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

10.02.19

EPO Releases Decision Regarding G 2/19 (the ‘Haar Question’) in a Language Only About 10% of Member States Speak

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 2:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

What a classy move!

Document dump
Reference: Document dump

Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) discloses its controversial judgment in a relatively minimal form and in a language that suits people in Germany and Austria; they don’t want people to notice that all EPO judgments for a number of years were likely illegal (in defiance of the European Patent Convention (“EPC”))

THE PREVIOUS POST ended with a mention of the “Guidelines for Search and Examination at the EPO,” by which the EPO hopes to grant software patents through buzzwords. But there’s an even worse aspect; the judges of the EPO lack independence and the EPO isn’t doing anything to correct this.

“…the judges of the EPO lack independence and the EPO isn’t doing anything to correct this.”Promoted via Lexology was this new article by Potter Clarkson LLP’s Tony Proctor. He wrote about the EPO’s Boards of Appeal, which have no independence whatsoever (this whole system is rogue now), and this is what he had to say about “Changes to the Rules of Procedure of the EPO Boards of Appeal”: (notice nothing at all is being done regarding much-needed autonomy)

The rules governing the appeals process at the European Patent Office are being changed, with the aim being to speed up the appeals process and the expected effect being to reduce flexibility for appellants. Here we discuss the expected knock-on effects on first instance proceedings, particularly oppositions, as well as on existing and new appeals.

There’s still high-level EPO corruption that ensures judges are indebted to (and afraid of) the Office — the very authority that they were created to scrutinise rather than guard. Just published in German was this decision with “full reasoning in G2/19″. Why only in German? Big Phrama blogger Rose Hughes (Patent Attorney at AstraZeneca) wrote: “This Kat is therefore currently forced to rely on the EPO summary.”

The EPO is, as usual, making it harder for people to see its coverup of sheer corruption, subversion of justice and so on. When the case went on the EPO posted a whole bunch of distractions. The EPO was gaming the media and nobody but us covered it at the end. “The appeal was considered inadmissible,” as noted below:

The EPO has announced the issue of the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s full reasoning in referral G 2/19. As previously noted on IPKat, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) had previously released their decision in G 2/19 but had not published the decision (EPO press release).

The referral originated from the Board of Appeal decision T 831/17. The appeal related to a case in which a third party had submitted observations pursuant to Article 115 EPC that a patent application (EP2378735) lacked clarity. Clarity is not a ground for opposition. The third party was therefore not able to oppose the subsequently granted patent on the same ground.

In order to pursue their clarity objection to the now granted patent, the third party filed an appeal against the decision to grant. The appeal was considered inadmissible. The Board of Appeal also referred the question to the EBA of whether the right to oral proceedings in appeal proceedings is limited if the appeal is evidently inadmissible. The referral also asked the question of whether the relocation of the Boards of Appeal to outside Munich contravened a party’s right to be heard.

Prior to the decision, the Haar/Munich aspect of the referral was covered by IPKat here, and the oral proceedings issue was covered in more detail here. The referral attracted a number of amicus curiae, including submissions from EPI and CIPA.

[...]

The G 2/19 decision is currently only available in German. This Kat is therefore currently forced to rely on the EPO summary. Stay tuned to IPKat for further commentary once an English translation becomes available.

This is pretty astounding. For a number of years the EPO issued a lot of judgments in a court whose existence (in this particular form) violates the EPC and they refuse to even deal with that issue.

“The EPO bullies its staff. The majority of them have rather severe stress, many need to seek professional help and a large proportion develop physical problems that are chronic.”This is typical EPO. It’s a bully, a thug, and a foe of justice. Just ask its own staff; no, not the mythical staff the EPO has just promoted (“How do our #patent examiners work?”).

The EPO bullies its staff. The majority of them have rather severe stress, many need to seek professional help and a large proportion develop physical problems that are chronic. The EPO is no place to work and it’s not hiring. It’s also outsourcing the jobs.

Incidentally, retweeted by EPO a short while ago was this tweet from Saudi Arabia: “The bilateral meeting between @SAIPKSA and the European Patent Office(EPO)was held today in Geneva.The two sides reviewed aspects of cooperation in the field of patents and the opportunities of enhancing the strategic partnership between the sides.”

“Even EPO staff that complains isn’t being listened to. It’s like these people don’t matter because they interfere with ‘Big Litigation’ agenda.”I responded by saying that it makes perfect sense for EPO to have alliances with countries that chop people like me to pieces and put them in tandoori ovens (for speaking about injustices like those in EPO).

Sadly, most if not all of the above issues are no longer discussed by the media. The EPC being violated should be front page news, but somehow that’s being ignored. What do so-called ‘law’ firms speak about? Nothing but marketing or shameless self-promotion; in this particular case we have Paul Calvo and Fei Sha (Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.) citing the EPC as if it still matters at the EPO. But it doesn’t. They would be wiser to point out EPO violates the European Patent Convention (“EPC”) every day. From their new article:

The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (EPO) permit the use of post-filing experimental data in a limited manner to support the scope of objected claims. However, reliance on post-filing data differs when claims are objected to for insufficiency of disclosure or lack of inventive step.

Sufficiency of Disclosure

Article 83 of the European Patent Convention (“EPC”) requires European patent applications to “disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.” A single example may suffice, but for claims that cover a broad field, a patent application must disclose multiple examples or describe alternative embodiments or variations extending over the technical area encompassed by the claims. If a patent specification lacks disclosure of tangible proof that the claimed concept can be put into practice, post-published documents can confirm the teachings of a patent application, but cannot be used to “cure” an insufficiency in disclosure.[1]

For example, if a patent disclosure provides no guidance as to how to perform a particular aspect of a claimed invention, post-published documents that later show how such performance is accomplished cannot “cure” the insufficiency.[2] In addition, if a patent specification provides only a vague indication of possible medical use for a yet-to-be-identified chemical compound, post-published documents containing details as to the identity and medical use of the compound cannot remedy the insufficiency of disclosure.[3] However, where an application lacks such explicit data, but discloses a technical concept that is plausible in view of common general knowledge at the relevant filing date, post-published documents may be used to support sufficiency of disclosure.[4]

Notice how they examine little details while ignoring all the big questions and the severe issues; this has become so typical that it’s almost sickening. Even EPO staff that complains isn’t being listened to. It’s like these people don’t matter because they interfere with ‘Big Litigation’ agenda.

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

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

What Else is New


  1. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 15, 2019

    IRC logs for Tuesday, October 15, 2019



  2. No, Microsoft is Not an 'Open Source Company' But a Lying Company

    The world’s biggest proprietary software companies want to be seen as “open”; what else is new?



  3. Meme: Setting the Record Straight

    Stallman never defended Epstein. He had called him “Serial Rapist”. It’s Bill Gates who defended Epstein and possibly participated in the same acts.



  4. EPO Staff Resolution Against Neoliberal Policies of António Campinos

    “After Campinos announced 17 financial measures,” a source told us, “staff gathered at multiple sites last week for general assemblies. The meeting halls were crowded. The resolution was passed unanimously and without abstentions.”



  5. Satya Nadella is a Distraction From Microsoft's Real Leadership and Abuses

    "I’m merely wondering if his image and accolades that we’re incessantly bombarded with by the press actually reflect his accomplishments or if they’re being aggrandized."



  6. Raw: EPO Comes Under Fire for Lowering Patent Quality Under the Orwellian Guise of “Collaborative Quality Improvements” (CQI)

    Stephen Rowan, the President’s (António Campinos) chosen VP who promotes the notorious “Collaborative Quality Improvements” (CQI) initiative/pilot, faces heat from the CSC, the Central Staff Committee of the EPO



  7. Making The Most of The Fourth Age of Free Software

    "For better or for worse, we can be certain the Free Software Foundation will never be the same."



  8. FSF is Not for Free Speech Anymore

    The FSF gave orders to silence people



  9. Links 16/10/2019: Plasma 5.17.0, Project Trident Moves to GNU/Linux, NuTyX 11.2

    Links for the day



  10. ...So This GNU/Linux User Goes to a Pub With Swapnil and Jim

    It's hard to promote GNU/Linux when you don't even use it



  11. How to THRIVE, in Uncertain Times for Free Software

    "The guidelines are barely about conduct anyway, they are more about process guidelines for "what to do with your autonomy" in the context of a larger group where participation is completely voluntary and each individual consents to participate."



  12. When They Run Out of Things to Patent They'll Patent Nature Itself...

    The absolutely ridiculous patent bar (ridiculously low) at today’s EPO means that legal certainty associated with European Patents is at an all-time low; patents get granted for the sake of granting more patents each year



  13. EPO Boards of Appeal Need Courage and Structural Disruption to Halt Software Patents in Europe

    Forces or lobbyists for software patents try to come up with tricks and lies by which to cheat the EPC and enshrine illegal software patents; sadly, moreover, EPO judges lack the necessary independence by which to shape caselaw against such practices



  14. Professor Dr. Maximilian Haedicke on Lack of Separation of Powers at the EPO (Which Dooms UPC)

    Team UPC (“empire of lies”) is catching up with reality; no matter how hard media has attempted to not cover EPO scandals (after the EPO paid and threatened many publishers that tried), it remains very much apparent that EPOnia is like a theocracy that cannot be trusted with anything



  15. As Expected, the Bill Gates Propaganda Machine is Trying to Throw/Put Everyone off the Scent of Jeffery Epstein's 'Incestuous' Ties With Gates

    Media ownership up on display; it's amplifying false claims for a whole month, whereas truth/correct information gets buried before a weekend is over



  16. IRC Proceedings: Monday, October 14, 2019

    IRC logs for Monday, October 14, 2019



  17. [ES] El Kernel de Linux está introduciendo Open Source Privative Software

    Linux, el kernel, continúa su trayectoria o el camino hacia convertirse en software propietario de código abierto (OSPS).



  18. Linux Foundation Board Meeting

    More sponsored keynotes and tweets — like more sponsored articles (or “media partners”) — aren’t what the Linux Foundation really needs



  19. Links 14/10/2019: Linux 5.4 RC3, POCL 1.4, Python 3.8.0

    Links for the day



  20. This Week Techrights Crosses 26,000 Posts Milestone, 3 Weeks Before Turning 13 (2,000+ Posts/Year)

    A self-congratulatory post about another year that's passed (without breaks from publishing) and another milestone associated with posting volume



  21. No Calls to "Remove Gates" From the Board (Over a Real Scandal/Crime), Only to "Remove Stallman" (Over Phony Distraction From the Former)

    Jeffrey Epstein's connections to Bill Gates extend well beyond Gates himself; other people inside Microsoft are closely involved as well, so Microsoft might want to cut ties with its co-founder before it becomes a very major mess



  22. “The Stupidest [Patent/Tax] Policy Ever”

    It’s pretty clear that today’s European patent system has been tilted grossly in favour of super-rich monopolists and their facilitators (overzealous law firms and ‘creative’ accountants) as opposed to scientists



  23. Meme: Software Patents at the EPO

    The evolution of “technical effect” nonsense at the EPO



  24. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, October 13, 2019

    IRC logs for Sunday, October 13, 2019



  25. Firm of Microsoft's Former Litigation Chief Uses Microsoft-Connected Patent Lawsuit Against GNU/Linux (GNOME Foundation) for New Breed of FUD Campaigns

    The patent troll of Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold has fed a patent troll that's attacking GNU/Linux and a firm owned by Microsoft's former litigation chief says it proves "Open Source Software Remains a Target"



  26. "Widespread Adoption" (Did You Mean: Takeover by Monopolies?)

    "Quite a few of them are people that would rather replace David with Goliath, just because he's bigger. Quite a few are already taking money from Goliath."



  27. Links 13/10/2019: Red Hat CFO Fired and KDE Plasma 5.17 Preparations

    Links for the day



  28. Bill's Media Strategy Amid GatesGate

    There are many ways by which to game the media’s news cycle — an art mastered by the groper in chief



  29. Hard-Core Micro-Soft

    The word "core" is increasingly being (mis)used to portray user-hostile proprietary software as something more benign if not "open"



  30. Free Software Timeline and Federation: When Free Software Advocacy/Support is a Monopoly Expansion Becomes Necessary

    Support for Software Freedom — like support for Free software (think Red Hat/IBM and systemd) — should be decentralised and compartmentalised to make the movement stronger and adaptable


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