What the European Patent Office's (EPO) results that are reported by António Campinos -- and Battistelli before him -- tell us is how many monopolies they granted; these results say nothing about legal validity or legitimacy of these monopolies, enshrined by gross misuse of authority and violation of the law

Summary: We take a close look at what the EPO has just claimed about last year's performance and how media covered it (very shallow, almost facts-free and heavy on buzzwords)

WE will soon complete 6 years of in-depth EPO coverage. We started in summer of 2014. A lot has happened since then and many bogus European Patents have been granted since (almost always more than in prior years).

Patent examiners are smart people. They're not so easy to bamboozle and indoctrinate. They generally know what patents really are. Patents are not just some numbers added to plastics and moulds. A patent isn't the same thing as an invention. Surely examiners know the intricate economics of monopolies and how they shape both society and industry. There's nothing 'God-given' about it and patent law will be supported by the public (popular consent) as long as it successfully justifies itself, demonstrating that it remains true to its original goals.

" There's nothing 'God-given' about it and patent law will be supported by the public (popular consent) as long as it successfully justifies itself, demonstrating that it remains true to its original goals."I myself never applied for a patent, partly because I'm a coder and partly because there's no point to it (costs aside); it's often an employer (i.e. a manager and some legal team) suggesting if not imposing the pursuit of patents as though they're trophies. Corporate exclusivity is what they are.

Published the other day at "The Fish Site" as well as separately at FeedNavigator.com was information about an impending objection to a European Patent granted by the Office some time ago. To quote the former article:

BioMar is challenging a decision by an Olso court to fine it 16.5 million kroner, plus costs, for infringement of a patent held by STIM (formerly Europharma) relating to its SuperSmolt technology.

[...]

BioMar is appealing the judgement despite the fact that it does not affect the company’s right to continue to produce and sell its current product portfolio for smoltification. And two other leading feed companies have challenged STIM’s patent at the European Patent office (EPO).

There's a lot of money at stake and the main question is, was this patent/application properly examined?

"I myself never applied for a patent, partly because I'm a coder and partly because there's no point to it (costs aside); it's often an employer (i.e. a manager and some legal team) suggesting if not imposing the pursuit of patents as though they're trophies. Corporate exclusivity is what they are."Hours ago Watchtroll published an article entitled "Federal Circuit Affirms Board Finding That Customedia Patents Are Directed to an Abstract Idea," reminding us that loads of software patents and other dubious patents that USPTO examiners should not have granted are thrown out by higher courts like the Federal Circuit, sometimes following appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rather than lower courts. The inter partes reviews (IPRs) are having the desired effect.

It is with that in mind that we should examine the supposed "growth" at the USPTO (noted weeks ago) and EPO, based on nothing but patents granted and so-called 'demand' (for easy-to-get monopolies, even if courts later undo these monopolies). This isn't manufacturing, it's just paperwork.

The remainder of this post strives to be an almost exhaustive literature (or media) review, based on the so-called 'results' of the EPO. Since everything boils down to puff pieces we shall look at things from a sceptical and independent eye. We've found not a single article that we can recommend as everything just 'reads from the script' of EPO press releases/announcements. We've become accustomed to that.

Let's ask ourselves a simple question and go back to the basic, OK?

What is the EPO? It's an office staffed by Europeans.

"It is with that in mind that we should examine the supposed "growth" at the USPTO (noted weeks ago) and EPO, based on nothing but patents granted and so-called 'demand' (for easy-to-get monopolies, even if courts later undo these monopolies)."Does it also work for Europeans?

That's debatable.

Companies that are not even European get a 'fast lane'. Who is this system for then? Maybe it's more of a class thing than a regional thing. Many suspect so and there are facts or evidence on their side.

A few days ago the EPO wrote: "These were the most active companies in terms of patenting at the EPO in 2019."

Go ahead and count how many of these are based in Europe. Go ahead...

The press release said, in the title: "Demand for European patent protection from UK inventors and companies continues to rise" (but this one is tailored for the UK as if the system exists in a vacuum and British companies face no risks from it; it's a double-edged sword).

"Go ahead and count how many of these are based in Europe. Go ahead..."Here's the Irish puff piece along with another, which was retweeted by the EPO. It is one of two Irish puff pieces we were able to locate; articles like these ones won't tell readers that the EPO just lowered the patent(ing) bar, granting illegal patents. Actually fact-checking and doing analysis would not be part of 'the script'. The headlines are "Medical and computer technologies drivers of growth for Irish patent applications at the European Patent Office" and "Patent applications filed from Republic at record high," but what's clearly missing here is a yardstick not cherry-picked by the EPO itself.

Telecompaper later published this article to say: "The EPO Patent Index 2019 shows a jump in patent applications in the fields of digital communications (+19.6%) and computer technology (up 10.2%)."

Notice those domains/disciplines; they're being shrewd with words. Watchtroll's James Nurton went with "EPO Applications Up 4%, Led by Digital Communication and Computer Technology" and another Watchtroll article had the headline "Huawei Tops EU Patent Applicants," (EU???) revealing the weak fact-checking processes at Watchtroll. It's just pure propaganda and they're notoriously connected to EPO management.

Another new headline , this one from Law360, said "US Cos. Again Lead European Patent Filers Thanks To AI, 5G" (the EPO's overuse and misuse of silly hype waves like "5G" show that the EPO is nowadays run by rather clueless people).

"The considerable majority of European Patents don't even go to Europe."When EPO managers and Law360 say "hey hi" (AI) they mean illegal software patents that the EPO should be suspended for abusively granting in defiance of the EPC. Notice how focused they are on the US and Huawei (China) rather than Europe. The considerable majority of European Patents don't even go to Europe. To quote the portion outside the paywall: "Companies and inventors based in the United States were once again the top applicants for European patents in 2019, with new growth spurred by 5G and artificial intelligence technologies, according to data released Thursday by the European Patent Office. About a quarter of the 181,406 patent applications submitted to the EPO in 2019 were from U.S. filers, with United Technologies, Qualcomm and General Electric leading the pack. The EPO noted particular growth in the areas of computer technology, which includes many AI-related inventions, and digital communications, like those involving 5G."

Seems to be good for few American billionaires, who call their software "AI-related inventions," having capitalised on bogus guidelines from António Campinos, the man who like his appointer never wrote a single line of code and just name-drops buzzwords to compensate for it.

One Dutch site which uses English as its language said "Dutch rank 4th in EPO patent applications" (applications, not grants) and World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR), nowadays a megaphone of EPO propaganda, spoke of "AI patents" (it's even in the headline). "Hey hi" (AI) just means software patents or illegal patents that the EPO should not be granting (but examiners are being forced to grant anyway). These numbers are in some sense faked numbers, based on the violation of underlying laws. EPO policy nowadays mimics China's. Patent scope likewise and alike.

"These numbers are in some sense faked numbers, based on the violation of underlying laws. EPO policy nowadays mimics China's."And speaking of China, the EPO wrote: "The increase in applications at the EPO in 2019 was mainly fuelled by the strong increase in filing volumes from China, the US and South Korea..." (not Europe)

This was accompanied by puff pieces such as "Huawei applies for most patents in Europe" and "EPO: Huawei tops 2019 patent application ranking" (Taiwan News, but it is just Deutsche Welle (DW) reprinted). DW (English) did no actual investigation. Nothing.

What we see here is the "European" (by name) Patent Office working against Europeans (more risk of lawsuits from foreign nations, conglomerates and trolls). The above-mentioned article from the US attributes the growth to software patents. "Thanks To AI," said the headline, or in other words thanks to illegal algorithm monopolies that the Office illegally granted. "The EPO noted particular growth in the areas of computer technology, which includes many AI-related inventions, and digital communications," it said.

Illegal patents and fake patents make up much of the "growth". Also non-European applications.

"The Germans are made to think that it's a win for Germany, the Brits think that it's good for Britain and Irish media celebrates this as some sort of achievement for Ireland (not just lawyers stationed there)."But retweeted by the EPO in German was a misleading narrative like this one. The Germans are made to think that it's a win for Germany, the Brits think that it's good for Britain and Irish media celebrates this as some sort of achievement for Ireland (not just lawyers stationed there). Fake growth in monopolies isn't something to be cheered for. Collapse of patent quality is something to be condemned.

Also retweeted by the EPO was this nonsense (article that parrots EPO talking points) composed by a patent maximalist, Susan Decker, whom we mentioned here before. "Huawei increases its footprint in Europe," it said, "filing more patent applications there than any other company last year..."

What's for Europe to gain from it?

Separately, retweeted by EPO PR people was this CIPA tweet that said: "The @EPOorg has reported growth of nearly 7% in UK applications in 2019."

Notice how they try to make it sound like a British achievement. Lawyers in London know it may mean more business (litigation) for them. The Office lowered patent quality, broke the law, granted illegal patents and now these thugs from CIPA are celebrating this. Even invalid patents is something they'd make money from; this is why they love the abuses of the EPO. Today's EPO works for the litigation maniacs, not for actual inventors.

"Lawyers in London know it may mean more business (litigation) for them."Who needs substance when all one needs is a bunch of buzzwords and lawsuits?

This tweet retweeted by the EPO spoke of "#5G and #AI as drivers of growth" [sic] (fake patents for fake growth) and the EPO itself tweeted: "Digital communication saw the strongest growth in #patent applications in 2019 (+19.6% over 2018), overtaking #medtech (+0.9%), which had been the most patent-active technology since 2006."

The whole thing is being summed up using buzzwords like "medtech", along with other terms we explained here before. The names are deliberately genetic enough to encompass things well outside scope of patenting.

The initial tweet, citing the official page (warning: epo.org link), said: "The #EPOPatentIndex 2019 is out! A new all-time high in demand for patent protection (4% growth) & #digitaltechnologies take the lead in applications filed at the EPO Full details..."

Guess what they mean by #digitaltechnologies (the new "CII").

It's a patent-printing operation of abstract patents. "According to the EPO Patent Index 2019," says the official page, "the surge in the fields of digital communication (+19.6%) and computer technology (+10.2%) is fuelling the sustained growth in patent filings"

"They drive (or crash) the Office right into the ground."So now it becomes "computer technology" and "digital communication" (very generic).

To better understand how those patents get granted one might wish to see internal leaks like this one of Roberto Vacca.

No wonder examiners are so upset; they're not doing proper examination anymore, instead chasing quotas and targets to maintain fake growth for fake leaders and their cabel of unqualified friends. They drive (or crash) the Office right into the ground. ⬆