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

06.20.19

Ignore the EPO’s Dumb Festival and Focus on the Abuses Against the Workforce and Its Quality of Work

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The EPO’s “look over there!” moment — as usual timed to take place a week or so before the Administrative Council reconvenes

Look over there!

Summary: Don’t lose sight of the appalling behaviour of the management of the EPO; the last thing it wants is press coverage about its gross abuses and corruption — an aspect it spent literally millions of euros to bury (gaming the news cycle)

THE European Patent Office (EPO) is about to start that stupid (and wasteful) “Inventor” festival. Managers past and present use this ceremony of theirs for political purposes (politicians are, as usual, attending after being invited). We’re mostly interested in seeing whether António Campinos and judge Battistelli (yes, he was made a judge in this competition) choose to give an award to European software patents (there are several contenders of this kind, but we’ve focused on one). How low can patent quality (or validity) go while still receiving a special prize?

As usual, this festival is timed to almost coincide with the meeting of the Administrative Council — something which we never regarded as a coincidence. Will that stupid festival impress the bands of lawyers and bureaucrats, who conveniently look the other way when patent quality or validity etc. (as determined by actual courts with technical expert witnesses) are discussed?

“As usual, this festival is timed to almost coincide with the meeting of the Administrative Council — something which we never regarded as a coincidence.”Over the past couple of days we saw no news about the social injustices at the EPO; SUEPO has said nothing and it only posted a link to an article about work atmosphere (not EPO-specific). Remember that none of these issues have been addressed and resolved, let alone discussed. Nothing at all is improving on that front and the same goes for patent quality. Quality of the workplace and the work alike suffer profoundly.

This post takes stock of the latest writings that pertain to patent quality or scope.

Earlier this week Isobel Finnie and Joanna Rowley (Haseltine Lake LLP) wrote about patents covering life and nature even though humans did not invent these; this is thievery, enabled by patent offices which only care about granting more and more patents. Rowley and Finnie have provided some background and an explanation of where things stand:

This amendment came as a surprise to many in the field because it created a conflict between Rule 28(2) EPC and Article 53(b) EPC as interpreted by Broccoli/ Tomatoes II. Soon enough a case came before the Boards of Appeal (T 1063/18) in which a patent application had been refused by an Examining Division for the sole reason that the invention was deemed to be a plant product exclusively obtained by essentially biological processes. In brief, the invention related to a “cultivated blocky fruit type pepper plant” and the only method described in the application for obtaining the pepper plant was an essentially biological process, namely crossing two previously known peppers followed by selfing and conventional pedigree selection to create stable fixed inbred lines. The Board in T 1063/18 held that the Articles of the EPC as interpreted by the Enlarged Board of Appeal must prevail over the Rules (in accordance with Article 164(2) EPC) and hence, Rule 28(2) EPC must be considered void. The Board of Appeal considered the law on this issue to be clear and hence a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal was not justified.

[...]

The EU Biotech Directive and Article 53(b) EPC clearly state that essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals are not patentable, but are silent with regard to the patentability of plant and animal products exclusively obtained by means of such essentially biological processes. In 2015 the Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled that such products are patentable (G2/12 and G2/13, often referred to as “Broccoli/Tomatoes II”). This was seen as a positive step by agrochemical companies using the patents system and many commentators thought the issue was settled.

However, shortly afterwards in 2016 the European Commission issued a Notice (2016/C 411/03) stating that the EU Biotech Directive was intended to exclude products obtained by essentially biological processes from patentability, even though it didn’t explicitly say so. Although this Notice was not legally binding it added to the existing pressure on the EPO from certain member states and political groups. The Administrative Council of the EPO responded by adding Rule 28 part (2) EPC, which states “Under Article 53(b), European patents shall not be granted in respect of plants or animals exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process.”

This amendment came as a surprise to many in the field because it created a conflict between Rule 28(2) EPC and Article 53(b) EPC as interpreted by Broccoli/ Tomatoes II. Soon enough a case came before the Boards of Appeal (T 1063/18) in which a patent application had been refused by an Examining Division for the sole reason that the invention was deemed to be a plant product exclusively obtained by essentially biological processes. In brief, the invention related to a “cultivated blocky fruit type pepper plant” and the only method described in the application for obtaining the pepper plant was an essentially biological process, namely crossing two previously known peppers followed by selfing and conventional pedigree selection to create stable fixed inbred lines. The Board in T 1063/18 held that the Articles of the EPC as interpreted by the Enlarged Board of Appeal must prevail over the Rules (in accordance with Article 164(2) EPC) and hence, Rule 28(2) EPC must be considered void. The Board of Appeal considered the law on this issue to be clear and hence a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal was not justified.

The EPC doesn’t govern the Boards anymore; the Office does. The President of the Office does; he blatantly violates the EPC at every turn. This is one among several reasons the UPC will never become a reality. Speaking of the UPC, it looks like Bristows is writing its nonsense anonymously again (it is far too predictable a pseudonym, “Kluwer Patent blogger”). “Adapting the patent system to small companies means abolishing it,” Benjamin Henrion said about it. The blog post, which deletes dissenting views/comments (we covered this before), still lacks comments. Interesting. Also found via Henrion is this new post from Alan Johnson. The same people who insisted a decision would be made by the FCC (BVerfG) by last Christmas are at it again. It’s coming “real soon!!!” they promise us (as they have for years).

Pressing on, a Rowley and Finnie colleague, Andrew Sunderland (Haseltine Lake LLP), wrote about the EPO’s next opportunity to throw out all software patents (but the judges in these cases lack autonomy, by their very own admission, so we doubt this will happen). To quote:

The first question is attempting to establish whether a simulation, by itself, can ever provide a technical effect.

If the EBA deems that a simulation, when taken in isolation, can have a technical effect, then the next question becomes; how can an examiner at the EPO reliably and repeatably assess patentability in such cases. This second question is essentially asking for a test or checklist, based on which an examiner can make an assessment.

The third question is asking whether a simulation, if claimed as part of a design process, could be patentable. Presumably if the answer to the first question is yes, then the answer to this question would also be yes. But a design process may imply a product, and verifying a design implies limitations to the simulation that may have real-world implications.

While the referral is pending, applications, oppositions and appeals in which the decision depends entirely on the answer to the above questions may be stayed at the request of the parties or by the examining or opposition division on its own initiative.

The EBA’s answers should provide some useful guidance on how to improve an applicant’s chances of successfully protecting simulation-related inventions in Europe. Watch this space for our follow-up article as soon as a decision is issued.

Depending on the outcome of this case, it may be possible to throw out European Patents on algorithms, not only at the courts but also at the Office. We’ve meanwhile noticed McKee Voorhees & Sease PLC’s Gregory “Lars” Gunnerson “Comparing United States and European Patent Law for Software”. Both de facto reject patents on software (the courts do), but dishonest patent offices continue granting these fake patents anyway. They leave the mess for the expensive courts and lawyers to deal with. We know at whose expense…

Henrion has just caught up with the article about “HEY HI” (AI) and what top British judges have to say. “UK judge skpetical of patents for AI,” he said, “but not the reason that AI is mere computer programs and training data. As an ex-patent specialized judge now at the Highest Court, mmh…”

We’ve already seen his court throwing out European Patents on algorithms, even as recently as this year.

The EPO and “Programming Eligibility in the United States” are also covered here, in a new article that mentions, 35 U.S.C. § 101, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), SCOTUS, and the Federal Circuit.

Both places (the US and Europe) grant patents on software — patents that courts repeatedly reject. They just don’t seem to care what the law is or what the rules explicitly say. To quote:

The patent qualification prerequisite at the EPO, that the topic must have a specialized character, is first surveyed without reference to the earlier workmanship. Accordingly, any non-specialized element, i.e., an element from a field prohibited from patentability under 52(2) and (3) EPC, can’t be considered for the evaluation of creative advance, except if the non-specialized component connects with the specialized topic to take care of a specialized issue. The “best in class” ought to be translated as significance the “condition of innovation”, and one of standard expertise in the workmanship is the individual talented in the applicable field of innovation. Fields barred under 52(2) EPC are not viewed as a major aspect of the innovation for the appraisal of imaginative advance. These appraisals are exceedingly emotional and have been liable to significant patent operator and patent inspector ion.

Programming Eligibility in the United States

No place in the United States Patent Act (Title 35 of the United States Code) is programming or PC programs explicitly referenced. Rather, patent law identifying with programming and PC projects is resolved, in any event fundamentally, by choices of the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).

Writing about “medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)” at Lexology, Accura Advokatpartnerselskab’s Morten Bruus, Christoffer Ege Andersen and Martin Dysterdich Jørgensen would have us believe anything EUIPO and EPO claim is true. Never mind who funded their so-called 'study'.

From their new article:

A joint EPO & EUIPO study measures the correlation between the IP activities of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the likelihood that they will experience a high growth period. The study finds that SMEs applying for patents, trademarks or designs have a greater probability of experiencing growth compared to SMEs that do not. In the process of reaching these conclusions further results are found of particular interest for innovators and IP portfolio managers as well as potential investors- and business partners.

That’s complete nonsense, but it’s designed to distract from the harsh reality; they actively harm SMEs. They help lawyers and their largest clients, who are typically not even European. Their priority isn’t Europe but large applicants, i.e. multinationals.

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 18/7/2019: OPNsense 19.7, Krita 4.2.3 and KDevelop 5.3.3 Released

    Links for the day



  2. Index: G 2/19 (Enlarged Board of Appeal, EPO)

    G 2/19 (Enlarged Board of Appeal, EPO)



  3. EPO Looney Tunes – Part 4: G 2/19 - Faites Vos Jeux…

    "Josefsson needs to bring in the “desired result” for his political masters in the Administrative Council if he wants to be in with a chance of reappointment."



  4. Media Not Interested in G 2/19, Which Demonstrates Patent Justice is Nowadays Impossible at the EPO

    The EPO spreads patent injustices to other countries and courts; the media is miraculously enough not interested, almost as though there's a coordinated blackout



  5. Librethreat Database Updated

    Database which keeps track of variants of attack vectors on Free/libre software now includes two more forms of threat



  6. A Look Back (and Forward) at Friendly Programming

    Historical perspective on computer languages and how to do better



  7. Red Hat's Freedom Reduced to Just Online Partner Enablement Network (OPEN) and Microsoft as a Close Partner; Canonical's Ubuntu Just an 'App' for Windows?

    Free software is being snapped up by proprietary software giants and patent bullies that treat it as little more than an 'add-on' for their proprietary offerings



  8. Linux Foundation Apparently Celebrates Sysadmin Day With a Microsoft Windows Site!

    The Linux Foundation shows ‘love’ to actual GNU/Linux (the real thing) by apparently rejecting it and badmouthing it



  9. EPO Looney Tunes – Part 3: The Legal Line-up for G 2/19

    The deck appears to have already been stacked for G 2/19, a decision on EPO judges' exile to Haar (veiled disciplinary action/collective punishment by those whom the judges are supposed to 'oversee')



  10. Links 17/7/2019: VirtualBox 6.0.10 and Mageia 7.1 Releases, Mint Betas

    Links for the day



  11. Links 16/7/2019: Btrfs Gets 'Cleaned Up', Clonezilla Live 2.6.2-15

    Links for the day



  12. EPO Looney Tunes - Part 2: The “Difficult Legacy” and Its Dark Historical Shadow

    Assuming that he was informed, then it seems fair to say that Battistell’s little “joke” at the expense of the Boards was in very bad taste



  13. EPO Noise Machine Turned On as Haar Hearing Kicks Off, Patrick Corcoran Defamed Again

    The EPO does not want people to hear about Haar; it just wants people to hear about how wonderful the EPO is and there are some who have just decided to slander Patrick Corcoran again



  14. Microsoft is 'Doing Kamikaze' (神風) on Linux

    An analogy for what the Linux (only in name!) Foundation and Microsoft mean to Linux — or by extension to GNU/Linux and Free software whose largest repository Microsoft took control of



  15. The 'New' Linux.com Sometimes Feels Like a Microsoft Promotion Site

    Anything that the ‘Linux’ Foundation touches seems to turn into its proprietors’ agenda; one of those proprietors is Microsoft, which has a "Jihad" against Linux



  16. IBM is a Threat to the Internet, Not Just to Software Development (Due to Software Patents Aggression)

    IBM continues its aggression against technology — a fact that’s even more distressing now that IBM calls the shots at Red Hat



  17. EPO Looney Tunes - Part 1: Is D-Day Approaching for Battistelli’s “Difficult Legacy”?

    European patent justice isn’t working within the premises of EPOnia; a bunch of ‘show trials’ may in fact turn out to be just that — a show



  18. Links 16/7/2019: LXD 3.15, Q4OS 3.8 and D9VK 0.13f

    Links for the day



  19. Links 15/7/2019: Vulkan 1.1.115 and Facebook Openwashing

    Links for the day



  20. Microsoft Office 360 Banned

    OpenDocument Format (ODF, a real standard everyone can implement) and Free/libre software should be taught in schools; it's not supposed to be just a matter of privacy



  21. Microsoft, in Its Own Words...

    Sociopathy, incompetence and intolerance of the rule of law, as demonstrated by Microsoft's top managers



  22. Microsoft's WSL is Designed to Weaken GNU/Linux (on the Desktop/Laptop) and Strengthen Vista 10

    What Microsoft does to GNU/Linux on the desktop (and/or laptop) bears much resemblance to what Microsoft did to Java a couple of decades ago



  23. Links 14/7/2019: Linux 5.2.1, Unreal Engine 4.23 Preview, Linux Mint 19.2 Beta

    Links for the day



  24. 25,500 Blog Posts and Pages

    With our thirteenth anniversary just a few months away we're at a pace of about 2,000 posts per year



  25. With WSL Microsoft is Doing to GNU/Linux What It Did to Netscape

    Embrace, extend, extinguish. Some things never really change even if they become an old and repetitive accusation.



  26. Allowing Bad Guests to Become the Hosts

    Why the so-called 'Linux Foundation', a nonprofit that acts more like a PAC controlled by proprietary software companies and people who don't even use Linux, is increasingly becoming a Linux-hostile front group



  27. Honesty and Collaboration Make Free Software Stronger, Microsoft is Inherently a Misfit

    In spite of all the lies Microsoft and its Web sites spew out on a daily basis, nothing has really changed and Microsoft is still attacking Software Freedom (mostly from the inside nowadays, helped by FUD proxies such as WhiteSource and Snyk)



  28. Patent Certainty Waning, But That's Still OK for Patent Trolls

    Patent maximalism remains a threat to everyone but patent lawyers (and patent office chiefs who measure their own performance only by the number of patents granted); best served are the patent trolls who extrajudicially attack already-impoverished parties behind closed doors



  29. GitHub is Microsoft's Proprietary Software and Centralised (Monopoly) Platform, But When Canonical's Account There Gets Compromised Suddenly It's Ubuntu's Fault?

    Typical media distortions and signs that Microsoft already uses GitHub for censorship of Free/Open Source software that does not fit Microsoft's interests



  30. Canonical is Turning Ubuntu Into a More Proprietary Deviant of GNU/Linux

    Ubuntu is becoming more 'Ubinary'; binaries without their source code available are packed up and cooked up for (or baked into) the ISO; this may be good for widespread adoption, but it's not an advancement of freedom, a capitulation rather


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