Clear and obvious violation of the EPC, but today's Office treats the EPC like Donald Trump treats every law he has run over

Summary: The EPO is making it easy for all to see that much of its supposed 'growth' actually comes from patents that it should never have granted in the first place because they're illegal

THE DANCE or the "waltz" around the term "software patents" isn't a new thing. The EPO has done that for well over a decade, preceding the Mafioso and and his 'son'. "CII" used to be the most common dance around the most meaningful and fundamental term, but people caught up with the true meaning of it; so the game of words moved on a bit, with "CII" being more like the old and familiar 'dinosaur'. When one says "CII" inside and outside the EPO people generally know that it's a synonym ("software patents" with words like "invention" inserted for extra excitement). Who would deny a patent on an actual "invention"? After all, algorithms are inventions in the same sense cookie recipes are inventions. Or mathematical formulae.

Anyway, we've already written several hundreds of articles on the topic of why software patents are undesirable, harmful and unwanted by almost every single person who develops software (coder/programmer/tester or more modern buzzwords like "DevOps"). We're more or less certain that senior EPO examiners are familiar with the arguments and they generally know that it tends to be a battle between attorneys and actual (practicing) engineers. One group wants to work in peace and another group wants to destroy in war. Too blunt? Well, it's true. Ask those attorneys what computer program/s they wrote. I asked some before; someone called Gene Quinn (Watchtroll's founder) even lied to me about it, then he ran away and blocked me in Twitter (to escape any further questions, which embarrassed him and destroyed his credibility/integrity). It turned out he didn't even know what a computer program is and how it works (he insisted a markup object/Web page was a program!).

"It brags about granting illegal patents."Anyway, today's European Patent Office (EPO) illegally grants patents on all sorts of things and then brags about it. It brags about granting illegal patents. The people who manage the EPO aren't coders and they don't really understand what they grant patents on. All they care about it a bunch of graphs and plots moving upwards. What about quality? They call speed "quality"; the faster they grant, the better the... quality?!

Just before the weekend the EPO boasted: "With a #patent application increase of 10%, #computertechnology was the second fastest growing technology field at the EPO in 2019. https://bit.ly/DigitalisationIndex … #EPOPatentIndex"

Oh, here we go again with "DigitalisationIndex" and "computertechnology" (so broad and vague a category). Then they did "DataRetrieval"; More buzzwords for illegal software patents that aren't allowed in Europe -- patents that the EPO is granting and mostly to American firms (US and Canada), by its very own admission: "In #DataRetrieval, applicants from the US led in terms of share (48%), while EPO member states (23% share) continue to steadily innovate in this field. Further details: https://bit.ly/DigitalisationIndex … #EPOPatentIndex"

So they're granting loads of software patents, giving these monopolies to American companies. What's in it for Europe? Nothing.

The EPO also tweeted: "Applications in image data processing and generation have also spiked. From 2018 to 2019, the field received 11% more #patent applications. https://bit.ly/DigitalisationIndex … #EPOPatentIndex"

This is my area of research. More illegal software patents are being granted, soon to be categorised as "image data processing and generation" (that's maths!). These patents are being illegally granted by corrupt EPO management, looking to fake 'growth'. It'll certainly pave the way for frivolous litigation and extortion in Europe. All this to the detriment of everyone but patent trolls and law firms...

The EPO then tweeted: "Our European Patent Academy's #elearning centre offers a broad range of online training courses on #patents and IP topics. http://bit.ly/EPO_eLearning"

This page starts with "Videogaming and IP: how to play the game" -- another class of software patents (on games).

Are the EPO's best spinners ill? Are they replaced by cheaper PR staff that's openly bragging about software patents several times per day?

The EPO also bragged: "Between 2018 and 2019, the EPO posted a 29% overall increase in patent applications in #MachineLearning and #PatternRecognition. https://bit.ly/DigitalisationIndex … #EPOPatentIndex"

How much more obvious can it get? Those are software patents! No question about it. There's not even a "device"...

In other words, the corrupt EPO management decided to break the law (yet again) and allow such patents against all treaties and laws. This while shielded -- with diplomatic immunity of course! -- so the people responsible for this crime will never be held accountable.

They're setting up an avalanche here. The US saw the same thing. Here's a brand-new example of "CII" falling on its sword again at the Federal Circuit in the US. It's a “computer-implemented method for notifying users having patents of subsequent publications that reference the patents.”

Here's what happened, as reported a couple of days ago:

The Federal Circuit has an internal practice of only issuing R.36 affirmances-without-opinion in cases where the court holds oral arguments. Most of the oral arguments have been cancelled for the court’s April sitting. The result then is that either (1) the court is going to write a lot more opinions or (2) the court will shift its practice to now start issuing no-opinion judgments even without oral arguments.

Today's short decision in In re Thomas (Fed. Cir. 2020) (per curiam) suggests to me that the court will be writing the opinions. Douglass Thomas is a patent attorney and his claimed invention is a “computer-implemented method for notifying users having patents of subsequent publications that reference the patents.” The examiner rejected the claimed invention as ineligible and that decision was upheld by the PTAB (along with finding the claims anticipate/obvious).

So even US courts are nowadays rejecting the sorts of patents the EPO is granting.

The EPO tweeted: "Curious about #blockchain & #patents? We'll be talking about the patent landscape in this field at this free-of-charge webinar: https://bit.ly/2V56AJV"

Here they go with "blockchain" again...

The cited page (warning: epo.org link and requires JavaScript to view) says: "In this webinar we will present the emergence of Blockchain related technologies in terms of patenting activity. Blockchain has captured the attention of the public and research has intensified in this field over the last few years, making it a highly interesting topic of study for patent analysis in order to obtain insight into the developments of this emerging technology."

They also grant patents on blockchains whilst openly admitting that those are software patents.

Over in China, the 'role model' of today's EPO, the patent office is formally allowing software patents or patents on mere maths. This helps fake 'innovation' in circles that measure that based on number of patents alone. Days ago the patent maximalists published this article entitled "China’s new patent examination guidelines a boon for AI and blockchain" and Karry Lai said "IP counsel from IBM, Megvii and others welcome CNIPA’s open approach but see room for more clarity..."

When IBM asks for "clarity" it basically asks for broader patent scope. IBM continues to blackmail loads of companies using its thousands if not tens of thousands of software patents.

Someone has just pointed out, citing an article in German, that "[C]hina has most patents in 2019" and I responded by simply stating that it says nothing about the quality of patents. China flooded WIPO with junk and WIPO likes it (fake 'growth'). "I can make my own patent office," I added, and "grant a million patents a day ;-)"

The upcoming avalanche of fake patents will be costly not to law firms but to productive companies gullible enough to pursue such patents, based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of law.

In the US, for example, the number of new patent lawsuits that involve software patents declined a great deal. It's not even easy to find such lawsuits anymore. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) often thwart such patents before they even reach the courts.

Suffice to say, patent maximalists and sites in their pockets have no problem with any of that; they profit from this sort of patent inflation. Here's a new 'ad for an upcoming "Webinar on Proofreading Your Patent..."'

Maybe if you focus on typos rather than substance your patent isn't about invention but shallow formality for unjust monopoly.

Over at IP Kat we're noticed Anastasiia Kyrylenko doing 'ads' for CEIPI, which is run by a criminal, Battistelli, along with EUIPO, WIPO, and the villainous 4IP Council. That says a lot about what interests today's IP Kat is interested in pushing. "CEIPI has announced that its “New Trade Mark Law in France” conference is now going online," she wrote. Remote working must be good for Battistelli, their chief. Now he can drink his expensive wine boxes all day long, being drunk on the 'job' whilst ordering additional crates at tens of thousands euros apiece, using the money he stole from the EPO. ⬆