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

08.23.17

Ahead of Supreme Court Decision, the Patent Microcosm is Trying to Scandalise PTAB

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 4:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

…Just like it did Michelle Lee until she left

Paul Morinville sickened

Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which defends many businesses from bogus patents and patent trolls, comes under fire from protectors of the trolls (or those who profit from patent Armageddon/legal chaos)

THE Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is going to decide about PTAB some time soon (probably months from now) and as we wrote earlier this week (including yesterday), PTAB foes are lining up to discredit PTAB. That notably includes Watchtroll, an apologist of patent trolls and a proponent of software patents (obviously still in denial over Alice). They even march in front of the USPTO‘s facility and burn things (literally). That’s how obtuse some of these people are. Bullies. Crybullies.

The US is still suffering from an epidemic of patent trolls, even after SCOTUS ruled on TC Heartland, potentially forcing most trolls out of Texas. In many cases, PTAB invalidates patents of patent trolls, irrespective of whether they file lawsuits or not (sometimes they just threaten small companies in secret to extract ‘protection’ money). This problem is very real and corporate media now compares it to extortion and blackmail (rightly so). The consequences are profound and are estimated to cost tens of billions of dollars each year (mostly at the expense of small companies). Just look at this example from yesterday. It’s about Uniloc. Bloomberg has just called it a “patent licensor”, but it’s actually a nasty patent troll. Here’s a portion:

Patent licensor Uniloc Luxembourg SA—among the top patent buyers in the U.S.-brokered market in the second quarter of 2017—has already gone to court to enforce them, according to data reviewed by Bloomberg BNA.

Just a few weeks after adding new patents to its intellectual property arsenal, Uniloc began asserting them in infringement complaints filed in U.S. district courts against companies, including software giant Apple Inc., Bloomberg Law data show.

PTAB has already taken on this nasty patent troll (see for example this report from last year), so all those PTAB opponents are in effect protectors of trolls, too. This is true for Dennis Crouch, who keeps trying to interfere with PTAB’s work. His latest attempt to discredit PTAB is less than 24 hours old and it’s suggestive of patent trial stacking:

Important statement here from the Court against allowing a PTAB IPR patent challenger to continue to file additional IPR petitions after the 1-year deadline of 315(b) via the joinder process of 315(c); and also against stacking of PTAB Board to achieve particular results on rehearing. The court’s statement though is entirely dicta – it actually affirmed the PTAB decision here where these actions occurred.

[...]

On the rehearing, the PTAB Chief (acting on behalf of the PTO Director) shuffled the Board seemingly to change the result – adding two additional judges – Medley and Arbes – with the result that the dissenting opinion became the majority who offered an interesting explanation of the statute. Section 315(c) textually appears to focus on joinder of additional people. However, the text actually allows for “joinder of any person” – and according to the majority that should be interpreted to allow the “same person” to join himself to his prior filing (and in the process bring-along additional claims).

[...]

Unfortunately for the appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that it “need not resolve” the joinder issue because the obviousness finding were proper and were based upon the original petition.

[...]

Part of the reason why this is all dicta is that the PTO Director’s decision whether or not to initiate proceedings is – by statute – not appealable.

Expect many more attacks like this from PTAB foes. They will try to make scandals — partly real or purely manufactured — about PTAB. By tarnishing PTAB’s image in the media they hope to influence Justices and assist patent aggressors/trolls.

08.22.17

News About Patents Dominated by Patent Trolls/Aggressors, Their Press Releases, and Sympathisers

Posted in Apple, Deception, Patents at 6:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A collection of news items from yesterday, demonstrating just to what degree the narrative of patent trolls (or aggressors) is being spread by paying for distribution

THE USPTO has been granted far too many patents (by lowering quality) — patents that are mostly used by trolls to shake down companies and sometimes sue them (only then do such patent disputes become publicly visible). Thankfully, US courts are not tolerating these patents and PTAB, moreover, leaps to the rescue quite often, reducing the incentive to even approach a company with patent claims (with or without a lawsuit being filed).

BigbellyOver at Watchtroll (a couple of days ago), the so-called “patent market” (the term used in the headline) is said to be “depressed”. They are speaking for patent aggressors and parasites, so the word “market” is inadeuate here (trolls have no market, they prey on the market). The actual, real market is thriving, but the patent ‘industry’ is being made obsolete. Trolls and their lawyers are seeing decline in ‘business’ and as we noted earlier this year, some legal firms appear to be shutting down (which is a good thing). The same is true for trolls.

Yesterday we saw the notorious patent troll VirnetX publishing this press release [1, 2], which means it literally paid for some hogwash. We rarely see even a single press release from patent trolls, but now that it gets its way with shakedown it’s paying to pretend that it’s gentle and amicable rather than a bunch of bullies. “Patent Standstill Agreement” they call it. Sounds more like secret settlement. The term was recently used by Red Hat and Microsoft in relation to a secret deal.

Another new piece of hogwash came from Bigbelly — a company which we named earlier this summer. It is just suing lots of companies using patents; What a garbage ‘company’ it must be, not only dealing with trash (literally) but also patenting software and pursuing legal actions all around the world. Yesterday’s statement said that the “same complaint filed against Ecube Labs Co. Ltd. (South Korea), and similar complaints filed in the German Court against EconX Waste Solutions B.V. (Netherlands) and German Ecotec GMBH are in the process of being served.”

“Being served…”

What? A gourmet meal?

Speaking of Germany/Europe, trolls and parasites are coming there too. Trolling activity is up sharply and Florian Müller, a German software developer known for his activism against software patents, is rightly concerned about this. Yesterday he published another article about Qualcomm, a company which became just a serial patent aggressor. Well, we last wrote a long article about it after Qualcomm’s aggression had expanded to Europe. Here is the latest:

Qualcomm has to defend itself against the Federal Trade Commission in the Northern District of California, where Judge Lucy H. Koh has so far been great for the mobile device industry, and against Apple in the Southern District of California, where Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel held a hearing on Friday. Apart from case management orders scheduling a March 22, 2018 claim construction hearing and a September 28, 2018 final pretrial conference for the non-patent claims, all I know about the hearing is what I found on the Twitter feeds of Law.com’s Scott Graham and MLex’s Mike Swift.

It’s unsurprising that, according to these two reporters, Judge Curiel will consolidate Apple v. Qualcomm with Qualcomm’s lawsuit against four Apple contract manufacturers (who in turn invited Apple to join, which Apple appeared happy to do), and that Qualcomm appears unlikely to obtain a preliminary injunction requiring those contract manufacturers to resume their royalty payments. The overlap between those cases is gigantic, and seeking a preliminary injunction for the purpose of collecting payments is–let’s try to understate how hard it is–a long shot.

I would like to comment on a couple of other things I read about the hearing. The first one is that Evan Chesler, Qualcomm’s counsel and chairman of the Cravath firm, told Judge Curiel the 18 patents Apple claims are invalid and not infringed were just a “drop in the bucket” and adjucating them wouldn’t put the parties any closer to a settlement.

This case might go on for a while. We have said right from the beginning that we hope Apple will win because such an outcome would be favourable to Linux/Android as well. Qualcomm has become little more than a patent parasite; some would go as far as labeling it a “troll”.

Bristows LLP Tries Hard to Maintain the Illusion That UPC is Alive, Using Media Placements and Paid Plugs

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related: Bristows LLP is Still Trying to Attach Wings to the UPC and Distract From Serious (Likely Fatal) Barriers to It

Bristows EPO

Summary: Ever-so-desperate efforts to keep the Unitary Patent (UPC) in headlines, even though nothing is happening and nothing is likely to happen any time soon

THE EPO‘s management is on holiday, so not much is said about the UPC nowadays. The UPC is in a seriously fatal state. Only jingoistic nonsense would have people believe otherwise.

“Bristows, part of Team UPC, has already infiltrated Kluwer Patent Blog and IP Kat for the purpose of UPC marketing/lies. Therein, in blogs not associated directly with Bristows, these people have been deleting comments they don’t like/agree with (not good for their financial interests).”We have been writing for nearly a decade about the UPC as a vehicle for software patents in Europe and lots of software patent trolls which accompany these, essentially creating lots of “demand” for litigation (mind Bristows "brown-nosing" British judges to advance trolling in the UK). This week, Bristows is literally paying to spread its blog posts to other sites. Luke Maunder’s nonsense is now in Lexology (megaphone of Battistelli, as of yesterday), attributed to “Bristows LLP”.

Bristows, part of Team UPC, has already infiltrated Kluwer Patent Blog and IP Kat for the purpose of UPC marketing/lies. Therein, in blogs not associated directly with Bristows, these people have been deleting comments they don’t like/agree with (not good for their financial interests). Now, in a multi-part ‘interview’ form, Managing IP does that also, basically becoming a platform for lies. Kingsley Egbuonu is beating the dead UPC (Trojan) horse. This dead horse, which Managing IP has promoted for its own interests for a number of years, is described in rather mystifying terms like: “The UK has made remarkable progress towards ratifying the UPC Agreement” (actually, not really).

“We certainly hope that readers already know where publications like IAM and Managing IP stand on this debate.”“In the first of a two-part article,” Egbuonu says of himself, “Kingsley Egbuonu spoke to Alan Johnson of Bristows about UK’s preparations, post-Brexit participation and the impact of being outside the system” (there is no such participation, but they continue to peddle this illusion as though it’s a given).

We certainly hope that readers already know where publications like IAM and Managing IP stand on this debate. They’re been little more than paid cheerleaders of Battistelli’s agenda for a number of years.

08.15.17

‘US Inventor’ is an Extremist Group Created by Watchtroll (Not Inventors) to Troll the USPTO for Patent Maximalism

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 12:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The true colours of the founder of that ridiculous (and minuscule) account, Mr. Morinville [1, 2]

Paul Morinville sickened

Summary: The face behind so-called ‘US Inventor’ (an anti-PTAB group) which enlists, apparently, a handful of people and does not actually represent American inventors

THERE is no lack of radicalism in patent circles, even if they try to disguise this as professionalism or even inventorship. With words like “ownership” and “property” (even “piracy”) they seek to mislead the public, but it doesn’t always work.

Dennis Crouch, a prominent part of the problem, has been bashing PTAB for quite some time. Days ago he even defended patent trolls from the EFF and earlier this week he wrote about USPTO statistics; it’s anything but benign, but improvements have been made in recent years.

Worse things have come from Watchtroll, a site of patent extremists and very rarely some moderates. A couple of days ago, for example, Neel Chatterjee said that a “Patent ‘gold rush’ [is] to blame for patent sharks, patent trolls,” noting quite correctly the correlation to software patents. “The roots of the modern patent troll boom,” he said, “can be traced to a similar expansion in the definition of patentable subject matter sparked by the Federal Circuit’s 1998 State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Grp., Inc. decision eliminating the so-called “business method exception” for software that produced a “useful, concrete, and tangible result.” In the 10 years following the Federal Circuit’s 1998 decision, the number of granted software patents expanded from approximately 30,000 per year to over 100,000 per year.”

Much of Watchtroll, however, has been a cesspool of patent propaganda. Some of the most aggressive actors out there, including the site’s founder, keep bashing PTAB and pushing hard for software patents almost every day/week. Some of their most extreme pieces come from Morinville, who sounds like a rabid Trump supporter (recall his constant online bullying of Michelle Lee) and has been begging for attention recently because he organised a ridiculous ‘event’ which turned out to be a massive failure. Funnily enough, it seems like he organised it in Facebook, in order to protest Facebook. The head of ‘IP’ [sic] at Google, incidentally, has just quit to join Facebook.

We expected the event to receive no media attention, as it received barely any attention online (or presence). We mentioned it briefly the other day, but only very briefly. When a radical group of patent extremists from Watchtroll (and cohorts) get together about a dozen people we don’t deem it noteworthy and definitely not newsworthy. We were wrong, however, as a couple of sites got trolled (or tricked) into writing articles about it.

Basicallly, ones who are hypocritical to the extreme (for reasons noted here last week) must have pressed on the media. WIPR really fell for it and played along (via). Here is the relevant part:

Paul Morinville, founder of US Inventor, said: “The PTAB, a rogue administrative tribunal, is neutering or invalidating over 92% of challenged patents.”

He added that it takes millions of dollars to fight at the PTAB, so “very few inventors and start-ups can protect their patent rights”.

Morinville concluded that the board is a “disaster and must be eliminated”.

Yeah, patent quality is such “disaster and must be eliminated,” right, Paul?

So a so-called ‘inventor’ finally realised his patent is worthless (and was likely bogus all alone), then decided to burn it. Big deal. Like a child.

We were even more surprised to see this covered in bigger media last night (the headline again focused on the fiery publicity stunt that’s akin to radical book-burning). The article also said:

President Donald Trump hasn’t nominated a replacement for former PTO Director Michelle K. Lee, who resigned in June.

Lee was popular among technology companies. However, patent owner and inventor groups criticized her for not reining in a PTAB they consider overly aggressive in invalidating patents.

Joseph Matal, a former congressional aide who played a leading role in drafting the AIA, was appointed June 7 as PTO acting director.

It doesn’t look like an unauthorised protest by a few people who burn paper will have any impact on Matal and his colleagues. If anything, it serves to show what sorts of people are behind the anti-PTAB rhetoric. As we put it earlier this year, “Michelle Lee, USPTO Director, Should Recognise That the Patent Microcosm is Her Enemy Which Hates Her”…

08.12.17

Pro-PTAB Lobbying Leaves the Patent Microcosm Squirming, Lying

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 5:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The High Tech Inventors Alliance (members below) promotes the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which is invalidating a lot of software patents

High Tech Inventors Alliance members

Summary: The High Tech Inventors Alliance takes another step forward in its defense of the USPTO’s Inter Partes Review (IPR) process (reevaluation of patents at PTAB); the patent microcosm cannot tolerate the views of companies like the above, so quite inevitably a shaming strategy kicks in

AS NOTED in our previous post, PTAB bashing has become EFF bashing. The patent microcosm, i.e. the ‘industry’ of litigation, does not know what to do other than attack PTAB judges. It now attacks actual technology companies, not just their front groups. Not a wise strategy at all…

Watchtroll already attacks PTAB and organises so-called ‘protests’ [1, 2] (patent microcosm under the guise of “US inventors”). It’s laughable! Some might even find it utterly disgusting. Based on the photos, they’ve only managed to gather at most a dozen patent extremists (outnumbered by their placards) to stage a ‘protest’. It’s too pathetic for words. They probably used Facebook — the very same company which strongly supports PTAB — to organise this minuscule anti-PTAB ‘protest’. Imagine the collective laughters.

“The patent microcosm, i.e. the ‘industry’ of litigation, does not know what to do other than attack PTAB judges.”John Thorne, the general counsel of the High Tech Inventors Alliance, wrote for The Hill a few days ago. He described the High Tech Inventors Alliance as “a coalition of top technology companies supporting balanced patent policy and collectively holding more than 115,000 patents.”

“Double checking patents puts exploitative trolls on notice,” says his headline, which precedes an article in defense of patent quality (and PTAB which helps assure that). To quote:

On Friday, a group claiming to represent the nation’s small inventors will demonstrate at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) building. They will call for an end to the PTO’s Inter Partes Review (IPR) process, a procedure for taking a second look at the validity of patents. Some of the speakers will be genuine small inventors. But behind those little guys will be the big dollars of the biggest big-guy exploiters of the PTO’s missteps and mistakes.

[...]

Consider these facts. Almost 70 percent of this year’s challenged patents are in “high tech,” that is software, hardware and networking technologies. High tech is widely acknowledged to suffer from patent quality problems.

[...]

Over 99.8 percent of all active patents and 82 percent of litigated patents never face an IPR. In all IPR petitions decided through March 2017, the Board began a review of only 47 percent of challenged claims and invalidated only 24 percent. When the Board has handed down a decision on the merits, it has upheld some or all of the challenged claims 65 percent of the time. Furthermore, patentees win before the PTAB on validity issues more often than they do in federal court.

Guess how the patent microcosm is responding to such pieces. It’s just so predictable. Here comes IAM with brain-dead tweets like these [1, 2], basically pretending that the High Tech Inventors Alliance is just Facebook and linking to some article about Facebook — an article which says nothing at all about patents. IAM then says: “Ever wondered why certain BigTech cos are so keen to reduce patent protection in the US? (clue: it has nothing to do with “trolls”) [...] All the big companies named in that WSJ article are prominent lobbyists for further efforts to restrict patent rights in the US.”

“The real (or original) purpose of patents is to help advancement of productive companies…”Notice the language. Techrights member Will Hill responded by saying: “Of course, they confuse privileges with rights. There is no such thing as a “patent right”. Patents are temporary monopolies created by government, ostensibly for some public benefit, not inalienable rights it is futile and tyrannical for government to interfere with. The good of that private benefit should always outweigh the cost of public restrictions, but it clearly does not and the restrictions need to be reconsidered. That’s impossible to see when people are so fundamentally confused about rights.”

Calling patents “rights”, “property”, or even “property rights” (we debunked this before, even back in February 2017 when Patently-O did its typical propaganda) is just so shallow. It is an old trick. Ascribing physical attributes to things that are immaterial concepts is also what they do when it comes to patent applications.

“This is why we can’t have nice things, as the famous saying goes.”The real (or original) purpose of patents is to help advancement of productive companies, even if Facebook is somewhat of a patent bully too. At its core, the patent system is also designed to help protect inventors from productive companies, but trolls are not inventors. Trolls typically prey on inventors (as large productive companies can afford going to court and squash the trolls).

Whether we “like” companies like Facebook or not (I personally hate that company), they actually make something. Unlike IAM, which is a funded lobbying arm of patent trolls and aggressors who make money from litigation alone. This is why we can’t have nice things, as the famous saying goes. Lobbyists like IAM, essentially apologists or advocates for patent trolls.

Our next post will focus on trolls and the growing backlash to them.

The Corruption of the European Patent Office and CIPO’s (Canada) Participation in This

Posted in America, Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Shades of CETA

Sepp Blatterstelli

Summary: Coming back from summertime with vengeance, the EPO’s UPC careerists will use the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) to spread their lies

THE management of the EPO lives in a parallel universe. Either it’s lying a lot intentionally or it simply believes its own lies (delusion, cognitive dissonance). We’ll generally (and generously) assume it’s the latter and continue to rebut the lies.

“What they mean to say is that justice and fundamental logic don’t always triumph in the world of politics (or “realpolitik”) — a world where the German Justice Minister Heiko Maas actively obstructs justice perhaps because he desperately wants the UPC.”We continue to find many incidents where the EPO publicly lies (to journalists, to staff and more). There are several large Web sites out there that are tracking and counting lies of Donald Trump; we could use the same sort of thing for the EPO, but quite frankly we have lost count and it would be a full-time job and require access to the intranet too.

Thankfully, several high-level figures are catching up and are rebutting the lies with us. Regarding the recent 5-page paper from Professor Siegfried Broß, a new comment said this: “Or just another academic brain-fart that will have little or no impact on the world of Macchiastellian realpolitik ?”

What they mean to say is that justice and fundamental logic don’t always triumph in the world of politics (or “realpolitik”) — a world where the German Justice Minister Heiko Maas actively obstructs justice perhaps because he desperately wants the UPC.

“On the face of it, the EPO will continue to lie about the UPC, even though the German government is certainly not ratifying any time soon (if ever).”“Yes,” responded another person to the above comment, “but a very interesting read anyway, because it IS the style of academic brain-fart that constitutional judges come up with. The final verdict and the resulting realpolitik may be very different, but this will be a part of the German Constitutional judges considerations.

“Now, how they will explain it away to allow the continuation of a constitution Germany had wonderfully and practically working in very fine for 40+ years will be another read….”

On the face of it, the EPO will continue to lie about the UPC, even though the German government is certainly not ratifying any time soon (if ever).

Look what is happening in Canada. The CIPO consultation mentioned here the other day (not regarding patent scope on the face of it) was brought up by UPC boosters the other day (Friday) and then came this CIPO tweet about a “roadshow” with the EPO. “Join our #roadshow with @EPOorg on Unitary #Patent & Unified Patent Court,” it said and the corresponding page reveals Battistelli’s UPC liar, Margot Fröhlinger. She is going to tell a whole bunch of lies again. Battistelli pays her to lie like this, even if it’s a waste of money and an insult to the integrity and reputation of the Office. Remember, as per last month’s article from the German media, that EPO literally PAID for ‘press’ ‘coverage’ (for bribed ‘journalism’, about 100 articles in number). For the short EIA ceremony (one afternoon) it’s said that 3 MILLION euros got wasted by Battistelli (reaffirming what we wrote over a year ago). Corruption of the media for this one events helps also corrupt the same media for UPC puff pieces.

“The EPO is lying, it’s violating national laws, it habitually corrupts the media, and it attacks (sometimes viciously enough with a firing or lawsuits) critics who correct the EPO.”Watch what the CIPO page is saying: “Fröhlinger is one of the driving forces behind the creation of the Unitary Patent and the UPC system. She deals with issues such as the development of patent law at the European and international levels, patent law harmonization, the strengthening and improvement of the PPH system, as well as with the implementation of the Unitary Patent and the EPO’s relation with the UPC Preparatory Committee.”

In other words, she has been a key player in attacking constitutions, spreading lies in the media, and also discriminating against particular applicants with programmes like PPH (a so-called ‘highway’ like PACE, which we were first to expose, just before the EPO’s face-saving revisionism). A couple of days ago Awapatent’s Troels Peter Rørdam wrote about this discriminatory processing of patent applications at the EPO. “The EPO and the Eurasian Patent Office, EAPO, have announced the signing of a PPH agreement to enter into force later this year,” he said.

Well, look what the EPO has become. The EPO is lying, it’s violating national laws, it habitually corrupts the media, and it attacks (sometimes viciously enough with a firing or lawsuits) critics who correct the EPO. More on that in our next post…

The EPO has become one heck of a corrupt monster. We won’t be letting it off the hook any time soon. Things aren’t improving and the culture of nepotism only ever deepens.

08.06.17

Software Patents Are Worthless, But the Patent ‘Industry’ Continues Coming Up With Its ‘Alternative Facts’ to Sell ‘Services’

Posted in Deception, Patents at 11:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

More like a disservice and patently poor advice

Ripoffs

Summary: Software patents and patent lawsuits (which may be going nowhere) are being ‘sold’ by an industry that cares only about its own bottom line

THE DOMAIN of patents is dynamic, not static. The quality of US patents is improving and lawsuits become fewer. That’s a good thing for everyone except the patent ‘industry’.

Earlier this weekend veteran journalist Chris Preimesberger wrote this article about patents on facial recognition. I reviewed some papers in this area (for the international IEEE journal) and it’s perfectly clear that these patents should be considered patent-ineligible under Alice because it’s all reducible to plain mathematics. Why are examiners still granting such patents?

“Why are examiners still granting such patents?”A couple of days ago, Stephen Middleton from a law firm known as Von Seidels published this article titled “What software is eligible for a patent?”

Well, basically the more important question should be, what software patents would ‘survive’ in court? Very few of them do, even if some continue to be granted. Here is what Middleton said:

As patent-eligibility differs from one country to the next, this article generally covers US and European eligibility requirements.

Taking an existing algorithm or method which is already known and applying it using a computer is not likely to be a patent-eligible invention, even if you are the first person to do so.

The same would be true if the algorithm could be performed by a human, for example using a pen and paper. There must be something more. Generally speaking, the algorithm must provide a “technical solution” to a “technical problem”.

Completely vague and meaningless terms (decorative, spurious adjectives that can refer to pretty much anything). We wrote about these before. It’s more common to simply try to associate the software with some “device” (like any general-purpose, programmable computer) for the sake of misleading the examiner/s. It’s not worth granting. It’s a farce.

“It’s more common to simply try to associate the software with some “device” (like any general-purpose, programmable computer) for the sake of misleading the examiner/s.”In Europe, not just in the US, these patents don’t have a good track record in recent years. If granted, these tend to be useful only outside the courts (e.g. if asserted in bulk and/or against a poor person/company).

We have become accustomed to “marketing” (dressed up as news) like the above. The law firms would say anything if there’s potential for profit. Here is another new example (days old) where the patent microcosm basically says, go sue lots of people with patents (because the microcosm profits from the litigation, no matter the outcome).

“The only “product” here is sold by law professionals, to whom so-called ‘services’ like sending threatening letters are a form of ‘production’.”Some companies seriously heed such advice and proudly sue others. Bigbelly (real company name) turns out to be a big bully, which issued a press release to announce litigation, naming “U.S. and European patents.” It was mentioned the other day by some media, but what is there to cover really? It’s litigation over patents, not some new products or anything of interest to the general public. 3 days ago another company paid for a press release regarding patent litigation rather than an actual product. The only “product” here is sold by law professionals, to whom so-called ‘services’ like sending threatening letters are a form of ‘production’.

08.03.17

Benoît Battistelli Distracts From Declining Patent Quality at the EPO by Diverting Attention Away to “Timeliness”

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Battistelli and the EPO are running out of time (and applications)

Big clock

Summary: The declining quality of services at the EPO — a decline which is being noticed and likely contributes to the decline in the number of patent applications — is something which Battistelli covers up by bragging about the very symptom of declining patent quality (and thus reduced certainty)

AT THE EPO, according to leaks, patents are granted faster and with less examination. It’s atrocious. Speed and quality are very different things, but according to an anonymous insider, the latest EPO lie was conflating those two things.

“Speedy grants don’t offer legal certainty but the very opposite.”Yesterday, Benoît Battistelli bolstered this lie in his blog (warning: epo.org, so it can be used to harvest IP addresses of visitors). The graphs shown by the Liar in Chief merely serve to confirm that the Office works in a rush, granting patents irrespective of quality (as the number of examiners did not grow). “The EPO therefore offers legal certainty,” Benoît Battistelli concluded. Is he really that foolish? One can tell based on his career path, which involved no science at all and nothing regarding “IP” until his mid fifties.

Speedy grants don’t offer legal certainty but the very opposite. If the EPO grants bogus patents that courts will reject upon closer scrutiny, certainty around patents is lowered and those who benefit most are patent trolls (litigation tourists) which go after small businesses as these aren’t able to afford legal defense. What a disaster! Look at what’s already happening in Germany

“Why should the users of system pay for a service which is not any longer delivered by the EPO?”

That was the question posted in a comment yesterday. Here it is in full:

Why should the users of system pay for a service which is not any longer delivered by the EPO? The fees are high enough, and it is ´clear that there are gripes about the falling quality.

There is one way to draw the attention of the management, and it is for free: file a complaint.

Be careful, in such a situation it is the examiner which will be the primary target.

Do you really want this?

Inquire as to what happened to the examining division which granted the building site wagon with a window to be used as hair dresser saloon.

Incidentally, yesterday an article was published by a legal firm that said “Abbvie repeatedly withdrew their patents when they were about to be decided upon.” It’s about the EPO too. Here is the relevant bunch of paragraphs:

Fujifilm and Abbvie had entered into lengthy EPO and UK validity proceedings where Abbvie repeatedly withdrew their patents when they were about to be decided upon. Ultimately, Abbvie tried to avoid the grant of a declaration in this UK case by abandoning their UK designations of patents and undertook that they would not seek relief in the UK.

The High Court found that in light of the prior art adduced by Fujifilm, the skilled team would have had a high expectation that the dosage regimen would be efficacious in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, thereby holding that the proposed administration of Fujifilm’s products was obvious at the relevant priority date of the patent application.

Fujifilm sought an Arrow declaration arguing that the purpose of Abbvie abandoning the patents was to avoid adjudication of its patentability by the UK court and EPO whilst seeking to ensure that the subject matter of the alleged invention was maintained by a further divisional application. Fujifilm said that it would be many years before the EPO would be in a position to adjudicate on the patentability of the divisional in question, and that the granting of the Arrow declaration would serve a useful purpose, by achieving commercial certainty in respect of Fujifilm’s product by the date of its intended launch in the autumn of 2018.

It looks as though Battistelli has ‘imported’ the worst elements of the USPTO into Europe. Patent trolls are already taking advantage of this, as we have been showing for a number of months (the raw numbers speak for themselves). UPC would only further exacerbate this.

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »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