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

01.16.20

The European Patent Organisation Continues to ‘Piss All Over’ Separation of Powers

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 10:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Nobody speaks for judges’ loss of independence anymore (the European Patent Office controls them instead of the other way around)

AYE PEE everywhere AYE PEE? Does it mean invalid patents (IP)?

Summary: The EPO continues to scatter invalid patents (IPs) that are European Patents (EPs) all over Europe and nobody can stop this, not even the judges of the EPO because they lack independence (by their very own admission)

THE U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) deals with both patents and trademarks, so sometimes it wants a “collective” term for both. “AYE PEE” (“IP”) is a misnomer though; “IPR” is even worse because it adds one more lie, falsely implying that patents aren’t just “property” but also “rights” (they’re neither).

António Campinos — like Battistelli — has no excuse for (mis)using legal terms. He runs a patent office, not a “patents and trademarks” office (though he was in EUIPO before) and so far this week we saw the EPO ‘tweeting’ terms like “IP” several times per day. More than the usual…

Remember that any time they push software patents in Europe in defiance of the EPC (or 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the US) they basically try to tell us that code doesn’t need copyrights but patents. That’s baloney. Ask actual developers and coders…

“The law firms want us to view nature and life as “sciences” which are therefore “inventions” that merit patents. Sounds ridiculous? Of course! Because it is.”The EPO’s misleading terminology is contagious and it originally comes from litigation firms/lawyers. In the copyright domain they’ve dubbed infringers “pirates” — same word as used to describe people who raid boats, murdering ship crews (or turning them into hostages if they’re ‘lucky’).

Conflating patents with “AYE PEE” (“IP”) — and that’s how patents are described in this new and typical press release about the EPO [1, 2, 3] — is no laughing matter. It has significant harms.

How about the term “life science”? We wrote several articles about that back in 2018. The law firms want us to view nature and life as “sciences” which are therefore “inventions” that merit patents. Sounds ridiculous? Of course! Because it is.

Nowadays, as the EPO violates all the laws, it can’t seem to see how ridiculous it is. Life Sciences [sic] Intellectual Property [sic] Review has just published:

The European Patent Office (EPO) will refer several questions in the Broad Institute’s ongoing CRISPR patent case to the enlarged board of appeal, meaning the case is set to drag out further.

The appeals board hearing the case made the announcement at the start of proceedings in Munich this morning, January 15.

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), the enlarged board of appeal is a higher panel which reviews questions of “fundamental importance” that have been referred to it by a lower appeals board or the EPO president.

Speaking in Munich this morning, the appeals board hearing the Broad’s case also clarified that making the referral would mean the current proceedings would be adjourned.

The Broad Institute gave “emphatic objections” to the decision to refer the issues in question, LSIPR understands.

AstraZeneca at IP Kat (guess who’s side is taken on CRISPR) has insinuated judges are cowards even though we see Campinos already meddling in their cases, partly in the open (pushing them to allow software patents). To quote AstraZeneca Kat:

A week before Christmas, the Court of Justice of the EU handed down its judgment in IT Development SAS v. Free Mobile SAS (case C-666/18). The question, referred to the CJEU by the Paris Court of Appeal was, in short, whether the Enforcement Directive (2004/47) and the Software Directive (2009/24) are applicable to those cases in which the infringement of IP rights (the unauthorized alteration of a computer program) also constitutes a breach of contract (typically a licence agreement) between the parties.

In the case, the plaintiff, IT Development, granted a licence to the respondent, Free Mobile, for use of a software package. The plaintiff alleged that the respondent had modified the software in breach of the licence agreement and, accordingly, it sued for “contrefaçon” (a non-contractual type of IP infringement action under French law). The Tribunal de Grande Instance dismissed the suit, arguing that there was no case of liability in tort, given that the respondent “was clearly alleged to have failed to perform its contractual obligations, providing a basis for an action for contractual liability, and not for the tortious act of infringement of software copyright”.

On appeal by the plaintiff, the Paris Court of Appeal asked the CJEU–
whether Directives 2004/48 [Enforcement Directive] and 2009/24 [Software Directive] must be interpreted as meaning that the breach of a clause in a licence agreement for a computer program relating to the intellectual property rights of the owner of the copyright of that program falls within the concept of ‘infringement of intellectual property rights’, within the meaning of Directive 2004/48, and that, therefore, that owner must be able to benefit from the guarantees provided for by that directive, regardless of the liability regime applicable under national law.

As usual, the comments at today’s IP Kat are vastly better than posts. The second comment said: “The world is not so simple as expressed above. Let’s say the priority application contained a rechargeable battery and a charger developed for that battery. These two aspects were developed by two companies and they file a joint application. It turns out that only the charger is novel so the company which developed the charger files an application on it own for the charger claiming priority. Should it be denied the right to priority simply because the EPO has interpreted “any” in a manner contrary to its normal meaning?”

“MaxDrei” took issue with the term “chickening out”:

I sympathise with the Board and think it true but a bit harsh, to characterize a reference as “chickening out”. If ever there was a case deserving of analysis by the EBA, this is it.

I disagree that the crux of the dilemma is special treatment for Americans. I see it, rather, as the burden which the EPO Boards of Appeal carry, to craft a body of law which the rest of the world is unable to disparage, which the RoW can accept as a template for development of its own national jurisprudence.

For example, the existing “Gold Standard” at the EPO is, to my mind, more or less unassailable. But, on matters of ownership of rights, the EPO has less experience, less case law. Further, the way the EPC sets it up, the EPO is not tasked to be the final arbiter of ownership of rights. The EPC envisages this to be a job for the courts.

Then there is the important universal issue of “proportionality”. As Robin Jacob has said: who wants to be a patent attorney, when one moment of inattention to one formality or another can blow away for ever all possibility of any patent rights whatsoever. My view is that one should refrain from punishing excessively something in the nature of a simple oversight. Rather, one should strive to find a remedy that is proportionate and which balances the interests of the parties in dispute.

Sometimes it takes an extreme set of circumstances to expose a defect in the intellectual foundation of the established case law. And once such a shift in perceptions has occurred, one can never again be satisfied with the established case law. So when a TBA is faced with such an extreme example, and inclined to find fault with the established case law, it should put aside any considerations of discourtesy towards esteemed colleagues. Rather, it should work out why the established law is wrong, and then write a Decision so well-reasoned that all those esteemed colleagues reading it with a mind willing to understand will grudgingly accept the force of the argumentation.

Only the next comment mentioned the independence issues:

I concur with MaxDrei, in particular, because

1) the priority issues at stake ARE a point of law of fundamental importance,
2) Art. 112(1)(a) EPC (in contrast to Art. 112(1)(b) EPC) does not require diverging case law,
3) Art. 112(1)(a) EPC does not explicitly require that the questions is decisive for the acutal case (see German version: “hierzu” instead of “hierfür”, i.e., the referral is to be required for a uniform application of the law or for answering a point of law of fundamental importance (and not for the actual proceedings),
4) the external members of the EBoA have to be involved for anwering points of law of fundamental importance, because
a) they are truly independent (e.g., their main income does not come from the EPO),
b) they are less biased from an established (sometimes very questionable) practice of the EPO and/or case law of the BoA.

Like we said earlier this week, we wish “MaxDrei” and others still remembered the outcry of the judges. They aren’t happy being stuck there in Haar with the Office meddling in their affairs. Why is nobody mentioning that anymore?

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 28/3/2020: Wine 5.5 Released, EasyPup 2.2.14, WordPress 5.4 RC5 and End of Truthdig

    Links for the day



  2. IRC Proceedings: Friday, March 27, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, March 27, 2020



  3. The Fall of the UPC - Part VIII: Team UPC Celebrates Death, Not Life

    Team UPC plays psychological games now; it is trying to twist or spin its defeat as good news and something to be almost celebrated; it is really as illogical (and pathetic) as that sounds



  4. Links 27/3/2020: GNU/Linux Versus COVID-19 and Release of GNU Guile 3.0.2

    Links for the day



  5. When Your 'Business' is Just 'Patent Portfolio'

    Hoarding loads of patents may seem impressive, but eating them to survive is impossible if not impermissible



  6. LOT Network is a One-Man (Millionaire's) Operation and Why This Should Alarm You

    The ugly story of Open Invention Network (OIN) and LOT; today we take a closer look at LOT and highlight a pattern of 'cross-pollination' (people in both OIN and LOT, even at the same time)



  7. Faking Production With Fake Patents on Software

    The EPO with its illegal guidelines (in violation of the EPC) can carry on churning out millions of fake patents that European courts would only waste time on and small companies be blackmailed with (they cannot afford legal battles)



  8. With the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Out of the Way Focus Will Return to EPO Corruption

    Expect the European Patent Office (EPO) to receive more negative attention now that the ’cause’ of UPC is lost and there’s no point pretending things are rosy



  9. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, March 26, 2020

    IRC logs for Thursday, March 26, 2020



  10. Links 27/3/2020: qBittorrent 4.2.2, Krita 4.2.9, pfSense 2.4, Bodhi Linux 5

    Links for the day



  11. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, March 25, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, March 25, 2020



  12. Still Work in Progress: Getting Those 2,851 Pages of Police Report About Arrest for Pedophilia in Home of Bill Gates

    It’s extremely difficult to get those police records, which were requested exactly one day before the media started attacking Richard Stallman (associating him with pedophiles based on a deliberate distortion)



  13. Links 26/3/2020: Plasma Bigscreen, New Kubernetes, Fedora's New Identity and Bodhi Linux 5.1.0

    Links for the day



  14. Guest Article: Window Managers, Github and Software Disobedience

    "Walking away from monopolies is the essence of freedom"



  15. Links 25/3/2020: LLVM 10.0.0 and UCS 4.4-4 Released, WordPress 5.4 RC4

    Links for the day



  16. 'Team UPC' Last Week

    The looks on Team UPC's faces 5 days ago (before and after the 9:30AM announcement)



  17. The Fall of the UPC - Part VII: Lies and Revisionism About the Reasons for the UPC's Ultimate Demise (to Leave the Door Open for More Failed Attempts)

    The media was lying in a hurry, in a coordinated effort to distort the meaning of the FCC's decision or belittle the impact of this decision; Techrights will carefully watch and respond to these lies



  18. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, March 24, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, March 24, 2020



  19. Linux Foundation Became Anti-Linux, Run by Microsoft People to Serve Microsoft's Agenda

    Microsoft is taking over the bodies of healthy projects, infecting the hosts in order for them to become slaves of the proprietary parasite; there's still no (known) cure, but we're familiar with the symptoms



  20. Microsoft Continues to Attack and Steal From the Open Source/Free Software Communities

    Microsoft cannot be trusted and there's no "new Microsoft," as another fairly new story serves to show



  21. Targeted Attack Leveraging FSF Servers

    Targeted by a determined and persist perpetrator, I've received over 20,000 E-mails. And the weapon of choice was the FSF's infrastructure, remotely misused against yours truly.



  22. If We Weren't Silencing Founders, Critics and People We Just Don't Like

    "In the long run, history is rarely very kind to tyrants, especially the ones who did little more than lie to people and demand things that served no real purpose."



  23. The Fall of the UPC - Part VI: Drowning in Material

    We're starting to see few good reports on the subject of UPC being rejected by the constitutional court of Germany; we also have a rapidly-growing 'buffer' of rather blatant examples of disinformation (which we'll tackle as best we can)



  24. FFII: EU Software Patent Court Stopped by Constitutional Court, Patent Industry Will Try Again

    The third attempt to validate software patents in Europe via a central patent court (UPC) has been stopped by the German Constitutional Court. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) would have given the keys of the kingdoms to the patent industry, and the last word over software patentability. FFII predict that the patent industry will continue to push for an UPC v2.0.



  25. Links 24/3/2020: Alpine 3.11.5, MythTV 31.0 and Tails 4.4.1

    Links for the day



  26. IRC Proceedings: Monday, March 23, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, March 23, 2020



  27. Links 23/3/2020: Linux 5.6 RC7, Audacious 4.0, and Git 2.26 Released

    Links for the day



  28. The Fall of the UPC - Part V: Pretending That Opponents of the Unitary Patent Simply Don't Exist

    It's difficult if not totally impossible to find articles from impartial journalists -- let alone from actual scientists -- about the failure of the Unitary Patent and UPC Agreement (UPCA)



  29. The Fall of the UPC - Part IV: IP Kat Became Just a Team UPC Megaphone

    Willem Hoyng (Drafting Committee of the UPC's Rules of Procedure) is 'writing' IP Kat right now; has the blog turned into the very thing it fought to expose?



  30. The Fall of the UPC - Part III: Pure Comedy From Watchtroll and Its UPC Lobbyists From Managing IP

    Two megaphones of European Patent Office (EPO) management and boosters of Team Battistelli, namely Managing IP and Watchtroll, want us to think that UPC is merely “delayed” and that acts of overt corruption can be described as “passed unanimously by the Second Chamber of the Bundestag”


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