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

04.03.19

The EPO Continues Granting Bogus Patents on Mathematics and Nature, But There’s Hope Over the Horizon

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Pressure is growing for the EPO to actually comply with the law and obey the European Patent Convention (EPC); the judges who look into these matters, however, lack the independence which the EPC sought to guarantee

THE European Patent Office (EPO) may hopefully invalidate European software patents some time soon. This will have to come from a court rather than the Office itself. As Jan Wildeboer (Red Hat, soon IBM) put it in this tweet yesterday: “The EUCJ never pulled an ALICE AFAICS. I hope they do soon.”

We remain concerned that António Campinos is friends with Iancu, whose attitude towards the law has just come under scrutiny from a high court. Will Campinos even allow judges to deal with the relevant issues? Judges that exercise true independence? We think not.

“Will Campinos even allow judges to deal with the relevant issues? Judges that exercise true independence? We think not.”On Tuesday the EPO wrote about opposition procedures as follows: “Patent administrators in Helsinki are invited to this event to learn about fee payment, opposition procedures and other related matters…”

But the EPO is still a very unjust place where people responsible for oppositions can be arbitrarily ‘disciplined’ and dismissed under false pretexts/fabricated circumstances. This apparently happens also under Campinos, not just Battistelli. SUEPO wrote about it.

“Our hope is that the Boards will rediscover or recover their independence; then and only then do we expect them to rule out software patents and patents on life, in lieu (shall we say “harmonisation”?) with Alice and Mayo, respectively, in the US.”What if the EPO’s staff says “no!” to a big “client”/”customer” (what EPO management calls applicants)? Or to a partner of the EPO (like Judge Corcoran did Baxter)? Can the examiners in Oppositions be fired? Demoted? Reprimanded? We have mentioned this the other day, maybe before the press release even came out.

Here is the official press release and Globes coverage from yesterday:

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE and TASE: TEVA) today announced that a three-member panel of the European Patent Office’s (EPO) Opposition Division upheld patent EP 2 949 335 covering Teva’s COPAXONE® 40mg product in Europe. The Opposition Division will issue its written underlying rationale on the decision within a few months.

And the financial media in Teva’s home country:

While in the US, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.’s (NYSE: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) original multiple sclerosis treatment Copaxone is already battling it out with generic competitors with its main dosage (40mg), in Europe there is still no generic competition, and a decision by the European Patent Office (EPO) should delay it further. Teva announce today that a three-member panel of the EPO Opposition Division upheld the patent (EP 2 949 335) covering its Copaxone 40mg product in Europe. The Opposition Division will issue its written underlying rationale on the decision within a few months.

Should this take months? Longer than the decision took to be reached perhaps?

An advocacy site of patents on life, Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review, has meanwhile written about the EPO merely considering obeying a law — another subject we last touched yesterday. To quote:

European Patent Office (EPO) president António Campinos will refer a recent decision on the patentability of plants exclusively obtained by essentially biological processes to the office’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA).

The news follows long-running legal confusion over whether plant products produced by essential biological processes are patentable.

Last December, the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04 issued decision T 1063/18, which ruled that rule 28(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) is incompatible with Article 53(b) of the same convention.

This neglects to take account of the European authorities’ position and the fact that in defiance of the European Patent Convention (EPC) these Boards no longer enjoy freedom and independence to rule as they see fit.

As European Patents now exceed 3 million in number we’re seeing yet more press releases about them, such as this one from yesterday:

Also, SANUWAVE received European Patent EP 3,117,784 on December 26, 2018 entitled “Usage of Intracorporeal Pressure Shock Waves in Medicine”, which has an expiration date in July 2030 from the European Patent Office (EPO). This patent is validated in designated countries including Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Holland, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. The European patent includes fifteen (15) claims related to the special construction of the intracorporeal shockwave devices/systems comprising of a catheter size fit within at least one of a blood vessel, graft, or artificial blood vessel, with at least one balloon, and at least one or multiple shockwave generation sources coupled to the catheter. The intracorporeal shockwave device/system can be used to treat plaques and obstructions together with distal protection devices, to protect the flowing of dislodged plaque particles to the heart or brain. The shockwave generation sources can be electrohydraulic, laser-based, electromagnetic, or piezoelectric.

This isn’t my field and the above is a promotional press release, but this one too seemingly relates to health. The EPO used the term “medtech” yesterday — a term it nowadays uses to refer to algorithms (i.e. software) in a medical context.

We continue to worry that nobody seems to care — let alone intervene — in EPO affairs. Commenting on the patent troll Unwired Planet as recently as yesterday (it operates in Europe, even in London), Florian Müller wrote that “[s]tatistics show that most patents are invalid as granted, and even those that are valid rarely involve an inventive step of the impressive kind…”

Here’s the part about EPO and then some more about FRAND/SEP:

The patent system is prone to abuse because, contrary to widespread misconception, the commercial value of patents lies in legal uncertainty, and patent offices around the globe prioritize quantity over quality (institutionalized excess and race to the bottom, especially with leaders such as USPTO Director Andrew Iancu or the current president of the EPO and his predecessor). Statistics show that most patents are invalid as granted, and even those that are valid rarely involve an inventive step of the impressive kind–and reasonable people can disagree on claim construction, which is why a fairly high percentage of all claim constructions are reversed on appeal.

Patent judges are increasingly aware of the issues, and it depends on each judge’s style how they try to address the problem (such as by being ever more inclined to stay cases when the validity of a patent-in-suit is doubtful)–but the root cause (the aforementioned institutionalized excess) can’t be addressed by them, so it all comes down to purely symptomatic treatment.

One form of abuse that constitutes a systemic threat is privateering: the practice of transferring patents to patent assertion entities whose business is to bring extortionate litigation. A few years ago I made a public call to “name and shame companies that feed patent trolls,” and I’d like to refer you to such previous statements (you can find far better explanations of the privateering problem from others to be honest) rather than elaborate on this again.

[...]

To give you an idea of how novel and unorthodox that approach is, it may help to remind you of the fact that Germany is a jurisdiction that doesn’t even enable third-party beneficiaries (such as companies that are entitled to a FRAND license because of a FRAND promise made by a participant in a standard-setting process to a standard-setting organization) to enforce their rights like a direct contract. So even if Ericsson had never sold those patents to anyone, Huawei couldn’t simply enforce third-party beneficiary rights to a FRAND license from Ericsson. But Judge Dr. Kuehnen’s decision comes down to restricting Unwired Planet’s rights vis-à-vis Huawei. So we’re not talking about a third-party, but partically fourth-party, beneficiary rights.

It’s not just about the FRAND commitment at an abstract level. It’s that specific licensing terms could be deemed discriminatory based on what the previous patent holder did. (It would, of course, make sense to consider a previous patent holder’s licensing terms in a FRAND analysis, but just an indication of what terms might have been agreed upon by parties.)

Our hope is that the Boards will rediscover or recover their independence; then and only then do we expect them to rule out software patents and patents on life, in lieu (shall we say “harmonisation”?) with Alice and Mayo, respectively, in the US.

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 19/6/2019: Linux Mint Vs Vista 10, Qt 5.13 Released

    Links for the day



  2. The Linux Foundation's Business Model

    The Linux Foundation's plan, illustrated



  3. Links 18/6/2019: i386 Abandoned by Canonical and a New osquery 'Community'

    Links for the day



  4. Indifference or Even Hostility Towards Patent Quality Results in Grave Injustice

    The patent extravaganza in Europe harms small businesses the most (they complain about it), but administrative staff at patent offices only cares about the views of prolific applicants rather than the interests of citizens in respective countries



  5. Links 18/6/2019: CentOS 8 Coming Soon, DragonFly BSD 5.6 Released

    Links for the day



  6. 'AI Taskforce' is Actually a Taskforce for Software Patents

    The mainstream media has been calling just about everything "HEY HI!" (AI), but what it typically refers to is a family of old algorithms being applied in possibly new areas; patent maximalists in eastern Asia and the West hope that this mainstream media's obsession can be leveraged to justify new kinds of patents on code



  7. Patent Maximalism is Dead in the United States

    Last-ditch efforts, or a desperate final attempt to water down 35 U.S.C. § 101, isn't succeeding; stacked panels are seen for what they really are and 35 U.S.C. § 101 isn't expected to change



  8. Links 18/6/2019: Linux 5.2 RC5 and OpenMandriva Lx 4

    Links for the day



  9. Weaponising Russophobia Against One's Critics

    Response to smears and various whispering campaigns whose sole purpose is to deplete the support base for particular causes and people; these sorts of things have gotten out of control in recent years



  10. When the EPO is Run by Politicians It's Expected to Be Aggressive and Corrupt Like Purely Political Establishments

    António 'Photo Op' Campinos will have marked his one-year anniversary in July; he has failed to demonstrate morality, respect for the law, understanding of the sciences, leadership by example and even the most basic honesty (he lies a lot)



  11. Links 16/6/2019: Tmax OS and New Features for KDE.org

    Links for the day



  12. Stuffed/Stacked Panels Sent Back Packing After One-Sided Patent Hearings That Will Convince Nobody, Just Preach to the Choir

    Almost a week ago the 'world tour' of patent lobbyists in US Senate finally ended; it was an utterly ridiculous case study in panel stacking and bribery (attempts to buy laws)



  13. 2019 H1: American Software Patents Are as Worthless as They Were Last Year and Still Susceptible to Invalidation

    With a fortnight left before the second half of the year it seems evident that software patents aren't coming back; the courts have not changed their position at all



  14. As European Patent Office Management Covers up Collapse in Patent Quality Don't Expect UPC to Ever Kick Off

    It would be madness to allow EPO-granted patents to become 'unitary' (bypassing sovereignty of nations that actually still value patent quality); it seems clear that rogue EPO management has, in effect, not only doomed UPC ambitions but also European Patents (or their perceived legitimacy, presumption of validity)



  15. António Campinos -- Unlike His Father -- Engages in Imperialism (Using Invalid Patents)

    Despite some similarities to his father (not positive similarities), António Campinos is actively engaged in imperialistic agenda that defies even European law; the EPO not only illegally grants patents but also urges other patent offices to do the same



  16. António Campinos Takes EPO Waste and Corruption to Unprecedented Levels and Scale

    The “B” word (billions) is thrown around at Europe’s second-largest institution because a mischievous former EUIPO chief (not Archambeau) is ‘partying’ with about half of the EPO’s all-time savings, which are supposed to be reserved for pensions and other vital programmes, not presidential palaces and gambling



  17. Links 15/6/2019: Astra Linux in Russia, FreeBSD 11.3 RC

    Links for the day



  18. Code of Conduct Explained: Partial Transcript - August 10th, 2018 - Episode 80, The Truth About Southeast Linuxfest

    "Ask Noah" and the debate on how a 'Code of Conduct' is forcibly imposed on events



  19. Links 14/6/2019: Xfce-Related Releases, PHP 7.4.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  20. The EPO is a Patent Troll's Wet Dream

    The makers of software and games in Europe will have to spend a lot of money just keeping patent trolls off their backs — a fact that seems to never bother EPO management because it profits from it



  21. EPO Spreading Patent Extremists' Ideology to the Whole World, Now to South Korea

    The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’



  22. Guest Post: Notes on Free Speech, and a Line in the Sand

    We received this anonymous letter and have published it as a follow-up to "Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF"



  23. Links 13/6/2019: CERN Dumps Microsoft, GIMP 2.10.12 Released

    Links for the day



  24. Links 12/6/2019: Mesa 19.1.0, KDE neon 5.16, Endless OS 3.6.0 and BackBox Linux 6

    Links for the day



  25. Leaked Financial 'Study' Document Shows EPO Management and Mercer Engaging in an Elaborate “Hoax”

    How the European Patent Office (EPO) lies to its own staff to harm that staff; thankfully, the staff isn't easily fooled and this whole affair will merely obliterate any remnants of "benefit of the doubt" the President thus far enjoyed



  26. Measuring Patent Quality and Employer Quality in Europe

    Comparing the once-famous and respected EPO to today's joke of an office, which grants loads of bogus patents on just about anything including fruit and mathematics



  27. Granting More Fundamentally Wrong Patents Will Mean Reduced Certainty, Not Increased Certainty

    Law firms that are accustomed to making money from low-quality and abstract patents try to overcome barriers by bribing politicians; this will backfire because they show sheer disregard for the patent system's integrity and merely lower the legal certainty associated with granted (by greedy offices) patents



  28. Links 11/6/2019: Wine 4.10, Plasma 5.16

    Links for the day



  29. Chapter 10: Moving Forward -- Getting the Best Results From Open Source With Your Monopoly

    “the gradual shift in public consciousness from their branding towards our own, is the next best thing to owning them outright.”



  30. Chapter 9: Ownership Through Branding -- Change the Names, and Change the World

    The goal for those fighting against Open source, against the true openness (let's call it the yet unexploited opportunities) of Open source, has to be first to figuratively own the Linux brand, then literally own or destroy the brand, then to move the public awareness of the Linux brand to something like Azure, or whatever IBM is going to do with Red Hat.


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