug



  26. Links 19/10/2019: DeX Discontinued, DXVK 1.4.3 and Wine 4.18 Released

    Links for the day



  27. 'Corporate Linux' Will Not Protect Software Freedom

    The corporate model is inherently not compatible with software that users themselves fully control (or Software Freedom in general), so we must rely on another model of sovereignty over code and compiled code (binaries)



  28. IRC Proceedings: Friday, October 18, 2019

    IRC logs for Friday, October 18, 2019



  29. 26,000 Posts

    We want to thank those who help spread the word; it gives us moral support and morale.



  30. The Myth of 'Analysts'

    People with exaggerated roles (exaggerated by corporate media and corporations that control them) distort public perceptions about their clients; they're in effect just elevated marketing or Public Relations (PR) operatives


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