10.30.20

[Meme] Two Dictators: How the EPO Shuffled the Dictatorship’s Cards

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The Three Stages of: Battistelli is Leaving, the Council Wants Him Replaced, by His Friend...

Summary: EPO President António Campinos turns out to be no better and even less popular than Benoît Battistelli

2020: The Year the Patent System Converged With Naked Fascism

Posted in America, Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Innovation or pure corruption? Science abandoned in favour of rich class warriors.

Risiko!

Summary: The worldwide system of patents, administered in part by WIPO (fronting for the super-rich), is losing the argument and instead — nowadays more than ever before — it is resorting to authoritarianism (the kids’ gloves are off)

THE EPO hasn’t been mentioned here quite so much lately (not as recently as weeks ago). That’s because little is known to us. One thing that António Campinos (equipped with COVID-19) has done is increased silencing of staff. They cannot publicly organise — something that Benoît Battistelli could only pray for!

Perceived Calm (COVID-19 Effect) is Not Peace

The little that’s known to us (and is also new) isn’t particularly interesting. We’ve had some of it included already in our Daily Links (while we lacked time to comment in detail/full). We’ll comment on it succinctly below, to the best of our understanding (bear in mind very little is being said in the press about the EPO since the pandemic overwhelmed newsrooms).

“The problem with the EPO stuff not being covered much by the mainstream media is simply that it’s too abstract and obscure for their purposes,” one reader told us some hours ago, “and most journalists get to spend very little time on a story, just like EPO and USPTO and other patent examiners get to spend very little time on a patent application.”

Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) and the Language Barrier That Patent Maximalists Just ‘Wish Away’

Let’s start with the latest nonsense from the EPO’s “news” section (published just before the weekend). It said this: (warning: epo.org link)

EPO President António Campinos held his first meeting [sic] with Kim Yong Rae, the new Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, on Friday, 30 October 2020.

During their video conference [sic], the two heads of office reaffirmed their commitment to working together on Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) by signing a new Memorandum of Understanding covering this activity. Mr Campinos emphasised that the EPO will continue to support KIPO in increasing its expertise in CPC classification – a tool aimed at improving public access to technical information contained in patent documents which is now being actively used by 29 offices worldwide to classify their patent publications. The refined classification scheme of the CPC enables patent examiners to categorise patent documents in a more granular manner irrespective of the language in which the document is written. This subsequently allows the examiners or patent information users to retrieve documents more efficiently and effectively during searches, which contributes to the quality of the patent system.

Notice how once again the EPO is mischaracterising webchats as “meetings” (they use words like “met” to mean “talked over a laptop” — a typical lingo for the veneer of “professionalism”).

So much for “conference” too. They mean webchat with multiple people on the screen…

Having written about patents for nearly two decades, I know a thing or two about the political/corporate aspect of these things. They’re hardly about innovation… not to the extent they’re about protectionism (ensuring the rich get richer over time, rarely having to actually compete).

The above (CPC) is WIPO agenda for taking monopolies global (for globalists/monopolists). Examiners are rarely assessing prior art in other languages, from other countries… so they grant regardless. It’s a well known problem and the unspeakable taboo in patent offices that rush to rubber-stamp monopolies with few questions asked and little qualm, offloading the financial burden onto innocent parties wrongly accused of infringement. Only the very rich corporations have their own legal departments and teams of lawyers. Those alone can be enough to dissuade/discourage a patent troll.

The Rich Getting Richer, Secured by Universal Patent Monopolies

It’s hardly absurd to suggest that the EPO is “in it” not for the small inventor but for large corporations, most of which aren’t even European. Just look at the pie chart of which types of corporations take the lion’s share of European Patents and where those corporations are from.

Courtesy of Prometheus – Critical Studies In Innovation 51-68 (as noted before):

applicant's firm size 2014

National origins of EPO patents 2014

Trump and IancuIn that regard, the US is similar to Europe. It hardly shocked us that hours ago, as per Patently-O, the USPTO’s Director was publicly endorsing Donald Trump (link omitted, but it’s unambiguous) on behalf of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Trump can’t even properly speak the only language he knows — and likely not due to his age… and yet examiners are expected to understand patents composed in many dozens of different languages?

“What has the patent world sunk to?”This ‘Orbanistic’ act of Andrei Iancu, indebted to Trump for his controversial appointment (his firm had worked for Trump beforehand), reinforces our view that he’s “American Battistelli” (another Republican). Since his appointment he has been flagrantly ignoring/bypassing Alice/35 U.S.C. § 101 (SCOTUS, prior to stacking by Trump) and crushing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In his latest ridiculous tweet he’s citing some lobbying/think tank ‘prank’ as evidence of US ‘leadership’ in ‘IP’, then attributing this prank ‘ranking’ to Trump.

Make Patents Great AgainWhat has the patent world sunk to?

Seriously, take a moment to think about it… are fascistic criminals now role models for the patent microcosm? The recent letter regarding Iancu (from so-called ‘patent owners’) is yet more of that ‘cowboy’ nonsense… and it was promoted by rather extremist sites — those that promote software patents in Europe on behalf of patent trolls from the United States.

Unified Patent Court (UPC) Kills

It gets yet worse when once considers their UPC lobbying. As Benjamin Henrion noted yesterday: “Unitary Patent will even ban compulsory licenses for COVID?”

“No compulsory licensing for COVID under UPC,” he told me privately, calling it a “bomb”…

So people need to die by the millions for the patent regime? Sounds like the sort of lunacy promoted by the Trump regime in the name of “the economy!”

When shoes attackHere in Europe we have EU officials in the European Commission who are willing to consciously violate many constitutions to shove the UPC/A down everyone’s throats. Thierry Breton and the Battistelli connections tell us all we need to know; Battistelli is in CEIPI now, pushing UPC coursework and such. Having put a famous politician in his chair at Atos, Breton copied what Battistelli did with Campinos in CEIPI. There’s clearly no separation between the patent system and politics. Instead of being a scientific system it became all finance and politics.

Unaccountable European Patent Office, Patent Rubber-stamping Machine

As per the latest press releases, the EPO has granted fake patents (now withdrawn) for so-called ‘Big Pharma’ and it continues to do exactly that in defiance of prior orders from the EU. Has the EU been hijacked by Battistelli associates? While granting patents on literal trash the EU seems unwilling and unable to put an end to it. It’s like the litigation industry has invaded every corner of the system and is now cheering for the likes of Trump. Because who cares about the “collateral damage” when one can make money suing people for ‘sport’?

Free Software is Still Under Attack From Software Patents (GNOME Getting Patent Trolls to Settle Isn’t the Real Solution)

Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNOME, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, OIN, Patents at 5:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

They used to be called “patent sharks”

On patent sharks

Summary: We’re asked to believe that a sort of “patch” (suggested by companies or monopolies with endless patent portfolios) means that Free software and software patents can co-exist; behind the scenes, however, “community distros” (not developed and controlled by monopolies) are coming under patent attacks which they cannot publicly speak about

THERE is a real and growing need to abolish software patents for good. As we noted quite recently, GNU/Linux distros are under attack. We hope to be able to make more public the pertinent details (that partly depends on OIN).

“The Free software community (the real community, not fake ones like IBM’s “Fedora”) is under attack.”In our latest Daily Links we included this new post about an ongoing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR). “On October 28, 2020,” it says, “the Central Reexamination Unit of the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted Unified Patents’ request for ex parte reexamination, finding substantial questions of patentability for all claims of U.S. Patent 7,594,168, owned and asserted by Express Mobile, Inc., a well-known NPE. The ’168 patent generally relates to website building software. Express Mobile has asserted this patent over 90 times in district court against companies employing both proprietary website-building platforms and open-source platforms like WordPress and Magento.”

A wave attackYes, WordPress and Magento, which are used by millions (us included). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly rejected those sorts of patents, citing 35 U.S.C. § 101 (SCOTUS on Alice), but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) keeps granting those bogus patents, which are being leveraged (as above) by patent trolls who make nothing at all, let alone a CMS or “website building software.” The existing GNOME Foundation (with deep ties to IBM and Microsoft, responsible in part for settling with trolls) wants us to think that this is a new problem even though nothing could be further from the truth. While OIN is working overtime to reinforce the status quo — reaffirming software patents — the rest of us who don’t have like 100,000 US patents need to get work done and write code without fear of litigation.

The Free software community (the real community, not fake ones like IBM’s “Fedora”) is under attack. OIN is not helping, it’s only pretending to. We’ll say a lot more about that some time soon. OIN has an opportunity to prove us wrong, but it’s never doing that…

We need to carry on working towards the end of all software patents, not just here in Europe (incidentally, the distros under attacks are European and they’re targeted using already-expired software patents in a fashion reminiscent of the YouTube-DL takedown in GitHub).

3Com CEO Eric Benhamou once said:

“Anyone who doesn’t fear Microsoft is a fool.”

Remember that the troll which attacked GNOME had been working closely and getting patents from Microsoft’s ‘proxy’ Intellectual Ventures. GNOME Foundation, an anti-RMS outpost, doesn’t like to talk about this fact. Last week its head even praised Microsoft. His predecessors work for Microsoft. Infiltration has gone much further than the Linux Foundation and recently the OSI as well.

10.25.20

In Spite of IBM’s Difficult Past and Particularly Dark History, Under Arvind Krishna’s Leadership It Has Only Shown Signs of Improving

Posted in IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Red Hat at 1:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

Thomas Jefferson

Winter

Summary: This winter, 6 months after Arvind Krishna’s tenure as CEO began, we can generally say that things seem to have improved and we look forward to further improvements

THE THRESHOLD of half a million COVID-19 cases per day will likely be exceeded this coming week. It’s getting to the point now where even cautious people cannot fully shield themselves from infection. Over the weekend Italy and Spain tightened things further. Here in Manchester the highest restrictions have been in force since Friday. But that’s not what’s important. We want to focus, as usual, on impact limited to the realm of technology and human rights. The wearing of masks limits the scope of surveillance, whereas the “War on Cash” and all that contract-tracing nonsense greatly harm privacy.

“He seems like a generally good guy and a very technical person.”It ought to be noted that IBM’s new CEO (since April) wants to replace our cash (anonymous currency) with “clown computing” (outsourced, centralised) and “smart” (a buzzword meaning that they’re the ones in control of our lives and our transactions). We’ve spent some time trying to understand his background, which isn’t widely publicised. As noted earlier this year, “Krishna’s PhD thesis was on the design and analysis of interconnection networks for high-speed packet switching fabrics in routers.” This is the PhD thesis as PDF. According to this, 9 people downloaded his PhD thesis after he had been appointed (IBM’s top role) — more than in all prior years combined. We spent some time studying it following yesterday's article about his professional and personal background. The good news is, his background shows little interest in technology that infringes rights. He seems like a generally good guy and a very technical person. He’s also quite humble.

WinterWithin months of his appointment he publicly distanced (at least verbally) IBM from facial surveillance. But data-mining operations of IBM weren’t even mentioned. There’s a lot more to privacy infringement than facial recognition. Being a person who seemingly prefers to be private and low-profile, Dr. Krishna can be a good ally in the fight to reform if not altogether obliterate mass surveillance. IBM stands to gain a lot from the perception that it leads the battle for privacy and other “tech rights”. At the moment we’ve mostly been seeing shallow and rather superficial ‘fluff’ or ‘waffle’ with ridiculous slogans. On the other hand, it has been quite a while since we last saw IBM lobbying for software patents and news about IBM corruption may seem difficult to find these days.

Is IBM at least trying to reform under Krishna’s (and Whitehurst’s) leadership? It generally does feel like it, with news like IBM Hopes to Double Sales at Red Hat in Next Three Years this past week.

IBM will eventually be judged not by how many words it bans/cancels but how many unethical contracts it gives up on. Not only money should matter and if IBM improves its image by distancing itself from repressive regimes, more geeks will follow.

At the moment we regret to see that IBM and Red Hat still outsource many projects to Microsoft’s servers (GitHub) and in light of recent events/backlash they should reconsider. To quote Bill Gates himself: [PDF]

“We should design some of our extensions explicitly so that IBM can’t run them under OS/2. We need to put real thinking into this.”

This is how Gates spoke of the same company that gave him a ticket to the “big show”, albeit only after lobbying from his mom.

IBM needs to stand up to and replace Microsoft, not cooperate with it. If it successfully does so, more geeks will cooperate with IBM, Red Hat, Fedora and so on. When so much of Fedora is still controlled by Microsoft servers it’s hardly surprising that the community component of Fedora languishes over time.

10.24.20

Juve Patent’s Love of Patent Trolls and Their Misinformation

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

As if “budget” (money) is the thing to worry about…

'Relocation would have minimal consequence on UPC budget'

Summary: The press ‘gutter’ known as Juve (basically propaganda disguised as ‘news’ since years ago) has gotten to the point where the publisher is just an extension of lawyers and liars

THE above is not satirical, only deeply flawed and false.

Juve trollIt’s also part of a worrying pattern we’ve taken stock of in recent years. Like IP Kat, the site changed its tune, in effect defecting to crooks who took over the EPO, turning it over to litigation fanatics (profiteers, not scientists) and patent trolls. Nowadays Juve is oftentimes a mere megaphone of Team UPC, relaying ‘useful’ lies as headlines (facts need not matter when your paying clients/subscribers like to hear and then disseminate those lies).

It’s almost 2021 (2 months from now). UPC is nowhere. Looks like JUVE is still a lobbying site (in English and in German). For the people who have lied again and again.

“BBC asserting patents,” a reader told us yesterday, quoting from Juve Patent’s LinkedIn (Microsoft) feed:

UPDATE: The next wave of SEP disputes has started in Germany.

Three members of Sisvel Group’s DVB-T2 Patent Pool have filed complaints against Chinese television manufacturer TCL Technology.

The BBC and Rai – Radiotelevisione Italiana have filed before the Regional Court Düsseldorf, while LG filed the infringement claim at the Munich Regional Court.

A first hearing in the latter case is expected for March 2021.

At the centre of the dispute is the next generation of broadcasting digital television on terrestrial networks.

With Juve lobbying for the UPC, imagine how much worse it can get. Maybe time to rename or rebrand as “Juve Patent Troll”. They still routinely call patent extortion “FRAND” (misnomer) as if blackmail is “fair”, “reasonable” and “non-discriminatory”…

Juve is always happy to quote patent lawyers, but never Germans… unless they’re German lawyers. This helps perpetuate their microcosm delusions. No licence to sue? Then your voice does not count and does not even exist.

It’s always a problem when the press becomes a force of occupation against public interests.

10.23.20

[Meme] When EPO Staff Claims to be ‘Ill’ or ‘Sick’… During a Pandemic’s European Peak

Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 5:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Feeling unwell? Open up the door… or else.

EPO Checking Up on Ill Staff

Summary: Gotta check and verify that those ‘lazy’ EPO examiners aren’t just faking being ill (in order to not meet “production” targets)

The EPO Has Relegated or Lowered Itself to Extremely Poor Standards

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO: one day it hopes to become a 5-star office again

EPO stars

Summary: Today’s EPO continues to reaffirm the image of global weakness; having failed to improve the working conditions and quality of the work (its actions did the exact opposite), it’s nowadays begging China to send over lots of workload irrespective of quality or merit and it is outsourcing the functions of the Office to the United States

THE ambitious-but-unqualified management of the corrupt EPO (led by Benoît Battistelli and then his mate, António Campinos) not only exploits COVID to do illegal things (of which we’ve lost count). Judging by its latest couple of “press releases” [1-2] (or so-called ‘news’ as the EPO’s site puts it), it’s liaising more and more with China while establishing whitewashing groups to not only pretend quality is high (it’s not; the opposite is true) but that the illegal practices are in compliance with the law. So many comparisons can be made/drawn between today’s EPO and CPC. Greenwashing included (it’s still being floated in ‘the news’… which is reducible to EPO press releases). See [3-5] for the template-based ‘news’ coverage about the EPO and China’s office. Do journalists still exist (to actually investigate and fact-check things, including background reading)?

Just keep mentioning “quality” (as if people don’t really know what that word means; see the new quote at the bottom/on the right).

EPO quality quoteThe world’s biggest patent aggressors push ahead [6-7] in Germany with lousy software patents that should never have been granted.

Patents on genetics are still on the agenda [8], as well as other dubious patents [9], whose scope goes as far as Turkey [10] (we’re being reminded by IAM).

“It’s hard to find any media scrutiny of the EPO any longer; almost all coverage is just based (in the template sense) on EPO press releases, promoted actively by the EPO’s press team (friends of Campinos).”A couple of decades ago Europe stood out as a leader in this space (the USPTO had noticeable issues, ranging from process to scope). Now it’s little but a stooge of CPC, looking for opportunities by lowering the patent bar. This is saddening as it harms Europe’s competitiveness.

We’re still surveying the news and closely watching EPO affairs. To the best of our ability anyway (insiders don’t say as much as they did years ago).

EPO insiders, please consider trickling out to us more information. The more we know, the more EPO staff will know. It’s hard to find any media scrutiny of the EPO any longer; almost all coverage is just based (in the template sense) on EPO press releases, promoted actively by the EPO’s press team (friends of Campinos). COVID killed whatever was left of media in this space.

Remember the days IP Kat was a hard-hitting site with decent comments about the EPO? Nowadays that blog is full of ads for the EPO and comments that bring up EPO corruption get zapped (never to appear). Because IP Kat isn’t run by the same people (since years ago)… we used to exchange amicable E-mails with the ‘Kats’, but today’s ‘Kats’ treat us like an enemy (and Campinos like an ally).

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Meeting of the SACEPO Working Party on Rules (warning: epo.org link)

    User representatives were informed that more than 1 200 oral proceedings have been held by VICO so far this year, and that many users have by now had the opportunity to test and discover the advantages of oral proceedings by VICO – such as reduced costs, air travel and risk of infection, as well as the level playing field VICOs create for practitioners irrespective of their location. Suggestions relating to virtual “break-out rooms” and a shared base for document exchange during oral proceedings were discussed, as well as issues relating to recordings. SACEPO members were also invited to provide feedback on a proposal to amend EPC rules to address certain specific aspects of the taking of evidence by VICO.

  2. Joint communiqué EPO-CNIPA pilot starts on 01 December, 2020 (warning: epo.org link)

    Chinese patent applicants will be able to designate EPO as ISA, giving them an additional option for their international search

    A two‑year pilot between the European Patent Office (EPO) and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) will enable nationals and residents of the People’s Republic of China to select the EPO as their International Searching Authority (ISA) for applications filed in English under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

    [...]

    PCT applicants who are nationals or residents of the People’s Republic of China and whose international search was performed by the EPO as ISA will also be able to file a request for international preliminary examination with the EPO. They should pay the corresponding fee directly to the EPO, pursuant to PCT Chapter II.

    The EPO establishes international search reports (ISRs) and written opinions (WO/ISAs) which provide an applicant with a clear evaluation of their invention’s patentability and so with a solid basis for taking timely and informed decisions as to whether or not to enter the various national/regional phases under the PCT, in particular the European phase. In addition, with an ISR and a WO/ISA from the EPO, Chinese applicants wishing to accelerate the prosecution of their application can enter the European phase earlier, request early processing and have their file examined without a supplementary European search.

  3. Chinese Applicants Will Soon be Able to Select the European Patent Office as Search Authority in PCT Applications

    ISA for there PCT applications. The pilot, which starts on December, 1, 2020, will be limited to a total of 2,500 applications in the first 12 months and 3,000 applications in the second 12 months.

    [...]

    It is not clear what the uptake of this program will be among Chinese applicants. In addition to the language requirement, the EPO international search fee is currently 1,775 Euros (~$2,100 USD) versus only 2,100 RMB (~$315) for the CNIPA international search fee. Further, these fees must be paid directly to the EPO in Euros, which can be hard for Chinese applicants due to restrictions on currency transfers overseas. Also, as Chinese applicants often rely on Chinese government support for PCT applications, which is capped, Chinese applicants may not be able to afford to select the EPO as ISA. For example, Shanghai provides an extra 10,000 RMB (~$1,500 USD) subsidy for each granted PCT national phase entry patent application (versus filing via Paris Convention).

  4. China, Europe to start pilot program on international patent search

    The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the European Patent Office (EPO) will launch a two-year pilot program that enables Chinese patent applicants to designate the EPO as an additional option for international searches, sources with the CNIPA said.

    The program, which will start on December 1, will be open to applicants filing with either the CNIPA or the World Intellectual Property Organization’s International Bureau as the receiving office. Chinese nationals and residents can select the EPO as their international searching authority for their applications filed in English under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

    [...]

    During a transitional phase, applicants filing their international applications with the CNIPA as the receiving office and choosing the EPO for the international search will be required to pay the international search fee directly to the EPO in euros, read the communique.

  5. China, Europe To Start Pilot Program On International Patent Search

    The pilot program is one of the outcomes of the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two intellectual property (IP) offices and will help Chinese applicants to acquire IP protection in Europe, said Shen Changyu, head of the CNIPA.

  6. Conversant wins Germany-wide standard-essential patent injunction against Daimler in Munich: third court loss for Daimler in as many months

    PCT applicants who are nationals or residents of the People’s Republic of China and whose international search was performed by the EPO as ISA will also be able to file a request for international preliminary examination with the EPO. They should pay the corresponding fee directly to the EPO, pursuant to PCT Chapter II.

    The EPO establishes international search reports (ISRs) and written opinions (WO/ISAs) which provide an applicant with a clear evaluation of their invention’s patentability and so with a solid basis for taking timely and informed decisions as to whether or not to enter the various national/regional phases under the PCT, in particular the European phase. In addition, with an ISR and a WO/ISA from the EPO, Chinese applicants wishing to accelerate the prosecution of their application can enter the European phase earlier, request early processing and have their file examined without a supplementary European search.

  7. This week in IP: Brexit threatens designs, Ferrari wins parts battle, Nokia enforces injunction

    Nokia announced on Tuesday, October 20, that it would pay a collateral of €3.25 million ($3.84 million) to enforce its injunction against Chinese company Lenovo in Germany for infringing its video-compression technology patents.

    The Finnish telecoms company won the injunction from the Munich Regional Court on September 30 after it ruled that the defendant, a Chinese computer firm, was an unwilling licensee because its engagement in licence negotiations was insufficient.

    The injunction will stop the sales of Lenovo PCs, laptops and tablets that use Nokia’s standardised H264 decoding or encoding functionalities in Germany, but will not affect already-purchased products.

    “Legal action is never our preferred option, but Lenovo have been unwilling to enter into discussions, despite a clear judgment confirming their unauthorised use of Nokia’s patented technology,” said a Nokia spokesperson.

    “Lenovo can easily resolve this matter by accepting their responsibilities and agreeing a licence on fair terms. Our door is open for Lenovo to resolve the matter through good-faith negotiation.”

    Nokia has active cases against Lenovo in the US, Brazil and India. The company has been on a winning streak this year, having won the lawsuit it filed against Daimler in Mannheim, and the case brought against it and Avanci in the Northern District of Texas.

  8. Onxeo Receives Notice of Intent to Grant a New Patent Enhancing the Protection in Europe of AsiDNA™ Combined with PARP Inhibitors

    Onxeo S.A. (Euronext Paris, NASDAQ Copenhagen: ONXEO), hereafter “Onxeo” or “the Company”, a clinical-stage biotechnology company specializing in the development of innovative drugs targeting tumor DNA Damage response (DDR), in particular against rare or resistant cancers, today announced that it has received from the European Patent Office (EPO) a notice of intent to grant a patent which strengthens the protection in Europe of AsiDNA™, its first-in-class inhibitor of tumor DNA repair in combination with PARP inhibitors (PARPi). This patent protects in particular the method of use of AsiDNA™ in combination with PARP inhibitors in the treatment of certain cancers for which the DNA repair pathway via homologous recombination (HR) is not impaired or deficient, these HR-proficient cancers being mostly insensitive to treatment with PARP inhibitors.

  9. Amgen Cholesterol IP Suit Restarts As EPO Decision Looms
  10. Turkey

    Turkish courts and judges are not bound by decisions of foreign courts. Nevertheless, since Turkey is a party to the EPC, the decisions of the EPO may influence the Turkish courts to some extent, especially if the disputed patent is a European patent validation. Having said that, it is at the discretion of the IP court to suspend the infringement action in cases where there is a post-grant opposition proceeding before the EPO.

10.21.20

The European Commission is Still M.I.A. Regarding EPO Corruption (and the EPO’s Management Plays Dirty, as Always)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Battistelli-Breton photo-op

Summary: There’s no change in the EU; the EUIPO and EPO enjoy complete and total immunity/impunity, with the Commission being manned by those who are deeply complicit

YESTERDAY morning, Anastasiia Kyrylenko over at IP Kat was boosting Microsoft’s propaganda/pressure group ACT (Association for Competitive Technology), along with all sorts of other patent maximalists, which TechDirt rightly warns about this week (Watch Out: The Patent Maximalists Are On The Warpath To Destroy Innovation And Empower Patent Trolls).

“…notice the role then played by the European Commission, which is not yet answering hard (but perfectly legitimate) questions about EPO corruption.”As usual, by the standards of today’s “Kats” (loyal to Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos, unlike the people who left the blog in recent years), there’s also EPO PR tucked in to say this:

The last week of November will be a treat for fans of geographical indications. First, the Joint EUIPO/EPO Interactive webinar, “Geographical Indications and Food Technology”, will be held on November 24 (follow here for the registration and details). On November 25 and 26, the European Commission will give an online conference, “Strengthening geographical indications”, to discuss the prospective GI reform in the EU.

“Geographical Indications” (GIs) aren’t a patent thing (it’s the EUIPO‘s ballpark), so EPO is in it for so-called “Food Technology” (funny term for sure). Is that a new name for all sorts of things looking to create and cement monopolies on foods, including GMOs (like patents on seeds, plants, fruit, animals and genetics/bodies)? But more importantly, notice the role then played by the European Commission, which is not yet answering hard (but perfectly legitimate) questions about EPO corruption.

The EPO's silent changeIs the European Commission with the likes of Mr. Breton merely an extension of this corruption now? Consider its stance on the patently unconstitutional UPC. Breton ignores constitutions and court rulings/caselaw. It has meanwhile been noticed by Benjamin Henrion, potentially poised to file another constitutional complaint (FFII is raising money this week), that the EPO plays dirty with both words and actions. It’s shown to the right, albeit only in “tweet” form (it merits more than just “tweets”).

(Re-)Making up the story as they go along? Does Team UPC control both the Commission and the EPO?

« 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