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

02.22.19

The European Patent Office Goes Down a Very Slippery Slope by Promoting and Defending Patents on Life/Nature in Defiance of Parliament and the EPC

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dangerous path that will cost many people their life

In the door

Summary: The reluctance to obey the law at the EPO is very much noteworthy; things have gotten so bad that nature and life itself become ‘corporate property’ or monopoly

EARLIER THIS month and last month we wrote many articles about the European Patent Office (EPO) granting patents on life — something that António Campinos has no qualms about (the same goes for software patents in Europe, as we've just explained). Quality and adherence to the rule of law do not count. Back in December the Office sort of overturned (snubbed) directions from the Council and the Parliament. So where are we now?

“Quality and adherence to the rule of law do not count.”Is the EPO finally recognising that if it keeps granting ridiculous patents on seeds, plants and animals (even people!), then people are going to be up in arms and call for this whole system’s abolishment?

Nope, not quite. Not yet anyway. Here is what the EPO wrote two days ago: (warning: epo.org link)

In the meeting of the Committee on Patent Law, the Office and the representatives of the 38 EPO Contracting States, together with the European Commission as observer, had a first exchange of views on possible next steps following the recent decision T 1063/18 of an EPO Board of Appeal on plant patentability. The Committee addressed different potential options for the way forward and particularly supported measures to obtain an opinion from the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the matter. The need for legal certainty in the interest of the users of the European patent system and the general public was strongly underlined in the debate. Discussions will continue with the intention to find a solution in the short term.

This came at around the same time Rose Hughes wrote about the subject. Are life and nature becoming monopolies of few corporations? Here’s what Hughes said:

The IPKat recently reported on the EPO board of appeal decision on the patentability of plant products produced by essentially biological processes, a decision mired in political controversy. The Board ruled that Rule 28(2) EPC, excluding plant products produced by essentially biological processes from patentability was void in view of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in Broccoli/Tomatoes II (G2/12 and G2/13) (IPKat post here). Rule 28(2) EPC was introduced by the EPO Administrative Council (AC) following a Notice from the EU commission that plant products produced by essentially biological processes are not patentable under the Biotech Directive (Directive 98/44/EC) (IPKat post here).

The written decision of the technical board of appeal (TBA) has now been issued – here. Minutes of the oral proceedings – here.

The technical board of appeal (TBA)’s position is unequivocal: the AC does not have the power to amend the EPC using the Rules. The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA)’s interpretation of the Articles is binding on Board of Appeals (BA), unless the BA has reason to refer the issue again to the EBA. Here is a brief summary of some interesting points covered in the decision.

[...]

The TBA also considered the third party submissions to proceedings regarding the negative effects of plant patents on the interests of plant breeders. However, the TBA noted that such considerations are for the legislative body and “cannot play a role in the legal assessment of the issues raised in the present case”.

The Board set aside the appealed decision and remitted the case back to the Examining Division.

The TBA decision makes it clear that the Board did not feel it necessary to refer the question back to the EBA at this stage. It seems we can expect future boards to follow the TBAs approach in this case. How will the EPO now respond? The IPKat will keep you updated with developments.

It didn’t take long for Jim Robertson to comment on what it would take to stop the EPO violating the EPC by granting loads of patents on nature and life. To quote: “The BoA on this case was 3.3.04, and they are also hearing the appeal on EP2825024, so no prizes for guessing how that one will be decided. Yes, the AC are competent under Art. 33(1)(b) EPC to amend “Parts II to VIII and Part X of this Convention, to bring them into line with an international treaty relating to patents or European Community legislation relating to patents;”, and Art 53 EPC is in Part II of the Convention. However, as the article notes, “The Board roundly dismissed the Notice from the EU Commission on the interpretation of the Biotech directive as providing any reason for referring the question to the EBA, given that it lacked any legal authority.” So there’s no basis under Art. 33(1)(b) EPC to amend the EPC itself. Also, Art 35(3) EPC states that amendment of the EPC under Art 33(1)(b) requires unanimity of the Contracting States, requires all of them to be represented, and Art 35(4) says (effectively) no abstentions. So as things currently stand, the AC has no way to re-introduce this. The only way that the AC will be able to try this again would seem to be if the CJEU makes a decision on the interpretation of the Biotech Directive in line with Rule 28(2) EPC.”

“Back in December the Office sort of overturned (snubbed) directions from the Council and the Parliament.”Someone called Peter then said: “Thanks for the clear explanation, also the connection with Art 35(3). The AC can amend Art. 53(b), with unanimity in the AC, and with the 12 month period for any Contracting State to protest (Art. 35(3) last sentence); furthermore provided that the amendment is to bring the EPC into line with EU legislation on patents (or an international treaty). However, without a need for ratification by the Contracting States, so no parliamentary procedures. However the EPO news item of today suggests that the plan is “measures to obtain an opinion from the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the matter”.”

“Is the EPO listening?”Public protests on this matter go a long way back (at least a decade). The author, Rose Hughes, later said in the comments: “News update from the EPO” (taking note of the followup, in a sense).

Is the EPO listening? Will it return to that overnight trashing of all patents on “plants obtained by essentially biological processes” (to use its own words)? It should. One day it should do the same to all software patents.

Meanwhile, however, retweeted by EPO was this nonsense yesterday: “@EPOorg International Cooperation Administrator Nicholas Koernig notes that the integration of quality #patent data provides greater access for industry and examiners, improving legal certainty for EU and Southeast Asian enterprises…”

“Days ago it was confirmed that the EPO too (even management!) understands that it abandoned patent quality (and wasted a quarter billion euros in the process, excepting the cost to the European public).”It also retweeted this: “@EPOorg IT Coordinator for International Cooperation Nikolaos Chardalias demonstrates new features on Espacenet, the premier online public #patent database used by industry, commercial providers, researchers and #IP offices worldwide…”

When they speak of “quality” they allude to the quality of data (Espacenet), not patents. When EPO management speaks of “quality” it also typically means quality of service (as measured in terms of speed), not patent quality. This is a problem. Days ago it was confirmed that the EPO too (even management!) understands that it abandoned patent quality (and wasted a quarter billion euros in the process, excepting the cost to the European public).

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 18/10/2019: More KDE Events and OpenBSD 6.6

    Links for the day



  2. We Don't Know Who Will Run the Free Software Foundation, But We Know Who Will Run the GNU Project

    Software Freedom is under a heavy and perhaps unprecedented attack; some people out there are paid by the attackers to celebrate this attack and defame people (cheering for corporate takeover under the blanket of “Open Source”), but the founder of the Free software movement remains alive, well, and very much active



  3. New EPO Meme: Who Wants to Make Billions From a 'Public' Monopoly?

    What was supposed to be a cash-balanced patent office became a money-making monster that fakes ‘crises’ to attack hard-working examiners



  4. EmacsConf Without Richard Stallman

    Now that emacs is being 'rebranded' this kind of meme seems apt



  5. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, October 17, 2019

    IRC logs for Thursday, October 17, 2019



  6. Guest Article: In the Absence of Richard Stallman OEM Source Software ('Open Source') is Trying to Hijack Even Emacs

    "Now they have to create some fictional history. No need to worry."



  7. Guest Article: Techies Should Not Dictate the Free Software Movement

    "We should start a second phase of the Free software movement that's making good software and putting users at the center."



  8. Links 17/10/2019: Ubuntu Turns 15, New Codename Revealed, Ubuntu 19.10 is Out

    Links for the day



  9. Free as in Free Speech (Restrictions May Apply)

    When limits of speech are not safety-related rules but political correctness or conformism



  10. There Won't be Patent Justice Until Patent Trolling Becomes Completely and Totally Extinct

    SLAPP-like behaviour and extortion/blackmail tactics using patent monopolies are a stain on the patent system; it's time to adopt measures to stop these things once and for all, bearing in mind they're inherently antithetical to the goal/s of the patent system and therefore discourage public support for this whole system



  11. EPO Staff Union and Staff Representatives Ought to Demand EPO Stops Bullying Publishers and Censoring Their Sites

    An often neglected if not forgotten aspect of EPO tyranny is the war on information itself; EPO management continues to show hostility towards journalism and disdain for true information



  12. Bribes, Lies, Fundamental Violations of the Law and Cover-Up: This is Today's European Patent Office

    It has gotten extremely difficult to hold the conspirators accountable for turning Europe’s patent office into a ‘printing machine’ of the litigation industry and amassing vast amounts of money (to be passed to private, for-profit companies)



  13. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) Lost Almost Half (3 Out of 8) Board Members in Only One Month

    As the old saying goes, a picture (or screenshot) is worth a thousand words



  14. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, October 16, 2019

    IRC logs for Wednesday, October 16, 2019



  15. Startpage and System1 Abuse Your Privacy Under the Guise of 'Privacy One Group'

    Startpage has sold out and may have also sold data it retained about its users to a privacy-hostile company whose entire business model is surveillance



  16. Links 16/10/2019: Halo Privacy, Ubuntu Release Imminent

    Links for the day



  17. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 15, 2019

    IRC logs for Tuesday, October 15, 2019



  18. No, Microsoft is Not an 'Open Source Company' But a Lying Company

    The world’s biggest proprietary software companies want to be seen as “open”; what else is new?



  19. Meme: Setting the Record Straight

    Stallman never defended Epstein. He had called him “Serial Rapist”. It’s Bill Gates who defended Epstein and possibly participated in the same acts.



  20. EPO Staff Resolution Against Neoliberal Policies of António Campinos

    “After Campinos announced 17 financial measures,” a source told us, “staff gathered at multiple sites last week for general assemblies. The meeting halls were crowded. The resolution was passed unanimously and without abstentions.”



  21. Satya Nadella is a Distraction From Microsoft's Real Leadership and Abuses

    "I’m merely wondering if his image and accolades that we’re incessantly bombarded with by the press actually reflect his accomplishments or if they’re being aggrandized."



  22. Raw: EPO Comes Under Fire for Lowering Patent Quality Under the Orwellian Guise of “Collaborative Quality Improvements” (CQI)

    Stephen Rowan, the President’s (António Campinos) chosen VP who promotes the notorious “Collaborative Quality Improvements” (CQI) initiative/pilot, faces heat from the CSC, the Central Staff Committee of the EPO



  23. Making The Most of The Fourth Age of Free Software

    "For better or for worse, we can be certain the Free Software Foundation will never be the same."



  24. FSF is Not for Free Speech Anymore

    The FSF gave orders to silence people



  25. Links 16/10/2019: Plasma 5.17.0, Project Trident Moves to GNU/Linux, NuTyX 11.2

    Links for the day



  26. ...So This GNU/Linux User Goes to a Pub With Swapnil and Jim

    It's hard to promote GNU/Linux when you don't even use it



  27. How to THRIVE, in Uncertain Times for Free Software

    "The guidelines are barely about conduct anyway, they are more about process guidelines for "what to do with your autonomy" in the context of a larger group where participation is completely voluntary and each individual consents to participate."



  28. When They Run Out of Things to Patent They'll Patent Nature Itself...

    The absolutely ridiculous patent bar (ridiculously low) at today’s EPO means that legal certainty associated with European Patents is at an all-time low; patents get granted for the sake of granting more patents each year



  29. EPO Boards of Appeal Need Courage and Structural Disruption to Halt Software Patents in Europe

    Forces or lobbyists for software patents try to come up with tricks and lies by which to cheat the EPC and enshrine illegal software patents; sadly, moreover, EPO judges lack the necessary independence by which to shape caselaw against such practices



  30. Professor Dr. Maximilian Haedicke on Lack of Separation of Powers at the EPO (Which Dooms UPC)

    Team UPC (“empire of lies”) is catching up with reality; no matter how hard media has attempted to not cover EPO scandals (after the EPO paid and threatened many publishers that tried), it remains very much apparent that EPOnia is like a theocracy that cannot be trusted with anything


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