Earlier this week: EPO Under Fire From EU Parliament, But Patent Trolls Already Storm Europe, Emboldened by Low Quality of European Patents

Reference: Computer Programs Directive (programmers only want and need copyrights)

Summary: Law firms in Europe and outside Europe (or foreign firms with branches in the EU) are pursuing office policy that defies European law; moreover, these firms encourage applicants to pursue illegal patents (with office complicity), knowing that few of these will ever be tested in courts (patent trolls capitalise on this extrajudicial nature and large companies cross-license to cement monopoly/oligopoly); European officials must speak out and end this abuse once and for all like they did about a week ago to tackle a related abuse

WITH Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos as Presidents of the European Patent Office (EPO) -- in effect two nontechnical people -- it's hardly surprising that the Office pushes for patents on life/nature and software patents in Europe. These people have no idea and no clue what it's like to actually create something. The Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), by contrast, does have some distant background in science (his opposition to 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 notwithstanding), but he hasn't worked in the sciences for decades.

"Kilburn & Strode LLP promotes illegal, invalid, incompatible-with-EPC and clearly abstract patents that EPO management tolerates and lets be in defiance of the law."A month ago Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review wrote about a patent dispute over patents on life itself (GMO) and promoted through Lexology some hours ago was this self-promotional 'article' (ad) from Kilburn & Strode LLP's Benni Pfundner. Kilburn & Strode LLP promotes illegal, invalid, incompatible-with-EPC and clearly abstract patents that EPO management tolerates and lets be in defiance of the law. In his own words (advice for getting such fake patents):

In Europe the allowance rates at the EPO for business methods are consistently the lowest of all fields of technology, but the reasons for both success and failure are arguably much clearer than in the U.S. For many years, the EPO’s approach to assessing business methods and software inventions has been standardised and consistent. Where we see failure at the EPO is when applications are drafted without knowledge of the EPO approach. The good [sic] news is that it's possible to ensure that your applications have the best possible chance of succeeding in Europe by following a few simple rules. In addition, we have seen that applying these rules when drafting can also have a positive impact in other jurisdictions such as the U.S.

With that in mind, here are four key things to consider when drafting business method, software or other applications relating to subject matter on the borderline of patent eligibility. As will become apparent, the four steps are linked, and so provide a handy step-by-step structure to guide your thought process as you draft a new patent specification.

[...]

Some quick-fire tips:

- If in doubt, get advice from your trusted European advisor at an early stage. A brief review at the initial drafting stage before priority filing can pay dividends further down the line.

- It might not always be possible to “fix” applications for Europe at a later stage due to the strict approach taken by the EPO in relation to added subject matter.

- The European standard for examining inventive step is generally regarded as one of the strictest. This means that if your application is set up to succeed in Europe, it should be best placed to succeed elsewhere as well!

This is so typical. The law firms actively undermine or -- at best -- 'work around' the law. The same thing is happening in the US. The patent zealots just attack courts and judges now. Gene Quinn of Watchtroll attacked the Federal Circuit as recently as last night. They unravel like Donald Trump. It's easy to just "criticize Federal Circuit" instead of just making arguments of substance. This is a loser's strategy. ⬆