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

04.12.19

The EPO is Slipping Out of Control Again and It’s Another Battistelli-Like Mess With Disregard for the Rule of Law and Patent Scope

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ignorance is bliss

Antonio Campinos

Summary: The banker in chief is just ‘printing’ or ‘minting’ lots and lots of patents, even clearly bogus ones that lack substance to back their perceived value

WE ARE very thankful for 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice/Mayo (SCOTUS). Earlier today we asked for recent examples of court outcomes that can overturn/overrule 35 U.S.C. § 101 precedents. We got none. Nothing of high importance/level (higher courts) and/or precedential. Nothing since Valentine’s Day of 2018 (Berkheimer). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the ITC are managed by patent maximalists like the EPO‘s António Campinos, who is promoting software patents in Europe. But what has far more weight is a combination of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs), which are still effective at squashing software patents in the US, and the Federal Circuit affirming PTAB much of the time and correcting (overturning) district courts if they tolerate software patents. I’ve put links about it in Techrights daily links. We try to focus on the Linux Foundation and the EPO instead. Our battle against software patents has been partly successful in the US, but not in Europe. Not yet anyway.

“Apparently, everything (or just about anything) software or code or computer or machine or algorithm is “AI” now.”Focusing on Europe, as usual, yesterday we caught the EPO tweeting about “blockchains” again (i.e. illegal patents that the EPO keeps granting in defiance of caselaw, EPC, instructions from European authorities and demands from software professionals).

“Have a look here to learn how patent professionals are navigating the changing landscape of blockchain,” the EPO wrote, linking to the usual nonsense.

Also yesterday (nighttime) Managing IP published 3 new articles. The first said “Argentina’s trademark updates continue clumsily” and readers can guess what they mean by “clumsily” (not as profitable for us and our clients). So says a headline of a lawyers’ front group, funded by law firms to masquerade as a news site and grant them awards, puff pieces, lobbying events…

On the same night the site resumed promoting software patents disguised as “AI”, alluding to its “US Patent Forum” as follows: “Conversations around artificial intelligence (AI) innovations concluded with more questions than answers at Managing IP’s US Patent Forum in New York City on April 4.”

“So the USPTO basically continues granting patents which it knows in advance courts would reject.”Apparently, everything (or just about anything) software or code or computer or machine or algorithm is “AI” now. It’s a passing fad, surely, which faded away before (the term ot the concept is hardly new). Then the site promoted this sheer nonsense about patents on “tech and life sciences” (they mean software and nature/life). This article is thoroughly false as its title (yet again) claims “USPTO eligibility guidance could create consistency” even though the opposite is true (judges throw out patents while puring cold water on Iancu).

So the USPTO basically continues granting patents which it knows in advance courts would reject. This is the same thing the EPO is nowadays doing. This is one of the many reasons examiners have complained for about half a decade.

“It’s like a copy of the EPO’s press release, which was dishonest.”IPPro Magazine’s Rebecca Delaney has just published this article that’s a puff piece (as it’s not Barney, her colleague). It’s like a copy of the EPO’s press release, which was dishonest. We wrote about it yesterday, stressing that the EPO is again offering money for sellout 'scholars' who produce propaganda disguised as 'research' in an effort to “encourage more academic research” (to use their words).

Research like what? How wonderful patents on pigs, figs and seeds would be? As recently as yesterday we saw patent maximalists like Andrew Bentham (J A Kemp) not caring about common sense, only litigation euros, even over patents on life itself (and nature itself). In Mondaq J A Kemp published (probably for a fee):

Recent weeks have seen important developments in the debate on patent-eligibility of plants in Europe, with the EPO’s Boards of Appeal and its President, Administrative Council and member states pulling in opposite directions. The President has now referred questions, published today, to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, but the admissibility of the referral is uncertain, so it is unclear how or when the Enlarged Board will react. Applicants in this field will therefore face further delay and uncertainty. More generally, this is also a highly unusual, polarised situation that highlights the potential for conflict between different branches of the European patent system. Fortunately, however, this issue only directly affects some plant-related applications, not all that generally relate to plants in some way.

Rose Hughes also wrote about it yesterday (third time in recent weeks!) to say:

The President’s referral follows swiftly from the Board of Appeal (BA) decision in T 1063/18 (Pepper). For the full background to the case see IPKat post here. In summary, the EBA found in G 2/12 (Broccoli/Tomato II) that Article 53(c) did not exclude plants produced by essential biological processes from patentability. The European Commission subsequently issued a notice of the (non-legally binding) opinion that the biotech directive excluded plants produced by essentially biological processes from patentability. In response, the Administrative Council (AC) amended Rule 28 EPC to explicitly exclude plants produced by essentially biological processes from patentability.

The BA in T 1063/18 (Pepper) found that the AC’s interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC by amendment of Rule 28(2) EPC was in conflict with the prior interpretation of the Article by the EBA in G 2/12 (Broccoli/Tomato II). The Board in T 1063/18 (Pepper) found that the AC Rule amendment was void. The Board in T 1063/18 (Pepper) also did not feel it necessary to refer the issue to the EBA, reasoning that the EBA had already decided on the question in G 2/12 (Broccoli/Tomato II).

Sadly, EBA cannot rule as it sees fit as per the law; there’s a risk involved, having witnessed the fate of Judge Corcoran, their former colleague (back in the days before the exile to Haar, which is rightly perceived as collective punishment and a stark warning).

“…the EPO is again offering money for sellout ‘scholars’ who produce propaganda disguised as ‘research’…”A comment was left yesterday to speak about the defunct EPO structure: “It will be interesting to see how independent from the president and the AC the members of the BoA and of the EboA are under the new performance evaluation system which has a direct influence on their reappointment.”

People aren’t forgetting. The above site (IP Kat) has also just published an article for the notoriously aggressive law firm the EPO hired to stalk and bully me (Mishcon de Reya). Rosie Burbidge published for these thugs something about “IP [sic] and the gaming industry”. Yesterday I got a couple more threatening letters asking me to remove articles — a request I strongly reject. I will say more on that sooner or later as we examine and consult people who know how to handle it.

“Yesterday I got a couple more threatening letters asking me to remove articles — a request I strongly reject.”The book in question does not mention “IP”, but Mishcon de Reya interjected this nonsense into the headline. There is no such thing as "IP", but yesterday the EPO wrote: “University spin-offs need access to the relevant IP early on.”

I responded by asking: “Did you mean to write patents and then some PR person or lawyer rewrote it?”

That misleading propaganda term is again supposed to make us think that patents are rights, are property (hence “property rights”) and are granted some magical power for being “intellectual” (are plants and seeds intellectual even though they had existed in nature since before humans even existed?). We’re supposed to think nature itself is science.

“That misleading propaganda term is again supposed to make us think that patents are rights, are property (hence “property rights”) and are granted some magical power for being “intellectual” (are plants and seeds intellectual even though they had existed in nature since before humans even existed?).”“We’ll be discussing the business advantages of IP,” the EPO also wrote a short time apart, “illustrated by the story of a successful SME, at this event in Bucharest…”

Here are some more “IP” tweets from yesterday, some with “IP” in their hashtags too.

We’re guessing that the EPO will resort to more two-letter acronyms like PR, IP and AI because that’s about short enough for the mental capacity of Team Campinos, a team led by a former banker with zero background in science and several of his former colleagues.

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. The Linux Foundation's Business Model

    The Linux Foundation's plan, illustrated



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

    Links for the day



  3. 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



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

    Links for the day



  5. '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



  6. 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



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

    Links for the day



  8. 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



  9. 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)



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

    Links for the day



  11. 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)



  12. 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



  13. 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)



  14. 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



  15. 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



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

    Links for the day



  17. 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



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

    Links for the day



  19. 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



  20. 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’



  21. 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"



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

    Links for the day



  23. 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



  24. 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



  25. 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



  26. 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



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

    Links for the day



  28. 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.”



  29. 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.



  30. Links 10/6/2019: VLC 3.0.7, KDE Future Plans

    Links for the day


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