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

07.18.19

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

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 4:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Keep out, journalists…

Orange cone

Summary: 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

NOT a single patent blog is writing about G 2/19 at the moment. Nothing. We’ve checked. We’re not surprised, either.

It’s like media access is being obstructed (it isn’t, as we clarified earlier this week and I’ve urged some local bloggers to attend) or media is instructed not to deal with it anymore. IP Kat was sanctioned by the European Patent Office (EPO) after it had covered the attacks by Battistelli (and now António Campinos) on judges. How can these judges stop European software patents later this year? They cannot. We don’t expect a ‘European Alice’ or 35 U.S.C. § 101.

“Will EPO bring patents on life and nature to the UK as well?”A new comment from IP Kat (posted in the blog by Kant) said: “Apparently, Haar is indeed in Munich.” So says a rigged panel? We shall see. We are going to publish the final part of our series in a moment (see Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3).

It is meanwhile being reported that the UKIPO is cooperating with the EPO. Is this the effect of Rowan? Recall "Stephen Rowan: From UK-IPO to Operation Coverup of Team António Campinos" (published recently).

Ben Wodecki (IPPro Magazine) wrote: “The EPO is able to help under its bilateral cooperation agreement with UKIPO, which entered into force in July 2018.”

The ‘Rowan effect’? Will EPO bring patents on life and nature to the UK as well?

To quote Wodecki:

The European Patent Office (EPO) has agreed to conduct some biotechnology patent searches for the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) to help tackle its large backlog of applications.

UKIPO said it has recruited and trained patent examiners in this area, but “remain[s] unable to deliver the timeliness that we want for our customers, particularly in relation to searches”.

The EPO is able to help under its bilateral cooperation agreement with UKIPO, which entered into force in July 2018.

IP Kat is meanwhile reporting on Richard Arnold’s promotion in Mr Justice Arnold to become Lord Justice Arnold: congratulations!

“…external members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal can be problematic and help form a biased, rigged, stacked panel of judges. The final part of our series is about it and will be out soon. External members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO can be hand-picked for ‘favourable’ (to Office management) outcomes.”So British courts will soon have a connection to the EPO as well. Wodecki (IPPro Magazine) noted: “In March 2016, he was appointed as an external member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO)…”

As we shall show in our next post, external members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal can be problematic and help form a biased, rigged, stacked panel of judges. The final part our series about it will be out soon. External members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO can be hand-picked for ‘favourable’ (to Office management) outcomes.

From Wodecki’s article:

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has approved the appointment of judge Richard Arnold to the UK Court of Appeals.
Arnold served as a High Court of Justice judge in the Chancery Division from 2008 and was appointed to be judge in charge of the Patents Court in April 2013.

In March 2016, he was appointed as an external member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO).

During the high profile patent dispute between Warner-Lambert and Mylan/Actavis, it was justice Arnold’s rejection of Warner-Lambert’s arguments on the basis of lack of an inventive step that the Court of Appeal’s ruled as correct.

Going back to IP Kat, earlier this week Rose Hughes write about a Board of Appeal decision, but still said not a word about the more important Haar case that started yesterday and had a seemingly stacked panel of judges to render the case inadmissible. Hughes wrote about T 0439/17 instead:

In T 0439/17 (published online 1 July 2019), the Board of Appeal of the EPO considered the circumstances under which a third party may intervene in an opposition. In general, a third party may intervene in opposition proceedings, after the opposition period has expired, if infringement proceedings relating to the patent have been started against the third party (Article 105(1)(a) EPC). The meaning of “infringement proceedings” under this provision has presented some difficulties, given the diversity of potential “patent infringement” related court proceedings (civil and criminal) throughout EPC member states.

[...]

KCC also argued that the admissibility of the accession need not necessarily be assessed at the precise time of the submission. Other subsequent events (e.g. the bringing of an infringement action), should also be taken into account. KCC pointed to Rule 89 EPC as providing the possibility for ex tunc assessment, in particular the wording “the [statement to initiate proceedings] is only deemed to have been made when the [fee] prescribed has been paid”. The Board also dismissed this argument (r. 13). The Board commented that the wording used in Rule 89 EPC was used throughout the EPC and was not considered to have a retroactive legal effect. The appeal was dismissed.

T 0439/17 therefore confirms that pre-infringement evidence procurement procedures in national courts are not considered sufficient to allow a third party to intervene in opposition proceedings. The Boards of Appeal maintain that the intervention under Article 105(1)(a) EPC is to be considered “a procedurally exceptional situation, which is justified only by a substantial legitimate interest of the assumed infringer to enter the opposition proceedings” (T 1713/11, r.2.2). The BA thus seeks to prevent the definition of “infringement proceedings” in Article 105(1)(a) EPC from being elaborated to encompass national procedures beyond an infringement action per se. The onus is thus on potential infringers wishing to avoid lengthy and expensive national revocation proceedings to pay close attention to newly granted European patents, such that they can file timely oppositions of their own. The BA stresses that there can be no benefit of hindsight.

T 0439/17 and every other decision very much depend on G 2/19, which questions the legitimacy of all decisions issued in recent years, just like one single ILO-AT judgment rendered perhaps hundreds of others ‘invalid’ (Battistelli ignored that anyway).

We don’t suppose the EPO will say anything at all about G 2/19; it hasn’t mentioned it for a long time (probably months) and yesterday it wrote: “The EPO’s #SocialReport2018 is out! Our multinational staff, based in 4 amazing cities is what makes the EPO such a success story! Read all the facts and figures here: http://bit.ly/2Sgn3Hw pic.twitter.com/p2aoSf8mui”

As we explained before, the EPO bombarded with puff pieces the very moment G 2/19 started, painting itself with “ethics” and “peace”. These puff pieces were perfectly timed to distract… or to divert attention away from the violation of the EPC (and stacked panel chosen to thwart justice). It is abundantly clear that the location of the judges is outside the EPC’s geographical scope:

Haar

The EPO’s PR people keep dictating to European media what to do/say about the EPO (or avoid covering). Not too hard a task when there’s so much bribery money at their disposal and they indeed use it all the time to bribe publishers in creative, “innovative” ways…

The UPC Preparatory Committee and Alan Johnson (Bristows LLP) are once again desperately trying (yes, again!) to create an illusion of UPC ‘progress’ as they recently admitted to FT (they admitted they try to create a false impression). How can they justify advertising false job ads almost 4 years ago? For jobs that will never exist…

“For the 2016 applicants,” Johnson wrote, “the Preparatory Committee stated in a Press Release of 19 December 2018 that ‘Those that have applied for judicial positions in the Unified Patent Court are being contacted separately’ to enable applications to updated or withdrawn, as necessary.”

Put that on bus, Johnson! What liars and charlatans. As we’ve said many times over the years, how is it not an offense to publish false/fake job ads?

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 22/1/2020: Wayland 1.18 Alpha, ODF 1.3 Approved

    Links for the day



  2. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 21, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 21, 2020



  3. Poor Excuses for Granting Poor (and Often Illegal/Invalid) Patents

    A quick look at some of the latest examples of software patents advocacy (not by actual software professionals, obviously) and why it's deeply misguided (or guided solely by greedy law firms)



  4. A Simple Plan For a Universal Free Software Community

    "For software to be free as in freedom, we need more people to care personally about software freedom."



  5. Links 21/1/2020: Wine 5.0 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Beta

    Links for the day



  6. Startpage/System1 Almost Definitely Pay for People to Lie About Their Surveillance

    A longterm investigation suggests that there are forces in the debate that aren't objective and are being super evasive and dodgy; this typically happens only when somebody has much to hide



  7. The Internet is an Appalling Medium for News and It Has Only Gotten Worse

    Something ought to change in the way people gather and assess news; at the moment — as proper journalism runs out of steam (and budget) — things only deteriorate and quality suffers; this rapidly exacerbates as people come to rely on — and then relay — hearsay, not fact-checked bodies of work



  8. Media Reactions to the EPO Coming to Grips With Fake Patents That It Granted (Spoiler: the Media is Controlled by Lawyers of Monopolists and EPO Partners)

    Appalling quality of reporting and truly awful bias in the media, primarily owing to the fact that it is dominated/manned not by actual reporters but the firms looking to patent life itself; they use their lawyers and operatives who are literally funded by these lawyers (wearing "journalist" badges to mislead)



  9. Links 21/1/2020: EarlyOOM Fedora Decision and AMD Zen 3 Microcode

    Links for the day



  10. IRC Proceedings: Monday, January 20, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, January 20, 2020



  11. Links 20/1/2020: MNT Reform, Linux 5.5 RC7, KMyMoney 5.0.8

    Links for the day



  12. Mansion of Pedophilia – Addendum: Accessing and Assessing Court Documents

    How anyone out there can do the job the media failed to do (after an apparently unprecedented arrest at the home of Bill Gates)



  13. Mansion of Pedophilia – Addendum: Progress on Police Request

    9 updates from the police department of Seattle but still nothing material/concrete, only promises and major delays



  14. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, January 19, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, January 19, 2020



  15. Mansion of Pedophilia – Part VIII: More Than 4 Months of Waiting for Police Department to Send Over the Files They Claim to Have an Issue Opening

    The police department (PD) of Seattle is unable to open its own files about arrest for pedophilia at Bill Gates' home; it has been unable to open these files for several months, it claims...



  16. Starting a GNU Replacement for GitHub, Possibly Based on GitLab

    "It might be easier if we start from the GitLab software," Stallman said



  17. European Commission Pushes for Even Greater Patent Maximalism Instead of Rationality, Patent Zealots' Site Cherry-Picks China as Whipping Boy

    Fear of China is being leveraged to promote an agenda of patent maximalists; the general idea they promote is that granting millions of low-quality patents is the only way to compete, even if in reality that merely handicaps the whole market



  18. CRISPR Patents Disallowed, But Where Are the Journalists?

    The narrative surrounding last week's decision against CRISPR patents may have been virtually monopolised by the litigation think tanks and law firms; it certainly feels like no journalism is left to rebut them, fact-check, and introspect



  19. Links 19/1/2020: Wine 5.0 RC6, Alpine 3.11.3

    Links for the day



  20. Judges Reject EPO Patents on Life as Constitutional Complaints Against the EPO Pile Up in Germany

    EPO judges throw out patents on life (CRISPR at least); there's now growing hope that they'll have the courage to do the same to patents on software



  21. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, January 18, 2020

    IRC logs for Saturday, January 18, 2020



  22. StartPage (System1) Found New Spin Allies. Some Have Been Offered StartPage Jobs. Some Might Already be Working for StartPage in Secret.

    Pro-StartPage voices appear to be paid (or have been promised pay) by StartPage; the key strategy of StartPage seems to be, attack and betray people's privacy while paying people in particular positions to pretend otherwise



  23. IRC Proceedings: Friday, January 17, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, January 17, 2020



  24. Links 18/1/2020: Mir 1.7 and GNU Guile 3.0.0

    Links for the day



  25. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, January 16, 2020

    IRC logs for Thursday, January 16, 2020



  26. Links 16/1/2020: Mozilla Layoffs, PinePhone Braveheart Shipping, KDE Plasma 5.18 LTS Reaches Beta

    Links for the day



  27. Microsoft is a Market Leader in Lying and Corruption

    Microsoft is working hard to describe itself as the exact opposite of what it is and what it has been; ‘Internet rot’ helps a lot with this agenda, not to mention control of the media (the narrative)



  28. The European Patent Organisation Continues to 'Piss All Over' Separation of Powers

    The EPO continues to scatter invalid patents (IPs) that are European Patents (EPs) all over Europe and nobody can stop this, not even the judges of the EPO because they lack independence (by their very own admission)



  29. Zealots of Team UPC (Patent Litigation) Now Attacking the Courts and the Judges, Removing Their Mask on the Face of Things...

    The tactics of Team UPC aren't changing, only the shamelessness associated with these tactics is changing (because it looks like the end of days to them)



  30. Microsoft Now Uses or Leverages Software Freedom Against Free Software

    A reader's explanation of what Microsoft is trying to accomplish with its so-called 'embrace' and what steps will come next (how they manifest themselves)


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