01.16.20

Gemini version available ♊︎

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 in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, May 25, 2022

    IRC logs for Wednesday, May 25, 2022



  2. Heads of Patent Offices Are Immune to Coronavirus

    The overconfident chiefs of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and EPO might love speaking about COVID-19 (in relation to patents), but they do not take it seriously themselves



  3. Links 26/05/2022: Plex Finally on GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  4. The General Consultative Committee of the EPO Exposes a Disaster and a Lack of Genuine Dialogue

    The General Consultative Committee (GCC) at the EPO deals with unlawful proposals from António Campinos (he’s happy to violate laws, constitutions, protocols, conventions, just like Benoît Battistelli did) and once again the abuses by managers is covered up; it’s as if the Office is run by unaccountable gangsters who arrogantly curse at everyone whilst insisting they’re the nicest people ever



  5. The Latest Letter to Josef Kratochvìl and the Heads of Delegation of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation

    A week-old letter from the Central Staff Committee (CSC) to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation highlights the nature of a crisis; there's no genuine dialogue and staff of the EPO (i.e. the scientists who do all the actual work) is constantly under attack



  6. [Meme] The Recordings Must Have Accidentally Been Lost While Breaking the Rules

    The EPO‘s “nicest” chief, Monopoly Tony, won’t even mention the recordings…



  7. Links 25/05/2022: ‘V Rising’ on GNU/Linux and Pearl Linux OS 11

    Links for the day



  8. Links 25/05/2022: Librem Tries Another Approach

    Links for the day



  9. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, May 24, 2022

    IRC logs for Tuesday, May 24, 2022



  10. Links 24/05/2022: nginx-1.22.0 and WordPress 6.0

    Links for the day



  11. [Meme] Divine Protection

    You won’t find Monopoly Tony (António Campinos) wearing a mask at the EPO because the rules of the Office do not apply to him



  12. António Campinos and the Alicante Clique (EPO Management, Appointed Based on Nepotism Despite Lack of Qualifications) Nowadays Exploiting Kids for PR Charades

    The sick old habit of exploiting kids for Public Relations (PR) and marketing purposes is all too common at the EPO (they’re constantly exploiting “the children” to associate criticism of the EPO with demeaning the young and innocent), but the management — which enjoys nepotism and immunity rather than relevant skills — carries on today and it’s being called “inaugural”



  13. [Meme] Snake on a Plane

    The EPO‘s President ‘Monopoly Tony’ (António Campinos), whom you never see wearing a mask (none of the photo ops; he does not even socially distance himself from peers, he wears sneakers instead of masks) during the height of a pandemic, is the "f***ing president"; don’t tell him to wear one…



  14. Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part XX — Entering Phase II

    We're about to resume the long-running series about the sick clique which ran GitHub until the assault on women became too much of a liability (among other wrongdoings and PR blunders)



  15. Links 24/05/2022: Fedora 37 Test Days and Tor Browser 11.0.13

    Links for the day



  16. Microsoft Vidal, as USPTO Director, Already Plays 'Political Cards' to Disguise and Deflect Away From the Corporate Agenda

    Microsoft Vidal, another corporate pawn in charge of the world’s most dangerous patent system, is using soft-spoken defle



  17. Links 24/05/2022: WAL-G 2.0

    Links for the day



  18. IRC Proceedings: Monday, May 23, 2022

    IRC logs for Monday, May 23, 2022



  19. Unethical Advertising, Published as So-called 'Articles', in CNX Software

    As we noted earlier this year, the CNX team is looking for money in the wrong places



  20. Links 23/05/2022: Broadcom to Buy VMware?

    Links for the day



  21. LibreOffice Conference 2022, As Before, Puts the Keynotes on Sale (the Rich Buy Influence, the Price Doubles)

    Discrimination against the community; talks and mentions are based on money, not merit ($2000 has become $4000 in just one year)



  22. Links 23/05/2022: Kdenlive 22.04.1 and New Alpine Linux Released

    Links for the day



  23. António Campinos Promotes Software Patents Using Buzzwords and Sketchy Loopholes With Dubious Legal Basis

    ‘Monopoly Tony’ (António Campinos) is shamelessly manipulating EPO processes at both ends (sender and receiver) to facilitate the illegal granting of invalid European software patents; we’re meant to think this former EU official and imposter (banker) is some guru in the sciences because he reads a lousy speech crafted for him with lots of meaningless buzzwords peppered all over it (he’s not good at reading it, either)



  24. [Meme] Jorgotta Be Kidding Us, Campinos!

    Monopoly Tony (António Campinos) runs the EPO by attacking the very legal basis of the EPO’s existence



  25. Unified Patent Court (UPC) Relies Too Much on Lies and Mischief Without Any Basis in Law

    Today’s video runs through the typical (weekly) lies from Team UPC — lies that are very easy to debunk; Team UPC not only drafted the thing but also looks to profit from it while misleading politicians and bribing publishers to spread intentionally misleading statements (lies)



  26. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, May 22, 2022

    IRC logs for Sunday, May 22, 2022



  27. Links 23/05/2022: Fedora 36 Reviewed

    Links for the day



  28. [Meme] It's My Working Party... And I'll Cry If I Want to!

    EPO President António Campinos is still not being held accountable for his Code of Conduct violations



  29. Links 22/05/2022: The 5.18 Kernel is Out

    Links for the day



  30. Gemini is Bigger Than Most People Care to Realise

    Geminispace has gotten to the point where it's too computationally expensive (or outright pricey) to study, let alone keep abreast of, Gemini capsules or the domain space as a whole


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