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

08.01.19

The Boards’ (of Appeal) Fear of Enforcing the Law (EPC) Will Doom the European Patent Office

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 4:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

It’s just a big bubble waiting to burst

Big bubble

Summary: The Convention on the Grant of European Patents 2000 (EPC 2000) is totally meaningless judging by the actions of today’s EPO and the scope of European Patents; this means that a bubble is being inflated pending an inevitable implosion

European Patent Office-granted patents (EPO patents or European Patents, EPs) are rapidly losing their value, just like USPTO-granted patents after 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Team Campinos/Battistelli doesn’t think long-term; like CEOs of companies all they care about is quarterly or annual “targets”; quality isn’t part of it and one might call quality an “obstacle” (it slows things down when all one is willing to measure is “products”, numerically).

“Over at Lexology, Marks & Clerk’s Donald McNab misses the point that the EPO attacked all these Boards that are supposed, in principle, to govern things from a legal perspective, as per the EPC. They’re toothless now.”The EPO was supposed to be self-correcting, but the EPC was violated in many possible ways. There’s no separation of powers. Last month we saw EPO ‘justice’ in a nutshell — a stacked panel of judges refusing to even deal with the question of the EPC being violated (instead deeming the very question ‘inadmissible’). Who are they kidding?

Over at Lexology, Marks & Clerk’s Donald McNab misses the point that the EPO attacked all these Boards that are supposed, in principle, to govern things from a legal perspective, as per the EPC; they’re toothless now. They cannot do their job. But Marks & Clerk, being the patent maximalist it has always been, chose to focus on upcoming rule changes:

In a meeting of its Administrative Council on 26 and 27 June, the European Patent Office (EPO) approved new Rules of Procedure for its Boards of Appeal (RPBA), which will come into force on 1 January 2020 (“RPBA 2020”). This approval comes after a consultation process, which saw 140 comments made on a first draft and a conference held in Munich in December 2018 to discuss a second draft, amendment of which has led directly to the RBPA that will now come into force. Although the full effect of these rules on practice before the EPO, not only in appeals but probably also in first instance proceedings, will only become clear once these rules have come into effect, it is generally understood that the new rules are likely to be more burdensome on parties than the existing rules and we recommend that cases presently on appeal at the EPO, or which may be the subject of appeals, be reviewed as soon as possible in case potentially beneficial action may be taken before the new rules come into effect.

The EPO’s Boards of Appeal have exclusive jurisdiction to decide upon appeals against so-called first instance decisions handed down by other departments of the EPO, for example decisions in oppositions to granted European patents and decisions refusing European patent applications. The RPBA are binding upon the Boards, “provided that they do not lead to a situation which would be incompatible with the spirit and purpose of the [European Patent] Convention” (Article 23 RPBA, unamended).

[...]

There are still further changes that will come into effect on 1 January 2020, which we have not discussed. These include the possibility for Boards to issue decisions in which the reasons are given in abridged form or partially abridged form; and timescales for Boards to issue decisions. Additionally, if a Board’s rapporteur is asked to do so by the Board’s Chair, (s)he will assess whether or not more than one appeal should be handled together or whether any appeals should be taken out of turn, seemingly for reasons of overall procedural economy.

[...]

Lastly, in view of the future importance of decisions from first instance proceedings on appeal proceedings, not to mention that of the minutes of any first instance Oral Proceedings, these (both decisions and minutes) will need to be considered to a greater extent than before, to minimise the possibility that subject-matter presented on appeal may be regarded as an amendment, which could potentially be inadmissible.

So “inadmissible” again? Does anyone still believe that the rule of law prevails at the EPO? Not even EPO staff believes that anymore. Alluding to the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G05/83, Tim Fitzgerald and Michael Finney (IP Gateway Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys and Bennett & Philp Lawyers, respectively) have just mentioned Swiss-type patent claims, affirming our observation that the EPO became extremely lenient when it comes to patent quality:

Swiss-type claims were originally approved by the Swiss Patent Office as a mechanism to allow for protection of a new therapeutic use of a known compound (i.e., second or further medical use), given prohibition of claims to methods of medical treatment.[1] The claim format was subsequently accepted at the European Patent Office (EPO) and affirmed in the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G05/83. In particular, the Enlarged Board held that it was “legitimate in principle” to allow Swiss-type claims where the formulation was for a specified new and inventive therapeutic application, even where the process of manufacture did not differ from known processes using the same active ingredient.

Under the provisions of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents 2000 (EPC 2000), claims in the format “Compound X for use in treating condition Y” (‘European use format’) are construed as use-limited for novelty purposes, and Swiss-type claims are no longer allowable in Europe.[2] Nevertheless, previously issued European patents containing Swiss-type claims have the potential to remain in force until at least 2031.[3] In recent years, there has been substantial judicial assessment of infringement requirements for Swiss-type claims of existing European patents, including in the UK.[4]

The Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office cannot be viewed as an independent judiciary anymore. It’s not their fault, either. The Office colluding with a supine Administrative Council did this and terrorising the Boards’ judges sure leads to acceptance of whatever the Office wants. Unless one wishes to risk unemployment, demotion, slander and even public mobbing.

“The number of applications is already decreasing, so how can Campinos demonstrate any growth for much longer? Expect layoffs or something similar. It’s the cost of mismanagement.”What has meanwhile emerged (also today) is an upcoming patent case. The UK Supreme Court might soon throw out some more questionable European Patents granted by the EPO (it throws out many such patents these days). There’s one particular patent at stake here. It still exists because of the EPO Boards of Appeal:

Entyvio is an anti-integrin used to treat ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Entyvio recently outperformed Abbivie’s Humira in a ulcerative colitis phase 3b clinical trial and sales of Entyvio reached $1.37 billion in the nine months to December 2018. Roche claimed that Entyvio infringed its European patent EP 2 007 809. The patent had been maintained in amended form by the EPO Boards of Appeal following an opposition by GSK and Novartis (T1784/15). Takeda denied infringement and brought a revocation action in the UK courts against the patent.

The patent related to a modified antibody structure that reduced the capacity of the antibody to cause unwanted cell death. Particularly, Claim 1 of the patent related to a glycosylated human monoclonal antibody, characterised by the fucose content of its sugar chain: at least 99% fucosylation (as measured by LCMS peptide mass analysis). Although not mentioned in the patent in words, Roche argued that the high level of fucosylation abolished the ability of the antibody to cause cell death (as shown in the Figures of the patent).

Judging by recent rulings from the same court, there’s a good change the patent and the lawsuit will be thrown out (at the highest court in Britain). There’s also this new update on the German Supreme Court (BGH) deciding in relation to the EPC (“The European Patent Office (EPO) has developed a standing practice with regard to the enablement requirements (Art. 83 EPC) with regard to claims…”), but it’s behind a paywall. Many predict — and quite rightly in fact — that in the coming years the gross discrepancy between the EPC and EPO will become visible in courts outside EPOnia, reducing legal certainty and valuations of EP portfolios. The number of applications is already decreasing, so how can Campinos demonstrate any growth for much longer? Expect layoffs or something similar. It’s the cost of mismanagement.

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 23/1/2020: Qubes OS 4.0.3, EasyOS 2.2.5, GhostBSD 20.01

    Links for the day



  2. Passion of the Microsoft

    A rough timeline of Microsoft’s interactions with Linux and the Linux Foundation since 2015



  3. The Patent Microcosm is Really Panicking as European Patents on Life and Other Spurious Junk (Invalid Patents) Are Successfully Rejected

    European Patents (EPs) may be revoked en masse if what we're seeing is the gradual emergence of 'European Mayo' (and maybe soon 'European Alice')



  4. Distractions From Microsoft's Gigantic Tax Evasion and Contribution to Denial of Climate Science

    Microsoft (connected to oil companies) wants us to think of it as a "green" company; not only does it contribute to climate denial but it also evades tax, which is a serious crime that costs tens of billions of dollars (the public pays this money instead)



  5. Confirmation: System1/Startpage Offered Pay to People Who Pushed for (Re)Listing in Privacy Directories

    The debate is now settled; those arguing in favour of listing Startpage as privacy-respecting are in fact secretly 'compensated' by Startpage (in other words, they're Startpage 'shills')



  6. Vandana Shiva: “Bill Gates is Continuing the Work of Monsanto”

    A recent interview on what Bill Gates is really up to in that sham ‘charity’ of his



  7. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, January 22, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, January 22, 2020



  8. Extending Linux With DRM, Azure and exFAT

    An insufficiently 'conservative' Linux ceases to be freedom-respecting



  9. Linux Foundation (LF) Now Dominated by Lots of Microsoft People and LF Chiefs Join Microsoft in Smearing GPL/Copyleft

    We continue to see additional evidence which serves towards reinforcing our view that the so-called 'Linux' Foundation is actually hostile towards many things that are associated with Linux (unlike those looking to exploit/hijack Linux for proprietary ends)



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

    Links for the day



  11. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 21, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 21, 2020



  12. 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)



  13. 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."



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

    Links for the day



  15. 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



  16. 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



  17. 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)



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

    Links for the day



  19. IRC Proceedings: Monday, January 20, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, January 20, 2020



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

    Links for the day



  21. 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)



  22. 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



  23. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, January 19, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, January 19, 2020



  24. 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...



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

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



  26. 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



  27. 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



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

    Links for the day



  29. 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



  30. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, January 18, 2020

    IRC logs for Saturday, January 18, 2020


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