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

12.25.19

EPO G 1/19 (Software Patents Case) Already Compromised by Overt Violations of the European Patent Convention (EPC)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

‘Orange Man’ or unqualified joker who does illegal things (with extended impunity) has supremacy over judges now?

Graffiti of clown

Summary: Lawlessness prevails at the EPO because the President of the Office is not respecting the judges’ ability to assess the EPC on their own (without fear of reprisal); he pressured them and he was meanwhile trying to ‘legalise’ — using new guidelines — a plethora of patents on abstract ideas

EARLIER this year we wrote about what had happened in G 2/19. The European Patent Office (EPO) continued to wage a wareon the European Patent Convention (EPC), which was supposed to govern the Organisation (which in turn should govern the Office; right now it’s all working the other way around!).

We have never ever seen anything even remotely like it at the USPTO (ever; in its entire history!) because with 35 U.S.C. § 101 and PTAB there’s little the USPTO can do to protect fake patents; moreover, unlike the EPO the USPTO can be sued (and this habitually does happen). The EFF has just spoken about — in defence of course — Alice[1]. They never ever speak about the EPO. Mark Cuban has not paid them to.

“…unlike the EPO the USPTO can be sued (and this habitually does happen).”Just before Christmas we caught some interesting bits regarding this matter. When patent maximalists (Gemma Wooden, Matthew Blaseby and Derk Visser in this case, a Wolters Kluwer bunch) want us to think that more patents would be “the merrier” (even fake patents courts would toss out) what are we supposed to think of them? Notice that third author. He’s not the more famous Derk Visser, who is nearly 90 now, and not the actor but the person behind the famous and expensive book (about a hundred bucks, sold by the owner of this blog and his employer) about EPC, “The annotated European Patent Convention”.

He’s in EIP Europe LLP in London (litigation) and according to himself he has been “Lecturer European patent law” in CEIPI from Jan 1994 to present, i.e. 26 years of “Training on all topics of the European Patent Convention”.

Over at the ‘Kat’ blog Riana Harvey has just advertised for CEIPI which is run by criminal Battistelli.

“Derk is actively involved in training students for the eqe all over Europe,” his official pages states. Here’s his latest about “inventive step” (published a couple of days ago):

One of the key questions in the assessment of inventive step within the EPO is whether or not the skilled person will adapt or modify the teaching of the closest prior art and arrive at the invention. The EPO answers this question using the so-called could-would approach developed in the early decision T2/83 of a technical board of appeal. Until recently, the Guidelines for examination in the EPO summarised the could-would approach as follows (see Guidelines 2018 G-VII, 5.3):

“In other words, the point is not whether the skilled person could have arrived at the invention by adapting or modifying the closest prior art, but whether he would have done so because the prior art incited him to do so in the hope of solving the objective technical problem or in expectation of some improvement or advantage (see T 2/83).”

The book Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO used the same summary of T2/83 as the Guidelines, also using ‘hope’ (see chapter I.D.5 in the July 2016 edition). However, the word ‘hope’ does not occur in T2/83.

The usual interpretation of T2/83 is that the skilled person must have a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the invention, otherwise he will not adapt or modify the closest prior art. If he does have such a reasonable expectation of success and he does arrive at the invention, the invention is obvious within the meaning of Article 56 EPC. The reasonable expectation must be based on technical reasons.

The above-cited passage of the Guidelines suggests that ‘hope of solving the objective technical problem’ is an alternative to ‘expectation of some improvement or advantage’. Hence, an invention should also be obvious if the skilled person hopes to solve the objective technical problem when adapting or modifying the closest prior art.

It troubles us that Derk has said absolutely nothing about the EPO’s gross violations of the EPC, which is nowadays violated and ignored (with shallow justifications). In this particular case Derk and his colleagues Gemma and Matthew persist with dreck. Never will they mention the loss of independence at the Boards of Appeal of the EPO — a problem which judges themselves (and AMBA) have spoken about repeatedly. The EPO is still governed by thugs, who have systematically prevented these judges from regaining independence.

D Young & Co LLP’s Stephanie Wroe has just written about this as well, unable to conceal that patent maximalists’ agenda. All they want is lots of fake patents and frivolous lawsuits — to the point where the firm apparently pays Lexology to spread this further and say:

The Board of Appeal held that because there had been no negative preliminary opinion from the Opposition Division and the change of opinion by the Opposition Division only occurred at oral proceedings, the patentee should be given the opportunity to respond by filing new requests. The Board of Appeal held that such new requests cannot be refused admission on the grounds that they are late filed.

The Board of Appeal went on to consider novelty which had been considered by the Opposition Division. The Board of Appeal held the claims were novel over the cited prior art. The Board of Appeal then remitted the case back to the Opposition Division to consider objections which the Opposition Division had not considered.

Good for patent maximalists, as usual.

But here comes the worse part.

As part of about 5 articles D Young & Co LLP has just published (shortly before Christmas) in Lexology and its corporate site we have Anton Baker showing his pro-software patents bias, celebrating the interference by António Campinos and trying to rationalise it. We mentioned this interference several times before, as did the ‘Kats’. Campinos is meddling in the affairs of judges in order to push illegal software patents. To quote some bits:

In answering this question, the President began by immediately criticising the “direct link with physical reality” finding, noting that the EPO Examination Guidelines are littered with examples of inventions which have previously been found to be technical despite having no obvious link to physical reality. Examples occur in the fields of computer graphics, speech synthesis and cryptography.

The President went on to confirm that, in his assessment, the standard problem and solution approach coupled with the COMVIK [see note 2 below] guidance on how to tackle mixed technical/non-technical inventions is the appropriate approach to answering the referral questions.

In applying this approach, the President noted that a crucial factor is whether the design of the claimed invention “requires the technical knowledge of a person skilled in the technical field”. The President considered that it was unfair to allow technical knowledge to be included in the requirements specification provided to the notional skilled person, as this would prevent technical aspects from supporting an inventive step under the COMVIK guidance

The President went on to comment that simulations which reflect technical principles underlying the simulation actually provide an approximate imitation of the simulated operation, irrespective of any direct input or output, and hence gives information about the technical properties of the simulated system.

As such, the President concluded that the first question could be answered as follows: “a computer-implemented simulation of a technical system or process claimed as such solves a technical problem by producing a technical effect going beyond the computer-implementation when it reflects, at least in part, technical principles underlying the simulated system or process.”

[...]

It is very encouraging to see the EPO President taking an active role in helping to ensure that the Enlarged Board of Appeal comes to a well-reasoned decision in such an important area. Regarding the President’s motivation for taking such an active role it is interesting to note that over the last year Andrei Iancu, the Director of the USPTO, has produced some detailed guidance for US patent examiners on subject matter eligibility which may have acted as a source of inspiration and recognition that this is an important topic on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal is presently considering the appeal but we are hopeful that they will reach their final decision in early 2020.

Why on Earth is Campinos meddling in this case? And in favour of patent maximalists of course…

What does that tell us about today’s EPO? Is it a monarchy and, if so, whose?

A colleagues has also just published (in Lexology and corporate site) this reminder of the EPO formalising a ‘legalisation’ of illegal — as per the EPC — software patents. Quoting the relevant parts:

Interpretation of means-plus-function features (F-IV, 4.13.2)

The Guidelines as amended now include a section (F-IV, 4.13.2) directed specifically to the interpretation of means-plus-function features. The section states that means-plus-function features (“means for …”) are functional features and therefore do not contravene Article 84 EPC. When considering patentability of these features, any prior art features which are suitable for carrying out the function of a means-plus function feature will anticipate that feature of the claim.

The Guidelines then highlight an exception to this in which the function of the means-plus-function feature is carried out by a computer. In this situation, the means-plus-function features are interpreted as means adapted to carry out the relevant steps/functions, rather than merely means suitable for carrying them out. Thus, in order to anticipate a claim, a prior art document must disclose an apparatus which carries out the claimed steps rather than merely an apparatus suitable for carrying out the steps. This is likely to have an effect on the patentability of computer implemented inventions which are often claimed as methods for carrying out a purpose.

Mathematical methods – technical implementations (G-II, 3.3)

The updates to the Guidelines include an additional comment regarding the technical effect of mathematical methods. If a mathematical method produces a technical effect when applied to a field of technology and/or adapted to a specific technical implementation, the computational efficiency of the steps affecting that established technical effect are taken into account when assessing inventive step. Therefore the efficiency of an algorithm will contribute when assessing inventive step. The EPO therefore seems to be acknowledging the effects that efficient algorithms can make. This may make it easier to argue the patentability of inventions in this field.

Mathematical methods – AI and machine learning (G-II, 3.3.1)

Further comments have been included with respect to AI within the section on mathematical methods. Previously, the expressions “support vector machine”, “reasoning engine” or “neural network” were written as referring to abstract models devoid of technical character. The Guidelines now state that these expressions may, depending on the context, merely refer to abstract models or algorithms and thus do not, on their own, necessarily imply the use of a technical means. The Guidelines then state that this has to be taken into account when examining whether the claimed subject matter has a technical character as a whole. It therefore seems that the EPO are recognising the potential for patentable inventions in this area.

Programs for computers (G-II, 3.6)

As for section (G-II, 3.3), updates have been made to state that if a further technical effect of the computer program has already been established, the computational efficiency of an algorithm affecting the established technical effect contributes to the technical character of the invention and thus to inventive step. An example of this is provided where the design of the algorithm is motivated by technical considerations of the internal functioning of the computer (for example the efficient functioning of the computer). As with the changes to the mathematical methods section, these may make it easier to argue the patentability of inventions in this field.

What we have above is D Young & Co LLP’s Alice Stuart-Grumbar on the illegal guidelines that pressure patent examiners to grant illegal (as per EPC) patents because of that “HEY HI” hype; among other things…

This is a travesty. The people who best understand the EPC aren’t saying anything when the EPO so grossly violates it and compels examiners the do the same. Either they obey the law or obey illegal guidelines from managers (to secure their job). This is wrong on so many levels and nobody in the media talks about it because journalism in the patents domain is dead, dead, dead. Well, journalism in general is dying, due to lack of funding and lack of financial independence. Some publishers that still exist depend on bribes they receive from the EPO.

Here’s a brand new example of it. So much for “IP News Center” (Banana Republic ‘IP’), copy-pasting EPO nonsense and presenting that as news:

EPO rejects two patent applications that designate a machine as an inventor

Not a single original word in there. Whatever the EPO wrote just got copied into “IP News Center” and then presented as “news”. This deafening is really saddening. It’s an echo chamber.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Time to Save Alice: 2019 in Review

    All too often, software patents stop more innovation than they promote. Patents are legal instruments that can be used to sue people and companies for creating, selling, or using software. Very often, the entities wielding software patents are “patent trolls”—companies that make money off suing and threatening to sue others instead of building or doing anything of their own.

    We’ve been advocating against problematic patents, particularly in software, for many years. In the past few years, it’s fair to say that patent trolls have been down—but not out. Two big changes that happened several years ago have made it realistic, finally, to get bad patents kicked out of the system. The first is the creation of the inter partes review system, in 2012; and next, the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision, in 2014.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Ask
  • Digg
  • Mixx
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Alltagz
  • BarraPunto
  • blinkbits
  • BlinkList
  • Bloglines
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Fark
  • Gwar
  • Klickts

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. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, August 02, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, August 02, 2020



  2. [Meme] Is It Not a Layoffs Round When You Rebrand It?

    More and more Microsoft layoffs; but the media is hardly interested in reporting those and/or analysing the growing scale of the layoffs (about half a dozen rounds of layoffs this summer alone)



  3. IBM is Already Gutting Red Hat and Firing Employees Without Warning, Jim Whitehurst Isn't Even Using GNU/Linux

    The situation at Red Hat isn’t good, employee morale is very low, and yet — perhaps unsurprisingly — nobody seems to be talking about it (at least not in the mainstream media)



  4. Microsoft Lays Off Many More Workers in the Advertising Division/s and Terminates Products While the Press is Distracted by TikTok Rumours

    Microsoft is laying off a huge number of workers without properly reporting these and whilst exploring ways to divert attention away from those layoffs



  5. Links 2/8/2020: Wine-Staging 5.14, VokoscreenNG 3.0.5

    Links for the day



  6. IBM and the Bomb - Part VI: Diplomacy Replaced With 'Trade' (Money Over Politics), or How Watson Jr. Was Sold to the Public, in the Same Way His Father (IBM Co-founder) Sold His Business Relationship With Dictators Like Hitler

    Sometimes people are led to believe that corporations directly and indirectly run their country; judging by the events of 4 decades ago (IBM chief becoming the American representative in Russia/Soviet Union), this is hardly a new thing and it's not a myth, either



  7. IBM and the Bomb - Part V: Arms Control by Company That Profits From Nuclear Arms? World War II Mistakes Repeated?

    A decade after the end of the deadliest war his father died and two decades later he repeated the same mistake — the error of conflating business with politics, as if maximising revenue would miraculously achieve the best outcome for nations as well



  8. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, August 01, 2020

    IRC logs for Saturday, August 01, 2020



  9. Links 2/8/2020: Nitrux 1.3.1, Debian GNU/Linux 10.5 “Buster” and Wine 5.14 Released

    Links for the day



  10. [Meme] Privilege: When They're Born Into Money That Means They Know Everything About Anything

    Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons were in 'safe hands' because rich kid Tom was representing the United States in Russia (USSR at the time), having proven his skills by being born to the man who had met Hitler and made lots of money in the Third Reich



  11. IBM and the Bomb - Part IV: IBM's Watson Came Under Fire for Representing the U.S. in U.S.S.R./Russia With No Qualifications or Any Relevant Experience

    There was certainly resistance to "Mr. rich man" Watson Jr. becoming a US diplomat owing to privilege (born into the 'right' family) rather than experience and/or political track record, symbolising a sort of "revolving doors" phenomenon -- namely overlap between business and politics, or money and power, respectively



  12. IBM Loves Power (and Nuclear POWER, or Expensive OpenPOWER) More Than It Loves GNU/Linux

    As we noted last week, IBM is very close to Modi because it is moving a lot of its workforce to India and this can become a future liability to IBM’s reputation (or lack thereof) as a tolerant firm



  13. IBM and the Bomb - Part III: IBM's Watson Jr. Rose From Business V.I.P. to U.S. Ambassador in the Soviet Union During the Cold War (Which IBM Profited From)

    Like his father, who was IBM‘s co-founder and later president of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), which helped the Nazis, Watson Jr. entered US and international politics in his later days; recently-declassified documents show us his political legacy



  14. Donald Trump's Trash Against China Helps Prop up Microsoft Monopoly and Distract From All the Microsoft Layoffs

    Microsoft as a surveillance giant of the United States government isn’t a myth; it was first in the PRISM programme of the NSA (Bill Gates is a loud proponent of NSA surveillance), it took over European Skype under mysterious circumstances, and now it might be getting TikTok as a ‘gift’ from Donald Trump’s friends and the imperialists, in effect confiscating Chinese assets for full-spectrum dominance



  15. [Meme] Testosterone Patent Office

    When you're running an office that's barely diverse at all and you paint a misleading picture of it expect backlash



  16. The Criminals Who Run the EPO Are Exploiting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People to Distract From Their Corruption and Crimes

    The misuse of social justice causes by corporate interests has become grotesque; more people ought to speak about the ramifications and object/work against this misuse, which mostly serves to obscure or distract from the biggest issues



  17. EPO Workers Are Losing Their Homes and Losing Their Time Off; It's All About So-called 'Production'

    As another wave of attack on labour rights, European Patent Office (EPO) workers turn their homes into their workplaces and they no longer enjoy any real breaks from work (they work all year around, sometimes until midnight and overnight); they’re supposed to be thankful and even happy as if António Campinos does them a favour by not firing them (at least not yet) and because there’s a health crisis they should be grateful for anything thrown at them (Benoît Battistelli + disaster = Campinos)



  18. IRC Proceedings: Friday, July 31, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, July 31, 2020



  19. Managing IP Still Champions Fake 'News' for Team UPC

    Managing IP does not care about its reputation; all it cares about is appeasing its clients by spreading falsehoods and perpetuating baseless hope



  20. Links 31/7/2020: Sys Admin Appreciation Day, GTK 3.99, Alpha of Wayland's Weston 9.0

    Links for the day



  21. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, July 30, 2020

    IRC logs for Thursday, July 30, 2020



  22. Microsoft Banned *GPLv3 (It Would Have Done the Same Even in GitHub Had GitHub Not Already Hosted GPLv3-Licensed Projects)

    Techrights reproduces this decade-old article from RMS



  23. People Who Believe Global Warning is a 'Hoax' Are the Types Who Might Think Microsoft Really Loves Linux

    Facts don’t seem to matter all that much when the Public Relations ‘industry’ pays to push lies (and “Microsoft loves Linux” is among those truly laughable lies, which are valuable to Microsoft's long-term objectives and are therefore repeated endlessly in the media for maximal effect)



  24. [Meme] GitHub is Not About Sharing But About Giving... Everything to Microsoft

    Microsoft wants to meet your ‘meet’ (meat) and assimilate it as Microsoft’s own; why would anyone still be giving anything (code, bug tracker, CI etc.) to proprietary and centralised (controlled by Microsoft) platforms in 2020? It’s a trap, as even the logo serves to suggest (octopuses putting their tentacles all over you and crushing you with their mouths).



  25. Bill Gates Calls the Chinese 'Pirates' (But He's Simply Projecting Again)

    The world's "most generous" person (according to publishers whom this "generous person" pays to write this) is saving the world from "pirates" (but not the ones in Somalia, just poor people in places like China)



  26. Microsoft Needs Linux (More Than GNU/Linux Needs Microsoft) for the Same Reason a Drowning Person Needs 'Revenge'

    There’s this persistent notion, based upon a deliberate lie (which Microsoft pays the media to perpetuate), that Microsoft has ‘come around’ and magically learned to “love” the competition (as if Ballmer and Nadella are opposites when they’re in fact friends and longtime colleagues); it’s obviously just a phase of a very old strategy and some out there are still in denial about it (this denial is being encouraged by the bribed publishers, notably the mainstream media)



  27. [Meme] It Was Only a Matter of Time All Along

    Taking boot level control away from computer users was a bad idea all along; giving Microsoft control over Linux booting was the icing on the cake (having to ask Microsoft for certificate/permission), not to mention an FSF award for it



  28. IBM and the Bomb - Part II: How IBM Sneaks Into Positions of Power (and Nuclear Power, Global Superpower, Nuclear Weapons)

    We remind readers of the role IBM played in unbridled armament (from which it profited a lot) whilst also picking diplomatic roles in the American government



  29. Karma or Hubris? Is #TorvaldsWasRight a Thing Now?

    Techrights did not forget how UEFI 'secure' boot came into kernel space; This proposal came from Red Hat and then foisted/pushed onto Linus Torvalds by at least 3 Red Hat employees (the mainstream media blasted Torvalds for his response to this 'offensive' technical move by Red Hat, helping Intel and Microsoft control silicon at CA level)



  30. Links 31/7/2020: New Thunderbird and FreeBSD Foundation, Now 20, Has Got a New Look

    Links for the day


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