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

02.17.19

Courts in Disagreement: Warning on Wrongly-Granted European Patents and the Looming Collapse of All Software Patents in Europe

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Similar to what happened owing to 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice (SCOTUS). Many patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a number of decades turned out to be worthless. Litigation numbers completely collapsed and even the number of applications is decreasing.

Abandoned pier

Summary: By devaluing patents and reducing their perceived worth (as is happening in China and Europe) patent offices risk decreasing participation in the very system they fundamentally depend on

INCLUDED in our daily links, lumped together for brevity, are some of the latest patent cases and their outcomes in the US. They show that patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continue to perish (be thrown away by courts) at all levels, not just the Federal Circuit. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) also persist as usual. The danger is that the same is already happening to the European Patent Office (EPO) and people are gradually realising it. Companies might divest. We wrote about it yesterday.

“…when such courts do blast the EPO (for misinterpreting the EPC) the EPO just simply ignores it, just like Iancu at the USPTO.”Yesterday we saw this new Regeneron press release about Immunex/Amgen (e.g. in PharmiWeb). Many patents are nowadays being granted in error, also by EPO examiners who were traditionally a lot better. Once there’s a lawsuit or a challenge here’s what happens increasingly and more frequently (we covered many more similar examples earlier this year):

Today the European Patent Office invalidated Immunex’s European patent claiming antibodies that target human IL-4 receptors (IL-4R)

Decision follows yesterday’s ruling by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office invalidating a similar Immunex patent claiming antibodies that target human IL-4R

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: REGN) today announced two important legal developments invalidating Immunex patents with functional claims to antibodies that target human interleukin-4 receptors (IL-4R). Earlier today, the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office (EPO) revoked Immunex’s European Patent No. 2,990,420 in its entirety because the claims were invalid for insufficiency of disclosure. This follows a decision yesterday by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) to invalidate all 17 claims of Immunex’s U.S. Patent No. 8,679,487 as obvious. These decisions are subject to appeal by Immunex.

The patents in question are owned by Immunex Corporation, which is wholly-owned by Amgen.

Sooner or later companies like Immunex/Amgen might simply decide to no longer pursue European Patents, seeing that these sometimes lack legitimacy and cost a lot of money in legal bills (not just application/renewal). Those should be the lessons learned from the USPTO’s failings. What happens in the US right now is despicable because a Trump appointee tries to change all that by breaking the law while patent maximalists are bypassing the law and dodging 35 U.S.C. § 101 so as to get software patents that courts would reject anyway. A new ‘webinar’ entitled “The USPTO’s Updated Guidance on Section 101: Adjusting Your IP Evaluations for Maximum Protection” has just been promoted by Patent Docs. This isn’t about law but about working around the law. Director Iancu turns out to be even worse than David Kappos, whose former employer, IBM, is pushing for software patents in Europe under the guise of “AI”. What would courts in Europe have to say about such patents?

Well, on the 6th of February J A Kemp published this “Review Of Software Patent Appeals At The EPO 2018″. From the section about algorithms:

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.

Given that computer programs are considered non-technical, it is perhaps not surprising that even higher abstractions such as programming languages and systems for assisting programmers have been rejected. In 2018, examples include T 0790/14 (Programming language construct/MATHWORKS), a programming language for mathematical operations; and T 2497/12 (Java RMI integration/MATHWORKS), a system for integrating programs in different languages.

Software patents are not permitted in Europe. So Strafford will train people or teach people how to pretend algorithms are “AI” (for the EPO to let them slip in). A post titled “Webinar on EU Guidelines for Patenting AI and Machine Learning Technologies” was published several hours ago by Patent Docs, whose majority of posts are nowadays these ads, not actual articles (all the patent maximalists’ blogs have become mostly or entirely dormant because they’ve lost the argument). Here’s what it says:

Strafford will be offering a webinar entitled “New EU Guidelines for Patenting AI and Machine Learning Technologies: Comparison With U.S. Approach — Navigating EPO and USPTO Rules to Maximize Patent Protection” on February 26, 2019 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST). Aliza G. Carrano and Susan Y. Tull of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner will guide patent practitioners in overcoming the challenges when seeking patent protection for artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) inventions, examine the new guidelines from the European Patent Office (EPO), and compare the EU approach with the U.S. approach.

So their strategy is to basically pretend algorithms are “AI” (buzzword) or “ML” (an actual technical term, albeit often misused and still alluding just to software). We recently wrote about how EPO management admitted it was granting software patents under the guise of "Blockchain" (also a technical term, albeit often misused). The USPTO does the same thing (“Blockchain-based Patents”). These fake patents are abstract patents that courts would throw out everywhere but China perhaps. Media, nevertheless, pays a lip service to these and days ago an article was published by Mareesa A. Frederick and Alyssa Holtslander (Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP) to promote “IoT” (buzzword), admitting that “IoT patents will contain claims directed to computer-related methods of gathering data” (so they admit/concede these to be abstract patents). Large litigation firms are leveraging made-up buzzwords and hype like “AI” or “IoT” in an effort to justify patents on all the foods and associated processes. Abstract ideas? Yes. They even admit so further down in the text:

Another important consideration is patent eligibility. In order to obtain a patent, a patent must claim eligible subject matter. Laws of nature, natural/physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not considered subject matter that is patentable. For example, one cannot obtain a patent claim on the law of gravity.

Patent eligibility is particularly important for inventions for computer-related technology. Abstract ideas that are implemented on a computer may not be considered subject matter that is patentable. The underlying concern is that companies will seek to obtain patents for well-known methods and systems by merely using a computer to implement them.

Because IoT patents will contain claims directed to computer-related methods of gathering data, subject matter eligibility might be an issue for IoT inventions. Notably, the Supreme Court recently held that patents directed to electronic methods and computer programs for financial-trading systems did not claim eligible subject matter.

It’s obvious who’s going to suffer the most from such patents; small companies cannot quite afford a legal challenge and might simply settle instead.

There’s a timely new example of it in the media (published a few days ago). “A “patent troll” has filed suit against U.S. Safety Gear, a small business with 95 employees in 13 locations, including one in Leavittsburg,” Warren Tribune Chronicle wrote in “‘Patent troll’ files suit against small business” (as trolls so typically do; they attack the weak). Are small companies in Europe going to suffer a similar fate because of the EPO’s granting of software patents? Some are already reporting such abuse, yet they cannot take the matter to sufficiently high courts; when such courts do blast the EPO (for misinterpreting the EPC) the EPO just simply ignores it, just like Iancu at the USPTO.

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. OSI Did Not Guard the Open Source Brand; Now Its Own Name, Open Source Initiative, is Being 'Diluted' and “Open Source” is Almost Meaningless

    The term or the brand “Open Source” is becoming worthless because those who use it typically engage in production of proprietary software falsely marketed as “Open Source” (that's what openwashing is inherently about)



  2. Microsoft is Not an Open Source Authority But an Opponent of Open Source

    Various outlets that are closely connected to Microsoft are trying to convince us that Microsoft is now 'king' of Open Source; nothing could be further from the truth however



  3. Links 22/9/2019: KMyMoney 5.0.7, Lennart's Latest Plan

    Links for the day



  4. Summits of Open Bear Traps: The Open Core Summit and Other 'Open' Events That Actually Attack Software Freedom

    Conferences that call themselves "open" something are sometimes nothing but an attack on openness (not to mention freedom) and promotion of FUD about Free/Open Source software (FOSS); there's an ample set of examples to that effect



  5. Openwashing Report: 'Open Source' Without Any or Most of the Benefits

    The cheapening of the term "Open Source" continues; sooner or later everything out there will be called "open" irrespective of what it really is



  6. Patent Extremism is Not Normal and Not an Innocent Mindset

    Reflection upon the sad state of the European patent system and how media turns a blind eye to it; worldwide, in general, the discussion about patents is being warped by the litigation giants, whose sole goal is to maximise the number of lawsuits/shakedowns (personal gain)



  7. Links 22/9/2019: LLVM 9.0.0 and FreeBSD 12.1 Beta

    Links for the day



  8. Links 21/9/2019: Plasma 5.17 Beta in Kubuntu, Cockpit 203

    Links for the day



  9. IBM Cannot Become a True Friend of Free Software Because of Its Current Patent Policy

    IBM needs to quit bullying people/companies with software patents; that would help towards appeasement of IBM critics and sceptics



  10. When Patent 'Professionals' Sound Like Children Who Learned to Parrot Some Intentionally-Misleading Buzzwords, Myths and Lies

    With buzzwords like "AI" and misleading terms like "IP" the litigation zealots are trying to convince themselves (and the public) that software is a physical thing and a "property" which needs "protecting" from "theft"; it doesn't seem to bother these people that copyright law already covers software



  11. The European Parliament Needs to Become More Outspoken About EPO Abuses

    There are few encouraging signs in Europe right now because the EPO's disregard for patent law (striving to just grant as many patents as possible) earned it much-needed backlash from the European Parliament



  12. Links 19/9/2019: German Federal Ministry of the Interior Wants FOSS, Top Snaps Named

    Links for the day



  13. Buying the Voices of 'Linux' People to Repeat Microsoft's Talking Points While Removing Our Icons and Leaders (Calling Them Sexist)

    The dirty games leveraged by several companies including Microsoft target charismatic people who are essential for morale and leadership; these tactics aren't particularly novel



  14. When the EPO Sees Itself as Above European Law, Grants Patents in Defiance of the EPC (Its Founding Document) and Violates Staff's Labour Rights/Protections (International Law)

    The absurd state of affairs at the EPO has reached the point where laws at every level are being violated and even judges are being threatened or vainly ignored; the EU is belatedly trying to tackle these issues, which have actually cost its credibility a great deal and threaten the perception of Rule of Law at multiple levels



  15. Links 19/9/2019: Samba 4.11.0 and Kubernetes 1.16

    Links for the day



  16. Update on Koch v EPO: Internal Appeals Committee (IAC) Composition Still Likely Illegal

    An important EPO case, concerning a dismissed staff representative, shows what ILO-AT and the EPO's Internal Appeals Committee boil down to



  17. Links 18/9/2019: Fedora Linux 31 Beta, PCLinuxOS 2019.09 Update

    Links for the day



  18. Links 17/9/2019: CentOS 7.7 and Funtoo Linux 1.4 Released

    Links for the day



  19. EPO is Not European

    Internationalists and patent trolls are those who stand to benefit from the 'globalisation' of low-quality and law-breaking patents such as patents on algorithms, nature and life itself; the EPO isn't equipped to serve its original goals anymore



  20. The EPO's Central Staff Committee and SUEPO (Staff Union) Respond to “Fascist Bills” Supported by EPO President António Campinos

    Raw material pertaining to the latest Campinos "scandal"; what Campinos said, what the Central Staff Committee (CSC) said, and what SUEPO said



  21. Storm Brewing in the European Patent Office After a Hot Summer

    Things aren't rosy in EPOnia (to say the least); in fact, things have been getting a lot worse lately, but the public wouldn't know judging by what media tells the public (almost nothing)



  22. Why I Once Called for Richard Stallman to Step Down

    Guest post from the developer who recently authored "Getting Stallman Wrong Means Getting The 21st Century Wrong"



  23. As Richard Stallman Resigns Let's Consider Why GNU/Linux Without Stallman and Torvalds Would be a Victory to Microsoft

    Stallman has been ejected after a lot of intentionally misleading press coverage; this is a dark day for Software Freedom



  24. Links 16/9/2019: GNU Linux-libre 5.3, GNU World Order 13×38, Vista 10 Breaks Itself Again

    Links for the day



  25. Links 16/9/2019: Qt Quick on Vulkan, Metal, and Direct3D; BlackWeb 1.2 Reviewed

    Links for the day



  26. Richard Stallman's Controversial Views Are Nothing New and They Distract From Bill Gates' Vastly Worse Role

    It's easier to attack Richard Stallman (RMS) using politics (than using his views on software) and media focus on Stallman's personal views on sexuality bears some resemblance to the push against Linus Torvalds, which leans largely on the false perception that he is sexist, rude and intolerant



  27. Links 16/9/2019: Linux 5.3, EasyOS Releases, Media Backlash Against RMS

    Links for the day



  28. Openwashing Report on Open Networking Foundation (ONF): When Open Source Means Collaboration Among Giant Spying Companies

    Massive telecommunications oligopolies (telecoms) are being described as ethical and responsible by means of openwashing; they even have their own front groups for that obscene mischaracterisation and ONF is one of those



  29. 'Open Source' You Cannot Run Without Renting or 'Licensing' Windows From Microsoft

    When so-called ‘open source’ programs strictly require Vista 10 (or similar) to run, how open are they really and does that not redefine the nature of Open Source while betraying everything Free/libre software stands for?



  30. All About Control: Microsoft is Not Open Source But an Open Source Censor/Spy and GitHub/LinkedIn/Skype Are Its Proprietary Censorship/Surveillance Tools

    All the big companies which Microsoft bought in recent years are proprietary software and all of the company’s big products remain proprietary software; all that “Open Source” is to Microsoft is “something to control and censor“


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