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 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. Nothing Has Truly Changed Since Netscape and Antitrust

    The same old crimes persist, as well as the blatantly anticompetitive behaviour



  2. When the Monopolists and the Patent Litigation Industry Hijack the News They Control the Narrative

    Money buys perception and litigation firms have certainly 'bought' the media coverage, which fails to convey the issue at stake and instead paints a rational court decision as tragedy for "innovation" (by "innovation" they mean monopolies on nature and on life)



  3. Links 25/1/2020: OPNsense 20.1 RC1 and DXVK 1.5.2

    Links for the day



  4. The Linux Kernel is No Longer Free Software?

    Gardiner Bryant, the creator of The Linux Gamer as well as The Off Topical Podcast, reacts to our articles about DRM in Linux (he even pronounced my name correctly)



  5. Sometimes Proprietary Software is Proprietary (Secret) Simply Because It is Not Good and Obfuscation Helps Hide Just How Ugly It Is

    Why nonfree (or proprietary) software generally fails to catch up with Free/libre software — at least on technical grounds — and then makes up for it with marketing and FUD offensives (discrediting perfectly-functioning things, based on their perceived cost)



  6. IRC Proceedings: Friday, January 24, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, January 24, 2020



  7. Links 24/1/2020: GNU/Linux in Russia and More New Openings

    Links for the day



  8. When EPO Press Coverage Boils Down to Lobbying, Press Releases, EPO Lies, and Bribery

    Any attempts to properly assess and explain what happens in Europe's patent landscape are being drowned out by EPO-bribed and law firms-connected media; to make matters worse, the EPO's bribes have expanded to academia, so even scholarly work in this domain is corrupted by money of special interest groups



  9. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, January 23, 2020

    IRC logs for Thursday, January 23, 2020



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

    Links for the day



  11. Passion of the Microsoft

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



  12. 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')



  13. 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)



  14. 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')



  15. 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



  16. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, January 22, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, January 22, 2020



  17. Extending Linux With DRM, Azure and exFAT

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



  18. 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)



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

    Links for the day



  20. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 21, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 21, 2020



  21. 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)



  22. 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."



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

    Links for the day



  24. 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



  25. 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



  26. 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)



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

    Links for the day



  28. IRC Proceedings: Monday, January 20, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, January 20, 2020



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

    Links for the day



  30. 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)


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