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

05.25.19

European Patents Are Eventually Being Revoked. But at Great Expense to Everyone Except Law Firms.

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:11 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

14 lawyers (yes, fourteen of them in just one patent case). How much is that per hour? For how many hours? Days? Weeks? Months? Patent maximalism sure suits legions of lawyers who are collectively paid thousands of dollars per hour to clean up the mess they create and lobby for.

EP2724461B1

Summary: European Patent EP2724461 is revoked; but the cost of this chaos, which included an invalid embargo, could well be measured in billions, not millions

DECLINE in European patent quality is not a myth. It’s not subjective. There are suppressed findings from inside the European Patent Office (EPO) itself, ones that SUEPO spoke about. Is the EPO imitating the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)? Maybe China? The sure thing is, software patents are still being promoted by António Campinos in defiance of courts, of the EPC, of European authorities and even of common sense. 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the US greatly impacts (limits) patents on life, nature, and mathematics. Europe has similar limitations, but the EPO intentionally ignores these limitations, all in the name of litigation.

“Why are such patents even being granted in the first place?”Daniel Law’s Gustavo Sartori Guimarães has just mentioned growing backlog in Brazil (with poor English). “One of the [complaints] about [the] Brazilian patent system has been the time it takes for [sic] obtaining patent protection [sic] or, in other words, the backlog,” he said. He then cited the EPO, which just massively lowered quality of examination and granted loads of bogus/dubious patents. Hurrying up a process (PACE, PPH etc.) at the expense of precision yields truly dangerous results. But those who profit from litigation do not mind. They profit from this danger. A patent maximalism (and litigation) think tank Managing IP has just posted this timely reminder of it. Its headline says “Fintech patenting stokes litigation fears”; it keeps pushing this propaganda term, Fintech, for software patents. It’s a Trojan horse for fake patents or their acceleration, notably in Singapore’s IPOS (expedited examination of anything “Fintech”). Meanwhile, as recently as Friday, the EPO brought up “SDV” (a buzzword du jour). Computer vision, i.e. software, is at stake here. Any patents on computer vision would basically be patents on mathematics. This is what the EPO said (for the first time in about a month): “We had a look at the trends in European #patent applications for one of today’s emerging technologies: self-driving vehicles.”

So they searched for some words and then, based on these words, classified a whole bunch of patents “SDV”. How ‘trendy’…

The same is being done with “AI”, “blockchain”, “4IR” and so on…

Why are such patents even being granted in the first place?

Barker Brettell LLP’s Oliver Pooley and Toby Gosnall have just published this self-promotional ‘article’ titled “What is technical?”

The EPO is intentionally asking the wrong questions, e.g. “What is technical?” instead of “What is abstract?”

Sometimes they use the term “technical effect” or resort to using terms that make the abstract sound physical (e.g. “CII”).

This problem isn’t entirely new and it arguably predates even Battistelli. Over a decade ago a bunch of people including Florian Müller, Benjamin Henrion and Jan Wildeboer protested against it. We’ll come to them in a moment.

Just before the weekend Müller visited the EPO. He used the visit to follow and report on a case of Apple, Intel, and Qualcomm. In Twitter he wrote [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]: “The EPO opposition chamber just denied a new ground of opposition. No opinion stated yet on how the panel views the other grounds. The written preliminary opinion of November 2018 was that the patent wasn’t invalid, yet said some questions (obviousness-related) to be discussed. [...] At EPO opposition hearing regarding EP2724461, #Qualcomm’s Munich fake injunction #patent. #Apple and #Intel still fighting against it. A total of 14 (!) lawyers here, including at least one $QCOM in-house counsel from the U.S. whom I also saw at the FTC trial in January. [...] Claim 1 of #Qualcomm‘s Munich fake injunction #patent EP2724461 is dead! EPO opposition panel decides: not inventive. $QCOM So #Apple and #Intel are on the winning track. QCOM will now try amended (narrowed) claims. [...] The EPO just rejected #Qualcomm‘s first amended version of its Munich fake injunction patent EP2724461. The #patent has now been formally revoked even taking into account $QCOM‘s amendments. Victory for #Apple and #Intel. QCOM can appeal to EPO TBA. [...] So #Qualcomm‘s week has been terrible. First that yuuuge San Jose ruling and today they lost a European patent that Apple and Intel challenged.”

As is typical these days, he later turned these fast and loose tweets into a blog post, which said: [via]

On the legal front, this week was the worst ever for Qualcomm in its corporate history, due to the FTC’s sweeping victory in the Northern District of California on Tuesday shortly before midnight Pacific Time. Today, Friday, Qualcomm suffered another defeat–less impactful than the other one, yet significant: a three-examiner panel of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office (EPO) sided with Apple and Intel by revoking, as requested by those two Silicon Valley companies, European Patent EP2724461 on a low-voltage power-efficient envelope tracker, a patent that Qualcomm temporarily enforced to prevent Apple from selling the iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 (and the iPhone X, but Apple was no longer offering it anyway) in Germany, an attempt to put pressure on Apple for which Qualcomm had to make a $1.5 billion deposit.

Quite apparently, the recent Apple-Qualcomm settlement agreement, which resulted in the dismissal with prejudice of all infringement and antitrust/contract actions around the globe, did not and does not preclude Apple from continuing to challenge the validity of Qualcomm’s EP’461 patent, which I just call the “Munich fake injunction patent” alluding to its enforcement history. (This is not the time and place to speculate on whether that agreement will have to be renegotiated; suffice it to say that a hedge fund manager with formal legal training said, as a guest speaker on a Susquehanna International Group conference call yesterday, that he couldn’t find anything in the redacted version of the agreement that would suggest it couldn’t possibly happen, and he explained why it’s actually even hard to imagine that even the most creatively-crafted clause in the agreement could deprive Apple of whatever rights it might have as a beneficiary of the FTC case.)

On Tuesday, I was first to report and comment on Judge Lucy H. Koh’s antitrust ruling; today I was the only third-party person in meeting room 128 of the EPO’s main building in Munich. Qualcomm had dispatched a team of eight: four Quinn Emanuel lawyers (led by two partners: lead counsel Dr. Marcus Grosch and recently-named partner Jérôme Kommer), a German professor who served as their expert witness, and three Qualcomm employees from San Diego. Apple and Intel were represented by four patent attorneys from Samson & Partner (including the name partner himself, Dr. Wolfgang Lippich, Dr. Georg Jacoby, and Dr. Martin Vetter) as well as–in an advisory, non-pleading capacity today–Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Prince Wolrad of Waldeck and Pyrmont and principal associate Dr. Eva-Maria Herring, credited for numerous key court filings such as Apple’s answers to several Qualcomm complaints.

Such a rock-star lineup on both sides–14 professionals in total–shows that today’s hearing was hugely more important than one might have thought in light of the recent Apple-Qualcomm settlement as well as the Munich Higher Regional Court’s decision to lift, pending the appeal (which was subsequently mooted by the settlement), the lower court’s injunction because it came down for all the wrong reasons.

[...]

I also wish to thank the EPO’s press office for their support, despite the fact that there were times when I was an enemy of the EPOnia state, though I have for several years now refrained from commenting on their internal matters. Today a highly competent and dedicated panel did some world-class work.

“I am still not allowed to enter the EPO premises in Munich after Pompidou put me on the blacklist back in 2004. I still see that as a badge of honour,” Wildeboer replied to it. Wildeboer works for Red Hat now, so Müller responded with: “That’s going to change soon as IBM is one of the EPO’s biggest customers. They’ll roll out a red carpet for all IBMers including you. For me it’s a different situation. I stand by my past criticism of the EPO, never retracted a thing, but there really are some good people there.”

Henrion said: “I want get mine [own ban] too! How do I proceed?”

Techrights has been blocked in all parts of the EPO since 2014,” I told them. “For merely talking about their internal affairs. EPO is unscientific and intolerant/resistant to truth.”

Separately I said that the EPO meanwhile offers an award to Qualcomm for bogus software patents (invalid as per the EPC). Had EPO examiners been given enough time to research and study applications, this mess (as noted above) would rarely come about. What was the corporate and the societal cost of this wrong/false/erroneous embargo? Injustice isn’t cheap, unless you’re a lawyer (more time in court to bicker among one another).

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 20/11/2019: HONOR MagicBook With GNU/Linux, Coreboot 4.11, GNU Health Patchset 3.6.1

    Links for the day



  2. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, November 19, 2019

    IRC logs for Tuesday, November 19, 2019



  3. EPO Geared Towards Financial Exploitation of Europe Instead of Serving Europe

    For the financial benefit of law firms and patent offices (they profit from processing loads of patents and lawsuits) Europe is being reverted back to Medieval Times when exercising invention and free thought (or free coding) was a luxury of the rich alone



  4. Microsoft and IBM Are the Patent Trolls, They Won't Protect Us From Trolls

    "Microsoft has no taste" and IBM has no taste, either; they're lying to our collective face together with OIN and the 'Linux' Foundation



  5. How Ralph Nader Put It

    Ralph Nader on money in politics



  6. ZDNet (CBS) Associates GNU/Linux Users With ISIS

    Response to "US student was allegedly building a custom Gentoo Linux distro for ISIS," just published by ZDNet and composed by their biggest troll, Catalin Cimpanu



  7. Understanding Thierry Breton: Noël Forgeard and His “Golden Parachute”

    The end of the first half of the Breton series; in this particular part we continue to cover the EADS scandal and the second half of this series will include the EPO connections (the vote in a plenary for Breton's nomination is due 27/11)



  8. Links 19/11/2019: Zswap's B-Tree Search Implementation, WordPress 5.2.4

    Links for the day



  9. We've Already Entered the Era When Patents Should be Presumed Invalid

    The abundance of low-quality patents may mean short-term profits for patent offices and law firms; but we know at whose expense they are profiting and the legitimacy of patent systems suffers as a result



  10. Jean-Luc Breton

    Breton a champion of obstruction and obfuscation



  11. Understanding Thierry Breton: Insider-Trading Scandal at EADS

    Although Breton was not directly implicated in the insider trading scandal itself he did come under fire in 2007 for the role he played in a side-show to the main story, namely the payment of a generous € 8.5m severance package to Noël Forgeard when the EADS co-CEO was compelled to resign in June 2006.



  12. Startpage is Not Denying Its Betrayal of Privacy, It is Just Being Evasive

    They can't call you a liar if you issue a non-denying 'denial'; the "Roll Safe Think About It" meme seems applicable here



  13. Guest Post: Open Source is Not Free Software

    "If you look at human history, you can see lots of similar ideas, movements, intellectuals who are affected by the power of the ruling class like this."



  14. IRC Proceedings: Monday, November 18, 2019

    IRC logs for Monday, November 18, 2019



  15. Links 19/11/2019: HPC Focus and LibreOffice 6.4 Beta

    Links for the day



  16. Understanding Thierry Breton: “Rhodiagate” and the Vivendi Universal Affair

    When the "Rhodia affair" became the "Breton affair"



  17. Links 18/11/2019: Last Linux RC, OSMC Updated

    Links for the day



  18. What GitHub is to Open Source

    Lots of prisoners inside GitHub



  19. Openwashing Institutionalised NPEs (OIN) and Software Patents With Notorious Managers From the EPO

    There’s a strong push for software patents in Europe (basically fake European Patents on abstract ideas) and IAM leads/participates in it with help from OIN, Grant Philpott (EPO) and — maybe soon — Breton (EU)



  20. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, November 17, 2019

    IRC logs for Sunday, November 17, 2019



  21. Links 17/11/2019: Slax Beta and Arch Conf 2019 Report





  22. Understanding Thierry Breton: The “Cost-Killer” Tries to Tame the National Debt

    The oligarchic policy of Thierry Breton at Bercy



  23. Reactions to Last Week's Thierry Breton Hearing

    Nobody is particularly impressed by Thierry Breton except those who know little about him (and he contributes to this lack of knowledge by obstructing, omitting, and misleading)



  24. The Open Invention Network Has Become a Guard Dog of (Some) Patent Trolls and It Misrepresents Us Under the Guise of 'Open Source'

    The Open Invention Network (OIN), in collaboration with Fraunhöfer, is promoting software patents and all sorts of other nonsense as part of ‘open’ standards in a new paper sponsored by the EU and edited by the former EPO Chief Economist Nikolaus Thumm (not Battistelli's choice); this is another reminder of the fact that OIN misrepresents Free/Open Source software (FOSS) developers and their interests



  25. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, November 16, 2019

    IRC logs for Saturday, November 16, 2019



  26. Unitary Patent is Dead Partly Because the EPO Demonstrated That EPC is Being Routinely Violated, Illegal Patents Granted

    Some elements of Team UPC have given up, whereas others try to push the lie that Unitary Patent/Unified Patent Court (UPC) is not an EU thing and that therefore everything is fine



  27. USPTO Rewards Microsoft for Corruption at ISO by Teaching People Proprietary OOXML and Promoting Its Use

    The world's most important patent office promotes Microsoft lock-in, revealing not only corporate bias but also highlighting ways in which Microsoft crimes continue to pay off



  28. No, Startpage is Not Dutch Anymore

    Startpage is still clinging onto perceptions rather than truths; it means that Startpage isn't just betraying privacy but it's also dishonest and untrustworthy



  29. Understanding Thierry Breton: Chirac's Entrepreneurial “Joker”

    Minister in charge of the public treasury was not a career politician but an “entrepreneur” with a proven track-record as a financial wizard and “cost-killer”



  30. Links 16/11/2019: New Debian Release, Wine staging 4.20

    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