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

04.07.20

Software Patents Remain Junk Patents in the United States (Not Enforceable), Whereas the EPO Keeps Granting Them and Promoting Them

Posted in America, Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 2:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

When it comes to abstract patents, the EPO has become worse than its American counterpart because there’s no oversight

A demolition sign

Summary: We take note of the positive outcomes in the US, where courts continue to reject software patents, but in Europe the largest patent office, which sought to replace all the courts, still acts as if patent law does not exist and patents can be endlessly printed irrespective of their merit (or validity as judged by actual courts)

THE latest Daily Links (published yesterday with more to come later today) contain yet more new examples of 35 U.S.C. § 101 ‘taking out’ bad (invalid) patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Courts at all levels are rejecting such patents. District courts, the Federal Circuit, even the USPTO’s own Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which processes inter partes reviews (IPRs) without interference from SCOTUS (this highest of all courts defended IPRs).

Alice, which soon turns 6, isn’t being challenged by SCOTUS. Yesterday someone also wrote that “SCOTUS denies cert. in INO Therapeutics v. Praxair Distribution, 19-1103, re whether a method of treatment is patent eligible.”

Alice, which soon turns 6, isn’t being challenged by SCOTUS.”“SCOTUS is not controlled by patent maximalists,” I’ve told him, “and the same goes for the Federal Circuit under Judge Sharon Prost, so there’s not much to correct…”

This kind of trend is why we almost stopped covering US patent cases around December of 2018. It was a conscious decision to focus more on the EPO, instead.

Yesterday the EPO wrote about “Videogaming” again. This is how the EPO is recklessly and shamelessly promoting illegal software patents in Europe these days [1, 2]. The EPO tweeted: “#Videogaming and IP: what are the challenges and how can you overcome them? The recording of our expert #webinar on just that is now available.”

“Next month we turn 13.5 years (we started in November 2006) and it’s clear that we have not prevented the EPO from granting illegal patents on software.”The webinar very clearly spoke about software patents, with the EU too in the mix.

The EPO then tweeted: “Which countries are innovating the most in the field of computer technology? Find out in this analysis of our latest patent statistics: https://bit.ly/DigitalisationIndex … #EPOPatentIndex”

Terms like “computer technology” or “digital technology” — in the context of patents at least — nowadays mean illegal monopolies on algorithms (more often than not or just typically). Also see this additional EPO tweet (from yesterday as well). The categories are misleading by design. Many of these are just bogus software patents that courts would toss out. This is how the EPO fakes ‘growth’; it even admits that this is the main or sole ‘growth’ area.

Next month we turn 13.5 years (we started in November 2006) and it’s clear that we have not prevented the EPO from granting illegal patents on software. They just keep changing the language they use, but the practice remains the same. So in case anyone still wonders why we focus so much on the EPO, this is why. The EPO keeps gloating about exporting these practices to other continents as well.

03.22.20

USPTO’s and EPO’s Leaderships Have Similar Technical and Ethical Problems

Posted in America, Patents at 9:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Watchdogs speak out about it, based on information insiders have (and pass around)

A Techeye

Summary: Patent office whistleblower says that the “hey hi” (AI) hype we’ve become so accustomed to at the European Patent Office (EPO) has been misused as money gets overspent on things that don’t work (like at the EPO) and there are persistent issues like nepotism (like at the EPO)

IT was noted a few years ago that a whistleblower (ish) from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had created a Twitter account (USPTO CIO Watchdog on Twitter) and tweeted a bunch of information about nepotism and corruption at the Office. In past years we wrote a number of articles about that (including the latest appointment). The claims can be affirmed by checking the professional background of the named individuals and their spouses, in-laws etc.

One can, moreover, check downtime duration/frequency to assess the degree to which misconduct, corruption and nepotism lead to failure. Technical incompetence leads to technical issues, low morale, and bad coordination. One’s technical and professional background gives much of that away.

“It’s important to know who’s doing what.”The Twitter account doesn’t make things impersonal; it always names the culprits irrespective of gender, race etc. It’s important to know who’s doing what.

A few days ago we mentioned one nugget of information, which was soon followed by another that says CIO of “USPTO always thinks changing the process is the key to success, but, like the corporate world, results are the real measure. Debbie has no experience delivering anything, except process. CIO, after a one year road trip, what you got?”

“Notice how far this whole “hey hi” (AI) nonsense has traveled. The media brought it back to life a few years ago — seemingly out of nowhere!”This refers to a puff piece interview and there’s another from the Office’s “Marketing and Communications” person. It’s one which the Office back then mentioned as follows: “In the latest #blog, Acting Deputy CIO Debbie Stephens discusses her career as a tech executive and upcoming USPTO projects such as using artificial intelligence to fuel efficiencies in patent search…”

The whistleblower said: “We find this laughable? Tech Exec? She is one of the main reason the previous CIOs efforts failed. Millions of fee money spent with nothing to show. What new as come out since the new Dep and CIO have come aboard. AI is pipe dream, they cant write basic working apps…”

“Hey hi,”I responded, “is a rather meaningless and resurrected buzzword that the USPTO misuses to grant illegal software patents” (invalidated by 35 U.S.C. § 101). Notice how far this whole “hey hi” (AI) nonsense has traveled. The media brought it back to life a few years ago — seemingly out of nowhere!

01.02.20

Invalid Patents ‘Great Again’?

Posted in America, Patents at 10:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Andrei Iancu putting his longtime advocacy of software patents into practice (even if it's illegal)

Disappointed

Summary: Disappointed patent recipients to come? The USPTO has apparently resumed mass allowance of bogus patents which are abstract and would therefore fail 35 U.S.C. § 101 tests in American courts

TWO blog posts caught our attention yesterday and we’ve already mentioned these in Daily Links. But these merit futher debate. They show that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) disregards 35 U.S.C. § 101, dis-empowers the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where inter partes reviews (IPRs) remove fake patents, and leaves the Federal Circuit — an actual court — to clean up the mess.

“It’s an attack on the legal mechanisms — similar to what we’ve been witnessing at the EPO.”Shades of António Campinos (and prior to him Battistelli) at the European Patent Office (EPO). They’re using the “hey hi” (AI) hype to justify abstract software patents [1], the judges are being besieged [2], and as a result more patents are being granted [3] — irrespective of underlying legitimacy.

As we put it yesterday in Daily Links, the USPTO “lowered patent quality again (by granting loads of illegal patents such as abstract ones, using ridiculous loopholes)” and “software patents booster Michael Borella (no, he’s no coder) [wrote about] the Office cherry-picking PTAB cases so as to continue granting illegal, fake, bogus, laughable patents…”

According to Unified Patents, PTAB proceedings were down by a quarter last year, just as Iancu had planned and hoped. It’s an attack on the legal mechanisms — similar to what we’ve been witnessing at the EPO.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. USPTO Makes Ex Parte Linden An Informative PTAB Decision

    Moreover, the Examiner found that the claim also fails under the second step of Alice. To that point, the Examiner wrote that the claimed invention “[d]oes not amount to significantly more since it is just decoding a transcription using a mathematical formula or relationship.”

    [...]

    This case is of note because it is one of the first in which the PTAB has confirmed that a machine learning invention can be non-abstract. While the USPTO’s example 39 has suggested that one can claim a machine learning procedure without reciting any of the underlying mathematics, a mental process, or a method of organizing human activity, this decision affirms that is the case. The PTAB also seemed persuaded, based on statements made in the specification, that the claimed invention entails an improvement over previous techniques used to address the problem domain.

    Of course, a district court or the Federal Circuit might agree or disagree. But, at the very least, the reasoning herein provides a roadmap for claim drafting and prosecution that may situate an invention to pass § 101 muster in the USPTO.

  2. 2019 Patent Dispute Report – Year in Review

    Keeping with the trend of previous years, the volume of new patent disputes decreased yet again in 2019. However, the number of patent disputes involving Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) increased by 4% compared to 2018, perhaps fueled in part by the sharp decrease in new PTAB petitions and low institution rates.

    Highlights:

    - The number of new PTAB proceedings (IPRs, CBMs, and PGRs) is down 23% compared to 2018. Meanwhile, the PTAB’s institution rate in IPRs has remained steady with trial being instituted in 62% of proceedings in 2019.

  3. How Many Patents Issued in 2019?

    New Record – 354,507 Utility Patents issued by the USPTO in 2019. The decade (2010s) also outstripped any other decade by leaps and bounds.

12.29.19

2019 Was a Largely Neutral Year for Opponents of Software Patents

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 9:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Takes more and more money, still no results (laws for sale)

Coons bribed

Summary: Another year ends and there’s no solid legal basis for software patents in Western economies; patent offices grant these aplenty, but they’re likely Invalid Patents (IPs) that make good ‘fillings’ for photo frames, not substantial legal cases

ONE year ago (later December if not January of this year) we quit covering pertinent patent cases that involve 35 U.S.C. § 101 or software patents, relegating stories of relevance to Daily Links. The explanation we repeatedly made at the time was that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had virtually exhausted means of ignoring caselaw — SCOTUS and Federal Circuit (CAFC) alike — and Iancu’s stunt in early January would do nothing to sway judges. Soon afterwards CAFC judges berated him for that stunt and since then we’ve seen software patents squashed time after time. We provided plenty of examples as part of Daily Links (we just didn’t get around to commenting on each case). Iancu himself has kept a conspicuously low profile throughout this year, except around January. Did someone advise him to lower his head and decrease public participation?

“…Iancu’s stunt in early January would do nothing to sway judges.”At the European Patent Office (EPO) there are ambitions — expressed explicitly in position papers of António Campinos — to spread European practices to the US, including software patents (with that “technical” nonsense, “as such…”). Battistelli started with the “4IR” nonsense (even paying European publishers to spread this buzzword) along with “hey hi” (AI) and the US mimics some of these tricks to justify granting patents on algorithms. We haven’t yet spotted legal tests to that effect — not in sufficiently high courts anyway (influential precedents).

“They’re funded by the litigation fanatics.”So, in conclusion, the future does not look bright for software patents, not in courtrooms anyway. The British election dooms UPC more than ever before, so we cannot expect anything to change in the European court system (and caselaw). As for the US? Coons and his ilk have made no ground, just as we predicted at the very start. They try this every summer (since 2017). They’re funded by the litigation fanatics. They stage ‘debates’.

12.09.19

Mandatory Education for Those Who Use and Misuse Buzzwords Would Go a Long Way

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 12:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Patent maximalists are among the biggest culprits

Buzz me up!
Buzz me up!

Summary: In an age of substitution — where marketing terms replace meaningful words and concepts — it has gotten more difficult to have honest debates, for example about the scope of patents

OVER THE past year the European Patent Office (EPO) often promoted software patents disguised not only as “hey hi” (AI) but also “blockchains” (in both cases there are two aspects to it; one pertains to patent searching and another to patent applications). Hours ago we found this report which talks about blockchains (the real thing) and bemoans the gold rush to patents on algorithms. To quote:

Over the last few years, the number of patent applications filed for blockchain technology has been on the rise globally, with the U.S dominating the charts. According to reports, the notable patent filers in the blockchain technology space have been banks. But, don’t patents question the very existence of blockchain? A technology that is supposed to be open, permissionless and transparent?

Along the same lines, James Gong, the Co-founder of LongHash, has said that “patents go against the spirit of blockchain technology.” In the latest LongHash post, Gong stated,

Not only that; in the US that goes against 35 U.S.C. § 101 (which USPTO administrators like to sweep aside and ignore). In Europe we have Team Campinos/Battistelli misusing the term — a concept they clearly don't even understand (see this talk from Campinos, complete with nonsense such as “CII”, “4IR”, “IoT”, “AI” and “Blockchain”).

“Off-the-shelf implementations of algorithms such as these have long been available, even before Microsoft’s GitHub existed (the article perpetuates the idea that GitHub is the only thing which counts).”We’ve entered a dangerous era in the patent world. WIPO (UN) issues reports that glorify patents on buzzwords (“hey hi”), they’re always calling everything “IP” (patents are not property) and they deliberately conflate things, such as blockchains for storage and search and blockchains as precondition for patent grants (pseudo-novelty to bypass strict limits on patenting).

Hours ago we also saw that Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP’s Theodore Claypoole had published this nonsense in Lexology and other patent maximalists’ journals. It uses the term “Open Source” along with “IP” and “Machine Learning” (what many in this profession call “hey hi”). To quote:

Businesses know that machine learning systems and artificial intelligence programs can be customized to meet a company’s specific needs. Most are at a loss to know how to begin developing them. Many are worried about teaching a machine learning system their pivotal secrets and losing rights to the system itself.

We have talked and written extensively on the risks of artificial intelligence that many business executives may be too intimidated to seek its rewards. This hesitation is unwise and unnecessary.

Probably the best way to resolve these concerns is for companies to start building their own AI for improving internal processes. While the prospect may seem foreign and scary, a universe of open source tools exists to make it easier.

Off-the-shelf implementations of algorithms such as these have long been available, even before Microsoft’s GitHub existed (the article perpetuates the idea that GitHub is the only thing which counts). I know this as someone who worked in that area for over a decade and a half. The above perpetuates several other falsehoods, which basically glorify statistical analysis, training and pattern matching as something new and innovative when it face it goes many decades back. The main difference is the availability or cost of computational resources available to us at scale.

“Our society is quickly devolving into a pool of marketing terms (“apps”, “cloud” and so on), so having meaningful technical discussions — e.g. in the patenting domain — is too difficult. The lawyers prefer it that way (BlahLaw).”It seems reasonable to conclude that patent offices and law firms could really use some training or education about those buzzwords they keep dropping. Public officials too could use some lessons to avoid being bamboozled. Our society is quickly devolving into a pool of marketing terms (“apps”, “cloud” and so on), so having meaningful technical discussions — e.g. in the patenting domain — is too difficult. The lawyers prefer it that way (BlahLaw).

12.01.19

Maximalists Cherry-Picking the So-Called ‘Corbyn’ ‘Leak’ for Their Patent Agenda While the US Lobbies Britain for Software Patents and Worse

Posted in America, Europe, Law, Patents at 3:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Not Jeremy Corbyn’s and not a leak, either

Some buzzwords for algorithms
Let’s examine the originals. And more importantly, let’s look at the right part (about a dozen pages out of nearly 500 pages) and what it tells us about software patents in Europe as seen by the US, where 35 U.S.C. § 101 restricts the USPTO like the EPC is supposed to restrict the EPO (they use buzzwords as loopholes and workarounds)

Summary: A quick look at what last week’s media coverage may have missed and what patent maximalists don’t want to tell us about confidential trade-related documents

THE European Patent Office and US Patent and Trademark Office are both interested in software patents. What’s not to like? More income!!! António Campinos (like Battistelli) continues to undermine the EPC and the EPO nowadays brags about getting the US to adopt software patents using a bunch of nonsense like “hey hi” (they both use the same tactics, as we’ve shown here many times before).

The ‘leaks’ often attributed (in last week’s media reports) to Corbyn were not actually his or his party’s. They had been posted to Reddit weeks ago. They were published under the title “Great Britain is practically standing on her knees working on a trade agreement with the US” (seems apt).

We’ve made local copies of these files for longterm preservation purposes. There are six PDF files in a compressed archive.

Here’s the relevant stuff:

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

Points 25-26 in page 124 are of much relevance. Is the US pushing for software patents and patents on life/nature in the UK and Europe as a whole? It certainly seems so. Those parts deal mostly with patent scope. USTR is pushing corporate agenda of Big Pharma and other large multinational monopolists.

“The ‘leaks’ often attributed (in last week’s media reports) to Corbyn were not actually his or his party’s.”Let’s look at what patent maximalists and UPC boosters like AstraZenecaKat aren’t telling us. As we said last week, the United States found itself baffled by UPC moves of the British government and the issue was raised days later by AstraZenecaKat, only to attract a bunch of interesting comments that we quoted here yesterday. Revocator wrote:

I’ve read the papers (well, the IP-relevant bits), and there was one tidbit regarding the US position on the grace period that intrigued me hugely. Namely, the US negotiators appear to have noted that SOME EPO member states do have such a grace period. The British seem to have essentially retorted that those countries may be small and irrelevant enough to get away with that, but that the UK would jeopardize its position within the EPC if it did the same. Now, does anyone know which EPC countries do that (if any)?
On another, entirely different subject, left unmentioned by the IPKat, it comes as no surprise that the US negotiators were particularly insistent in registering their displeasure with the EU’s PGI system…

“Revocator,” MaxDrei replied, “could it be that the USA is eying the 10 year term petty patent/utility model GBM system in Germany, with its 6 month grace period? After all, in the USA they call Registered Design rights “Design Patent” rights so it’a easy for them to suppose that GBM’s are utility patents with a grace period and the EURD is a 25 year patent with a grace period.”

“In summary, the US ‘bullies’ an already-embattled Britain (due to that controversial referendum) into granting the US corporations endless powers, protectionism and codified monopolies.”I’ve quickly read all the above. There’s no need to rephrase things. It’s pretty clear as it is. In summary, the US ‘bullies’ an already-embattled Britain (due to that controversial referendum) into granting the US corporations endless powers, protectionism and codified monopolies. They’re bargain-hunting. This is what happens when one negotiates out of position of considerable weakness. As the old saying goes (or hashtag), “Well Done Brexiters…”

Donald Trump lobbied for Brexit (before and after becoming President, before and after the referendum as well) and now he’s eager to pocket the UK. Media has mostly focused on the US-centric privatisation of the NHS, casting aside almost everything else.

11.19.19

We’ve Already Entered the Era When Patents Should be Presumed Invalid

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 7:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Only lawyers can benefit from patents that are without merit

Graph extrapolated from the EPO
Graph extrapolated from the EPO’s own numbers

Summary: The abundance of low-quality patents may mean short-term profits for patent offices and law firms; but we know at whose expense they are profiting and the legitimacy of patent systems suffers as a result

THE European Patent Office (EPO) remains our prime topic of interest. It’s about the EPO as an institution we are trying to save/salvage from predators like Battistelli and his chosen successor (and friend) António Campinos. They don’t care about the EPO, they just care about the EPO’s money, which they funnel into dubious coffers (their friends’ and colleagues’). They’re looting the EPO whilst likely defrauding the European public.

“We don’t regret the EPO focus, seeing that it may gradually lead to results (where the desired outcome is of course truth and justice, not money).”Our focus on the EPO has come at the expense of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) coverage — something we did in about 5,000 articles, most of which focusing on 35 U.S.C. § 101 in recent years. We don’t regret the EPO focus, seeing that it may gradually lead to results (where the desired outcome is of course truth and justice, not money).

The US patent system moved in a positive direction in recent years (prior to Iancu’s appointment by Donald Trump). Seeing Watchtroll‘s founder stepping down and resorting to attacks on courts and judges is all we need as evidence. Paula Murgia wrote at Watchtroll on Monday, moaning about the demise of software patents, i.e. the usual. The opening sentence: “It has been one year since my software patent was invalidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.”

“Thanks to the USPTO pursuing nothing but money she got a bad patent that would never withstand a trial/courts’ scrutiny.”Too bad, eh? All these patents are bogus, fake and worthless. Thanks to the USPTO pursuing nothing but money she got a bad patent that would never withstand a trial/courts’ scrutiny. The lawyers alone profit (from the fruitless proceedings). During the weekend we put in our Daily Links many more examples like that. Rarely do such patents withstand a challenge. The above was mentioned by Benjamin Henrion, which is as close as we’ll get to citing Watchtroll (we don’t link to it anymore, as it’s a combative site that attacks actual judges). On Monday we also saw Michael Borella commenting on Example 46 — an example by which the USPTO hoped to be helping applicants cheat the law to get fake patents just so that USPTO administrators can make more money (and lawyers then have something to fight over). To quote:

Last month the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published an update (“October Update”) to its subject matter eligibility guidance. As we noted at that time, the October Update is more evolutionary than revolutionary, and primarily serves to provide clarifications to the more substantive January Guidance. Nonetheless, the USPTO did provide four additional examples applying its revised test for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to hypothetical claims. Here, we discuss Example 46.

The background, of course, is 2014′s Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l Supreme Court holding. Therein, the Court set forth a two-part test to determine whether claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101. These parts are denoted by the USPTO as steps 2A and 2B, respectively (step 1 is to determine whether the claimed invention is one of the four statutory categories of subject matter set forth in § 101, and is rarely at issue in practice).

Why does the USPTO advise people to overcome Alice? Look no further than the leadership, notably Iancu and his deputy. Trump is putting the litigation ‘industry’ back in charge of the Office, but they cannot control the law (courts), can they?

“Courts outside the EPO would reject these sorts of patents.”The issue prevails in Europe as well and it even exacerbates over time. The EPO simply does not have any concept of justice (neither inwards nor outwards). Well, software patents in Europe are not legal, for example, but litigation firms keep pushing them (citing the Office for ‘support’). The latest software patents promotion is marketed as follows in Twitter: “The EPO acknowledged a number of technical aspects of a method of organizing a database for sequences of time-stamped records…”

Courts outside the EPO would reject these sorts of patents. “To assess patents you must look at the record peripheral to the EPO,” I responded to them.

A comment has meanwhile been posted in IP Kat to say: “I doubt that the fathers of the EPO wanted it to merely grant patents being simply a kind of guideline and the rest to be fought out in national courts.”

It also said: “The EPO should also publish a study to see how many patents are nullified or severely limited in front of national courts. The presumption of validity still applies, but it looks more and more like a giant with very fragile feet.”

They’ve shut down a study on quality because they did not like the result.

Here’s the full comment:

Dear Sing-A-Pore,

That the UK Supreme Court wanted to go away from the famous Improver decision is one thing. The pemetrexed case is however anything else than a model. On the one hand it is a premium for slapdash drafting and one the other hand, it has made a founded FTO study nearly impossible.

It is true that in the new protocol on Art 62 after EPC 2000, the notion of equivalents was introduced, but during the diplomatic conference, the member states refused to endorse the definition of equivalents proposed by the EPO. So it is very easy to talk about equivalents, when everybody can understand w2hat he wants under the topic.

That on top of it Lord Neuberger found it necessary to criticise the examiner for having raised an objection under Art 123(2)is neither fair nor correct. This attitude shows a clear lack of knowledge of EPO procedures and case law.

The applicant only had examples for pemetrexed disodium in his application, but wanted originally to claim the association of any antifolate with vitamin B12, then pemetrexed in general, without the faintest support for it. The examiner had no choice but to raise a problem of Art 123(2), what was claimed was not supported by the original disclosure.

By the way, the court of 1st instance in the Netherlands was not impressed by the behaviour of the applicant during examination and refused to consider that anything else than pemetrexed disodium was originally disclosed.

At the EPO, the applicant wanted a quick grant, and never tried to bring in any proof that any salt of pemetrexed could work. He could have filed further experimental data or even file a divisional application to try to argue for a broader scope of protection. Nothing of this kind was brought forward or even envisaged.

I doubt that the fathers of the EPO wanted it to merely grant patents being simply a kind of guideline and the rest to be fought out in national courts.

Patents should be granted for improvements over the prior art, and not merely for some kind of possible guideline. If the EPO would do this, then it would price itself out of the market, as it cannot ask the price of a Rolls and deliver a kind of Mini having merely 4 wheels and some doors, and that the actual finishing touch is debated in front of national courts.

The EPO should also publish a study to see how many patents are nullified or severely limited in front of national courts. The presumption of validity still applies, but it looks more and more like a giant with very fragile feet.

Even if only 5% of patents are opposed before the EPO, in 2/3 of the cases the patent comes out battered from an opposition procedure (roughly 1/3 revoked, 1/3 maintained in amended form, i.e. limited) and only in 1/3 of the cases the opposition is rejected. Also something to think about when discussing quality. A linear extrapolation is certainly inappropriate, but there is food for thoughts.

This is the kind of comment that we miss. Back in the old days IP Kat spoke about these issues and did not delete comments that did too. Today’s ‘Kats’ are litigation fanatics and yesterday Frantzeska Papadopoulou worked to keep the “hey hi” hype going. In relation to patents Papadopoulou wrote: “Although one could question how important and breathtaking this amendment is, still, it signals the intention of the UKIPO and the way that it perceives AIat this point of time. It is difficult to be sure what has triggered this new provision,, but it could be related to the patent applications submitted in the UKIPO, UPSTO and EPO, respectively, concerning (i) a new form of beverage container based on fractal geometry and (ii) a device for attracting enhanced attention valuable for search and rescue operations. What these patent applications have in common is the inventor, an AI called Dabus. Naturally, humans are involved in these patent applications, namely in the form of the applicants, two professors from Surrey University. The question is, of course, why the applications name the AI program as the inventor, if not to provoke a reaction from major patent offices.”

When did the ‘Kats’ last question the EPO’s legitimacy and its courts’ record on justice? When the team is led by people from AstraZeneca and firms that represents patent trolls (Bristows for example) are such viewpoints even permitted?

“When did the ‘Kats’ last question the EPO’s legitimacy and its courts’ record on justice? When the team is led by people from AstraZeneca and firms that represents patent trolls (Bristows for example) are such viewpoints even permitted?”The situation in Europe has gotten rather grim. Based on a recent presentation from Dolmans, whom Henrion cited and quoted/paraphrased yesterday [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] (the original is a PDF): “only 5% of times patent trolls the patent is found valid (Germany) … NPEs are still very well alive: Conversant, Unwired, Planet, Polaris, Avanci, HEVC, Intellectual Ventures, IPCom … patent trolls win more often in Germany … Patent trolls litigation is also growing in the EU … Germany’s bifurcated patent system might be illegal under the ‘proportionaly’ principle of IPRED1 directive, also present in UPC https://www.scribd.com/document/435184574/19-11-12-Maurits-Dolmans-Proportionality-in-Patent-Injunctions …”

Matteo Pes, an attorney whom we respect for sincerity on some subjects (such as UPC realities), responded on Twitter [1, 2]: “In the long run the bifurcated system might attract more and more NPE (trolls). On the other side, I like the sensibility and the competence of the BpG in deciding on validity. [...] in my experience the bifurcated system really favors the #patent owner from the very beginning of the #litigation. The defendant must be ready to face loss of the first instance, because the #patent Federal Court BpG usually doens’t deliver before the first instance ends”

“Does Germany’s leadership strive to become EDTX and adopt the ‘Gilstrap model’?”The emergence of patent trolls in Europe isn’t exactly news. Germany’s government looks the other way when the EPO (on German soil) grossly violates all laws, including German law. Battistelli should have been arrested for some of the things he did. But not even an arrest warrant was issued. The reluctance to arrest EPO officials for their crimes (committed in Munich, Bavaria) shows that the last thing this government cares about is the Rule of Law (just quick money). It gives a carte blanche for trolls and bullies whose patents they know to be worth nothing; more favourable to pre-settlement over meritless ‘cases’. Does Germany’s leadership strive to become EDTX and adopt the ‘Gilstrap model’? Will Germany become to Europe what Eastern Texas is to the United States?

11.16.19

USPTO Rewards Microsoft for Corruption at ISO by Teaching People Proprietary OOXML and Promoting Its Use

Posted in America, Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument, Patents at 10:29 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

USPTO locked in

USPTO locked in

Summary: The world’s most important patent office promotes Microsoft lock-in, revealing not only corporate bias but also highlighting ways in which Microsoft crimes continue to pay off

THE U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seems to be working for famous criminals like Bill Gates et al while ‘dissing’ actual judges (e.g. looking for tricks to overcome 35 U.S.C. § 101 caselaw). It’s starting to remind us of what happens in Europe, where Microsoft bribed a lot of people to rig ISO in Switzerland.

“So the USPTO isn’t just looking to penalise people who aren’t Microsoft customers; now it’s actively advertising OOXML instead of something FOSS-friendly such as OpenDocument Format (ODF) or even PDF.”As we noted here before, the USPTO now considers penalising people for not using Microsoft products/formats. It’s almost as if the Office works for Microsoft to reward it for corruption and it’s no laughing matter. Dennis Crouch has quoted the USPTO: “Join us for a seminar on filing DOCX, which is structured text. The DOCX Information Sessions will start Wednesday, November 13 from 2-3 p.m. ET. We will discuss DOCX as an efficient way to file a patent application electronically. You’ll learn what the DOCX format is, how you can use it to file nonprovisional utility applications, and the benefits it provides to you and your patent applications.”

Donald Zuhn has also just mentioned that: “In a Patent Alert e-mail distributed today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it will be offering several seminars on how to use DOCX for EFS-Web filings and on PAIR. The DOCX Information Sessions will focus on the advantages of filing patent applications using structured text (DOCX).”

So the USPTO isn’t just looking to penalise people who aren’t Microsoft customers; now it’s actively advertising OOXML instead of something FOSS-friendly such as OpenDocument Format (ODF) or even PDF. This is an ongoing problem which we will likely revisit if (or when) the USPTO makes these penalties official.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts