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 19/9/2019: German Federal Ministry of the Interior Wants FOSS, Top Snaps Named

    Links for the day



  2. Buying the Voices of 'Linux' People to Repeat Microsoft's Talking Points While Removing Our Icons and Leaders (Calling Them Sexist)

    The dirty games leveraged by several companies including Microsoft target charismatic people who are essential for morale and leadership; these tactics aren't particularly novel



  3. When the EPO Sees Itself as Above European Law, Grants Patents in Defiance of the EPC (Its Founding Document) and Violates Staff's Labour Rights/Protections (International Law)

    The absurd state of affairs at the EPO has reached the point where laws at every level are being violated and even judges are being threatened or vainly ignored; the EU is belatedly trying to tackle these issues, which have actually cost its credibility a great deal and threaten the perception of Rule of Law at multiple levels



  4. Links 19/9/2019: Samba 4.11.0 and Kubernetes 1.16

    Links for the day



  5. Update on Koch v EPO: Internal Appeals Committee (IAC) Composition Still Likely Illegal

    An important EPO case, concerning a dismissed staff representative, shows what ILO-AT and the EPO's Internal Appeals Committee boil down to



  6. Links 18/9/2019: Fedora Linux 31 Beta, PCLinuxOS 2019.09 Update

    Links for the day



  7. Links 17/9/2019: CentOS 7.7 and Funtoo Linux 1.4 Released

    Links for the day



  8. EPO is Not European

    Internationalists and patent trolls are those who stand to benefit from the 'globalisation' of low-quality and law-breaking patents such as patents on algorithms, nature and life itself; the EPO isn't equipped to serve its original goals anymore



  9. The EPO's Central Staff Committee and SUEPO (Staff Union) Respond to “Fascist Bills” Supported by EPO President António Campinos

    Raw material pertaining to the latest Campinos "scandal"; what Campinos said, what the Central Staff Committee (CSC) said, and what SUEPO said



  10. Storm Brewing in the European Patent Office After a Hot Summer

    Things aren't rosy in EPOnia (to say the least); in fact, things have been getting a lot worse lately, but the public wouldn't know judging by what media tells the public (almost nothing)



  11. Why I Once Called for Richard Stallman to Step Down

    Guest post from the developer who recently authored "Getting Stallman Wrong Means Getting The 21st Century Wrong"



  12. As Richard Stallman Resigns Let's Consider Why GNU/Linux Without Stallman and Torvalds Would be a Victory to Microsoft

    Stallman has been ejected after a lot of intentionally misleading press coverage; this is a dark day for Software Freedom



  13. Links 16/9/2019: GNU Linux-libre 5.3, GNU World Order 13×38, Vista 10 Breaks Itself Again

    Links for the day



  14. Links 16/9/2019: Qt Quick on Vulkan, Metal, and Direct3D; BlackWeb 1.2 Reviewed

    Links for the day



  15. Richard Stallman's Controversial Views Are Nothing New and They Distract From Bill Gates' Vastly Worse Role

    It's easier to attack Richard Stallman (RMS) using politics (than using his views on software) and media focus on Stallman's personal views on sexuality bears some resemblance to the push against Linus Torvalds, which leans largely on the false perception that he is sexist, rude and intolerant



  16. Links 16/9/2019: Linux 5.3, EasyOS Releases, Media Backlash Against RMS

    Links for the day



  17. Openwashing Report on Open Networking Foundation (ONF): When Open Source Means Collaboration Among Giant Spying Companies

    Massive telecommunications oligopolies (telecoms) are being described as ethical and responsible by means of openwashing; they even have their own front groups for that obscene mischaracterisation and ONF is one of those



  18. 'Open Source' You Cannot Run Without Renting or 'Licensing' Windows From Microsoft

    When so-called ‘open source’ programs strictly require Vista 10 (or similar) to run, how open are they really and does that not redefine the nature of Open Source while betraying everything Free/libre software stands for?



  19. All About Control: Microsoft is Not Open Source But an Open Source Censor/Spy and GitHub/LinkedIn/Skype Are Its Proprietary Censorship/Surveillance Tools

    All the big companies which Microsoft bought in recent years are proprietary software and all of the company’s big products remain proprietary software; all that “Open Source” is to Microsoft is “something to control and censor“



  20. The Sad State of GNU/Linux News Sites

    The ‘media coup’ of corporate giants (that claim to be 'friends') means that history of GNU/Linux is being distorted and lied about; it also explains prevalent lies such as "Microsoft loves Linux" and denial of GNU/Free software



  21. EPO President Along With Bristows, Managing IP and Other Team UPC Boosters Are Lobbying for Software Patents in Clear and Direct Violation of the EPC

    A calm interpretation of the latest wave of lobbying from litigation professionals, i.e. people who profit when there are lots of patent disputes and even expensive lawsuits which may be totally frivolous (for example, based upon fake patents that aren't EPC-compliant)



  22. Links 15/9/2019: Radeon ROCm 2.7.2, KDE Frameworks 5.62.0, PineTime and Bison 3.4.2

    Links for the day



  23. Illegal/Invalid Patents (IPs) Have Become the 'Norm' in Europe

    Normalisation of invalid patents (granted by the EPO in defiance of the EPC) is a serious problem, but patent law firms continue to exploit that while this whole 'patent bubble' lasts (apparently the number of applications will continue to decrease because the perceived value of European Patents diminishes)



  24. Patent Maximalists, Orbiting the European Patent Office, Work to 'Globalise' a System of Monopolies on Everything

    Monopolies on just about everything are being granted in defiance of the EPC and there are those looking to make this violation ‘unitary’, even worldwide if not just EU-wide



  25. Unitary Patent (UPC) Promotion by Team Battistelli 'Metastasising' in Private Law Firms

    The EPO's Albert Keyack (Team Battistelli) is now in Team UPC as Vice President of Kilburn & Strode LLP; he already fills the media with lies about the UPC, as one can expect



  26. Microsoft Targets GNU/Linux Advocates With Phony Charm Offensives and Fake 'Love'

    The ways Microsoft depresses GNU/Linux advocacy and discourages enthusiasm for Software Freedom is not hard to see; it's worth considering and understanding some of these tactics (mostly assimilation-centric and love-themed), which can otherwise go unnoticed



  27. Proprietary Software Giants Tell Open Source 'Communities' That Proprietary Software Giants Are 'Friends'

    The openwashing services of the so-called 'Linux' Foundation are working; companies that are inherently against Open Source are being called "Open" and some people are willing to swallow this bait (so-called 'compromise' which is actually surrender to proprietary software regimes)



  28. Microsoft Pays the Linux Foundation for Academy Software Foundation, Which the Linux Foundation is Outsourcing to Microsoft

    Microsoft has just bought some more seats and more control over Free/Open Source software; all it had to do was shell out some 'slush funds'



  29. Links 14/9/2019: SUSE CaaS Platform, Huawei Laptops With GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  30. Links 13/9/2019: Catfish 1.4.10, GNOME Firmware 3.34.0 Release

    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