03.30.19

Gemini version available ♊︎

The UK Supreme Court’s Latest Decision is Ammunition for the FCC to Scuttle the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 9:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Team UPC is, understandably, going bonkers (feeling unlucky in the face of justice)

A black cat

Summary: The quality of European Patents is appalling enough that no courts would entrust EPO people with something like the Unified Patent Court (UPC); The UK Supreme Court has proven this point yet again and we suppose that the German Constitutional Court (FCC) pays close attention not only to dirty tactics from Team UPC (trying to trick the court into premature decisions, based on fabrications)

THE European Patent Office (EPO) suffered a blow some days ago because its impotent patent on impotence treatment was smashed to pieces at one of Europe’s most respected courts, the UK Supreme Court.

“They’re both spoiled brats of UPC, who on behalf of large (and international/foreign) pharmaceutical giants try to pass the UPC (ratify UPCA).”Marks & Clerk’s Mike Gilbert and Jonathan Stafford wrote about it before the weekend, as did the liars and crooks from Bristows LLP. They’re both spoiled brats of UPC, who on behalf of large (and international/foreign) pharmaceutical giants try to pass the UPC (ratify UPCA). We’ll say more about that in a moment.

Here is what patent maximalists at Managing IP [sic] wrote about it:

The UK’s highest court yesterday affirmed that a patent licensed from former biotech company Icos to Eli Lilly for the erectile dysfunction (ED) drug Cialis (tadalafil) is invalid.

A couple of new comments have also just appeared at IP Kat [1, 2], another site of patent maximalists. It’s about the highest British court finding that EPO granted this bogus patent. “Here is how there is a “reasonable expectation of success”,” said the first of those two comments. “When you follow the reasoning, the court decided that when carrying out trials of the drug the skilled person would have investigated the effect of 25mg, 50mg, and 100mg doses. Doing this they would have inevitably found the dosage plateau. They don’t need to have expected to find the plateau or have a reasonable expectation they would find it, it was an inevitability that they would find it just by carrying out the routine trials of the drug. Having found the dosage plateau that extends over the 25mg to 100mg range there is then a reasonable expectation that the lower end of the dosage plateau might extend down to 5mg.”

Notice that the so-called ‘innovation’ is to do with dosages. The comment continued: “There is no hindsight in this assessment just a reasonable assessment of how the trials of this, or any other, new drug would have been carried out at the priority date of the patent. Essentially, the dosing patent is just the Applicant applying to protect the inevitable outcome of the clinical trials of the drug because it is different from what was envisaged in the original patent. There is no inventive step.

Why was it even considered patent-eligible? Imagine if something like UPC was tasked or assigned to rule on this…

The second comment said: “I perfectly understand this line of reasoning, but I still can hardly adhere to it. The criterion of “reasonable expectation of success” says what it says: was it expectable for the skilled person to find the identified effect at the time of filing ?”

Why is this even considered an invention? It’s more like a recipe? Are cooking recipes next in line? We gave examples to that effect a few days ago.

“Importing the research process into that reasoning is no longer inventive step, because otherwise only new research processes could remain patentable, any finding based on known research processes would simply be obvious to try, whatever the efforts.”
      –Anonymous
“Research,” the comment continued, “even being made in clinical trials, remains research, i.e. exploration of the yet unidentified (and unsuggested for inventive step). If the prior art would have suggested that this drug would be active at low doses, I would then have agreed that a motivation would exist to specifically look for the lower dosages. However, even though this exploration was made in standardized clinical trials, this remained research and exploration. Moreover, the inventors have no choice but to carry out this research in clinical trials because it is performed on humans. If the product would not have been a drug, hence would not have required clinical trials, the same dose-effect experiments would have been performed to find out what doses are the most efficient. And, if I follow properly the court’s reasoning (and yours), it could then have been considered inventive because there would have been no clue how the inventors had come to this finding in theri research process.
For all types of inventions, the more so for inventions in the life science field in which the “resonable expectation of success” principle has been developped, my view is always the same, inventive step does not have to be assessed based on the process how to come to a certain finding, i.e. the invention, but only on the facts available, in particular what the prior art is teaching and what level of skill does the skilled person have. Importing the research process into that reasoning is no longer inventive step, because otherwise only new research processes could remain patentable, any finding based on known research processes would simply be obvious to try, whatever the efforts.”

This is similar to the 'Teffgate', where some arbitrary numbers were used to attribute “innovative” aspects to what’s in nature (and has been in nature since before humans even existed).

It was very much expected that Team UPC firms (like the above) would condemn or spin or just moan about this decision. Team UPC is a very dishonest bunch which only cares about litigation, not science. Wait and watch their next stunts. They lie a lot.

As an example of their lies, consider this UPC ‘book’ spin. It’s amazing and it’s only days old. The FFII’s President has already responded to it with: “The complaint is secret, on which basis they gonna discuss?” (the complaint)

“It was very much expected that Team UPC firms (like the above) would condemn or spin or just moan about this decision. Team UPC is a very dishonest bunch which only cares about litigation, not science.”Basically, the longtime UPC booster (going by the Twitter handle “UPCtracker”) wrote: “Oxford University press and CH Beck have published the legal commentary on the UPC (Tilmann/Plassmann ed.), an event which the German constitutional complainant saw as a bad omen or indicator his UPC complaint could be denied shortly. Case still pending, however.”

So we’re supposed to think, yet again, that there’s a decision coming soon (dismissal). How many times before have they lied along those lines? We’ve lost count. The tweet (reply) from the FFII’s President had us investigating the merit of the statement. It’s basically a lie.

In fact, the book in question, namely its German version, has still not been published. Its publisher, C. H. Beck, currently announce it for “approximately May 2019″ (see their German Web page). The book mentioned in the said tweet is the English version which is sold by a different publisher (Oxford University Press) and has been on the market since late summer of 2018 (see the same Web site but a different page). Although it has a higher price, it is commercially not as interesting as the German version which will sell in much higher numbers should the UPC become a reality. Either the said UPC advocate does not understand the difference between the two books, which we doubt, or he is acting against his better judgment, trying to spin a story suiting his own interests. Stay classy, Team UPC. Stay vigilant, FCC.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. [Meme] Looting Europe and Taking Away From the Office

    The staff of the EPO is being robbed by corrupt officials, who arrogantly assume that they can get away with anything (because they have facilitators all over Europe)



  2. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, September 19, 2021

    IRC logs for Sunday, September 19, 2021



  3. Formally Challenging the EPO and Microsoft for Apparent Efforts to Suppress Reporting With Evidence of Crimes, Including Violations of EPO Data Protection Guidelines

    The largest cross-institutional European den of corruption, the EPO, will be hearing from lawyers and hopefully from public officials too. The criminal behaviour is long overdue for review and the Administrative Council too should be investigated (for repeatedly abetting this behaviour, for personal gain).



  4. Links 20/9/2021: Linux 5.15 RC2 and pgAdmin 4 5.7 Released

    Links for the day



  5. [Meme] Warning - Tree Felling in Progress

    Warming up for our next EPO series



  6. Links 19/9/2021: Sparky 2021.09, Whisker Menu 2.6.0, HarfBuzz 3.0, and gThumb 3.12

    Links for the day



  7. EPO Management is Hiding Under the 'Cloud' While Violating Privacy Laws

    Facing a barrage of scrutiny for outsourcing the EPO's systems to Microsoft, the EPO has just arranged yet another expensive PR stunt, looking to somehow 'normalise' the unacceptable and the likely illegal



  8. Maintenance and Development Updates

    We've been doing a lot of work on the back end (or operations) of Techrights, more so this past month, and we're almost ready to resume the normal publication pace



  9. [Meme] Microsoft Says Its Paying Clients (Like EPO) Don't Violate Privacy Law

    The ever-so-docile EPO will gladly oblige when companies like Microsoft lie about the legality of their industrial espionage operations, masked as “clown” computing (and other buzzwords)



  10. Coming Soon: EPO Series on Lawlessness

    Some time soon we’ll start an important series about the EPO, seeing that the management of the EPO is panicking and trying to put out the fire created by prior ones (more on that shortly)



  11. Links 19/9/2021: Jolla's Sailfish OS 4.2 and FreeBSD Technology Roadmap

    Links for the day



  12. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, September 18, 2021

    IRC logs for Saturday, September 18, 2021



  13. Links 18/9/2021: LibreOffice 8.0 Plans and Microsoftcosm Uses WSL to Badmouth 'Linux'

    Links for the day



  14. Links 18/9/2021: GIMP 2.10.28 Released and Azure Remains Back Doored

    Links for the day



  15. IRC Proceedings: Friday, September 17, 2021

    IRC logs for Friday, September 17, 2021



  16. Links 17/9/2021: Ubuntu 18.04.6 LTS, Manjaro 21.1.3, “2021 is the Year of Linux on the Desktop”

    Links for the day



  17. Links 17/9/2021: WSL Considered Harmful

    Links for the day



  18. [Meme] Microsoft Loves Linux Bug/Back Doors

    Microsoft is just cementing its status as little but an NSA stooge



  19. Lagrange Makes It Easier for Anybody to Use Gemini and Even Edit Pages (With GUI)

    Gemini protocol and/or Gemini space are easy for anyone to get started with or fully involved in (writing and creating, not just reading); today we take a look at the new version of Lagrange (it was first introduced here back in March and covered again in April), which I installed earlier today because it contains a lot of improvements, including the installation process (now it’s just a click-to-run AppImage)



  20. IBM is Imploding But It Uses Microsoft-Type Methods to Hide the Demise (Splits, Buybacks, and Rebranding Stunts)

    A combination of brain drain (exodus) and layoffs (a lack of budget combined with inability to retain talent or attract the necessary staff with sufficiently competitive salaries) dooms IBM; but the media won't be mentioning it, partly because a lot of it is still directly sponsored by IBM



  21. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, September 16, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, September 16, 2021



  22. [Meme] 70 Days of Non-Compliance

    António Campinos would rather fall on his sword than correct the errors or work to undo the damage caused by Team Battistelli, which is still at the EPO



  23. EPO “Board 28” Meeting: Imaginary Dialogue Between EPO President Campinos and the Chair of the Administrative Council, Josef Kratochvíl

    The EPO‘s chaotic state, which persists after Benoît Battistelli‘s departure, is a state of lawlessness and cover-up



  24. Links 16/9/2021: Linux Mint Has New Web Site, LibreOffice 7.2.1, KDE Plasma 5.23 Beta, and Sailfish OS Verla

    Links for the day



  25. If Git Can be Done Over the Command Line and E-mail, It Can Also be Done Over Gemini (Instead of Bloated Web Browsers)

    In order to keep Git lean and mean whilst at the same time enabling mouse (mousing and clicking) navigation we encourage people everywhere to explore gemini://



  26. Techrights Examines a Wide Array/Range of Gemini Clients/Browsers

    After spending many months examining an array of different types of software for Gemini (including but not limited to clients/browsers) we take stock of what exists, what's supported (it varies a bit), and which one might be suitable for use by geeks and non-geeks



  27. Links 16/9/2021: KStars 3.5.5 and Chafa 1.8

    Links for the day



  28. Trusting Microsoft With Security is a Clown Show

    A quick and spontaneous video about this morning's post regarding a major new revelation that reaffirms a longstanding trend; Microsoft conflates national security (back doors) with security



  29. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, September 15, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, September 15, 2021



  30. Microsoft Azure and Back/Bug Doors in GNU/Linux: Fool Me Once (Shame on You) / Fool Me Twice (Shame on Me)

    "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me," goes the old saying...


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