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

04.13.19

Patent Maximalists Are Enabling Injustices and Frauds

Posted in Europe, Fraud, Patents at 11:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Last year: The Enemies of the Patent System Are Patent Maximalists, Not Those Pursuing Saner Patent Policy

Theranos and EPO

Summary: It’s time to come to grips with the simple fact that extreme patent lenience causes society to suffer and is mostly beneficial to bad actors; for the patent profession to maintain a level of credibility and legitimacy it must reject the deplorable, condemnable zealots

THE SITE TECHRIGHTS has long been a fan of patent quality. We’re not against patents; instead, we’d rather defend the integrity of patent law by ensuring that patents are only ever granted when it’s justified (for practical, economic and scientific reasons). Publication is often better than secrecy (trade secrets), so patents are a form of incentive to publish closely-guarded secrets. We’re OK with that.

António Campinos with his promotion of software patents in Europe is a stain on the European Patent Office’s (EPO) reputation or what’s left of its reputation. As we've just noted, even the US rapidly moved away from such patents over the past few years. It realised, owing to high courts, that patents must not cover natural phenomena and mathematics. Shouldn’t that be trivial? Nature is not an invention; neither are laws of nature. They were never invented, merely explained.

“They’re a radical bunch, incapable of grasping just how crazy they are because they surround themselves with other equally crazy people in events that are ‘echo chambers’ (no sceptics are allowed to even speak). It’s like a religion.”Patent maximalists will never have “enough” patents; for them (or to their business), the more the merrier! It’s totally insane. They’re a radical bunch, incapable of grasping just how crazy they are because they surround themselves with other equally crazy people in events that are ‘echo chambers’ (no sceptics are allowed to even speak). It’s like a religion. Bigger than a cult and better financed/coordinated than most cults.

Yesterday we wrote about how Team UPC's lies have even landed in magazines. These people completely distort facts and recklessly spread lies. Their gospel would be laughable if its impact wasn’t quite so corrosive to the rule of law in Europe. Bristows LLP’s Liz Cohen is now seemingly writing about herself as a third person: “If you’ve missed the fall issue of ABA’s International Law News, you may want to read up Liz Cohen’s view of the future of the Unified Patent Court…” (UPC)

Check out the headline; Liz Cohen writes an article titled Liz Cohen about an article by Liz Cohen. They’ve found their “God” in Bristows. God complex much? The verge of insanity?

“These people completely distort facts and recklessly spread lies.”It’s worth noting that Bristows staff at IP Kat no longer even mentions the UPC. It’s rather revealing. Maybe they got tired of comments that slam them for lying about the UPC. In fact, readers of the site are still (as recently as Friday) calling out CIPA for the PEB scam that IP Kat was promoting. CIPA is of course a major part of the Team UPC lobby, mostly but not only in the UK (where IP Kat is based). Not too long ago the chief of CIPA was editing IP Kat while meeting with Battistelli, which partly helps explain the ‘death’ of “Merpel” (i.e. of coverage about EPO abuses).

This CIPA/PEB scandal has already attracted about (maybe over) 200 comments in the past month alone; we’ve lost count because the comments are scattered or clustered around a few separate threads, having caused a major stir. The patent microcosm is now fighting even within itself, so get some popcorn and enjoy the show. We’ve noticed that some people in this profession sincerely pursue sanity (reasonable patent scope), whereas others are “true believers” in patent maximalism. Team UPC, for example, often gets slammed by more moderate voices, whom we appreciate. Not every patent attorney is as radical as the Watchtroll bunch or IAM bunch* and we’ve in fact noticed some ‘good cops’ in Kluwer Patent Blog (Bausch comes to mind).

“Lack of evidence that something being patented would actually work led to the granting of key European Patents that soon propped up a multi-billion-dollar fraud and epic scammer, who later on was honoured by crooked Battistelli.”Just before the weekend, Lexology published this self-promotional piece from Barker Brettell LLP’s Gurpreet Solanki. It’s about EPO patentability as per patent scope (not that the EPO obeys the law in that regard) and it says “plausibility originates in the EPO case law as a response to overly-broad claims and to prevent speculative claiming.”

Remember 'Teffgate'? It was all over the Dutch media earlier this year. This is what Solanki wrote:

Problems can also occur if a lack of plausibility is raised in cases where the specification filed lacks data demonstrating that a technical effect is plausibly solved. In such scenarios, the patentee can find themselves in a squeeze: relying on prior art or common general knowledge to demonstrate plausibility at the date of filing with the risk of the EPO finding a lack of inventive step based on the same prior art or common general knowledge. However, reference to prior art or common general knowledge in support of plausibility may not necessarily lead to a lack of inventive step objection. This is because plausibility is a threshold test which is not assessed in the same manner as whether an invention is considered obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. On the other hand if there is no prior art or common general knowledge to establish plausibility, the technical effect may not be considered to be plausibly solved.

It is therefore advisable when considering a patent filing strategy to provide as much information as possible with respect to technical advantages of the invention, which includes any experimental data at the date of filing. In the absence of adequate experimental results, additional effort should be put into the construction of a robust technical explanation for the purported technical effect which overcomes the plausibility threshold, thereby enabling the patentee to later rely on post-published evidence to demonstrate sufficiency.

Lack of evidence that something being patented would actually work led to the granting of key European Patents that soon propped up a multi-billion-dollar fraud and epic scammer, who later on was honoured by crooked Battistelli. Yes, we’re talking about Theranos.
____
* The latest from IAM policy lobbying (“blog”) says that “EPO presidency seems determined to exclude plants produced by biological processes from patent protection.” IAM calls this a “controversial” move and says the “intervention is unlikely to succeed,” which is unsurprising. It’s only controversial among the patent maximalists who fund IAM and the reason the intervention will likely be ineffective is that the appeal boards lack independence.

Further Decreasing Focus on Software Patents in the United States as They Barely Exist in Valid Form Anymore

Posted in America, Patents, Site News at 9:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

As many as a million US patents probably cannot survive an American court’s scrutiny anymore

Some priority stamps

Summary: No headway made after almost 4 months of Iancu-led stunts; software patents remain largely dead and buried, so we’re moving on to other topics

YESTERDAY we finalised the decision to take our eyes off the ball for the first time in over a dozen years. We used to watch very closely news regarding software patents, but it doesn’t seem like good use of time anymore. I’ve deleted the relevant RSS feeds.

What’s behind this decision? Well, surely the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will still grant some software patents. But after consulting some friends I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s safe to say very few of these patents have a chance in court. The Federal Circuit has, for a number of years, rejected almost every such patent. So did the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), especially in inter partes reviews (IPRs) dealing with older patents that had been granted in error prior to the IPRs.

“But these people don’t care about the law. What they really care for are serial extortion schemes, such as patent trolls’.”“Tillis/Coons Letter Underscores That More Can Be Done to Save the U.S. Patent System,” said Watchtroll on Friday, underlying the site’s frustration. When they’re angry and desperate it is a sign that we’ve “won” this battle. The SCOTUS-inspired 35 U.S.C. § 101 and even PTAB have been fought by Coons for several years [1, 2, 3], as we’ve noted the other day. A few more politicians had a go at it, but all of them failed and practically vanished. They had virtually no impact on policy. Nothing. Gene Quinn has meanwhile stepped down as editor and got some other job. He gave up. Their site is rapidly deteriorating (as judged by various criteria). Quinn has said that “Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) have written U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu,” but that’s like a prisoner writing to the ward rather than a judge. It would have no impact on actual rulings. Courts matter. These people are “raising a concern about what can really only fairly be characterized as the weaponization of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB),” according to Quinn, inverting the narrative completely. PTAB is what helps defuse patent trolls and companies that leverage bogus patents. So who’s weaponising what here?

Watchtroll then proceeded to using their new propaganda term, “serial challenges.” It’s supposed to sound like “serial infringer” or their other propaganda term “efficient infringer.” In reality — and surely they know this — these challenges are the very basis of the rule of law. If a patent was granted in error, one should be able to file an appeal. But these people don’t care about the law. What they really care for are serial extortion schemes, such as patent trolls’.

We aren’t entirely stopping our monitoring of these matters, but we shall greatly decrease this effort and mostly relegate relevant stories to our daily links. It’s a matter of priorities and time management. A decade ago the roles were opposite; Watchtroll commended the system and it was us protesting all the time. Well, tables have turned completely.

04.12.19

Caricature: EPO Standing Tall

Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 10:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Earlier: New Building as Perfect Metaphor for the EPO Under the Frenchmen Battistelli and Campinos

Summary: A reader’s response to the EPO’s tall claims and fluff from yesterday

The EPO is Slipping Out of Control Again and It’s Another Battistelli-Like Mess With Disregard for the Rule of Law and Patent Scope

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ignorance is bliss

Antonio Campinos

Summary: The banker in chief is just ‘printing’ or ‘minting’ lots and lots of patents, even clearly bogus ones that lack substance to back their perceived value

WE ARE very thankful for 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice/Mayo (SCOTUS). Earlier today we asked for recent examples of court outcomes that can overturn/overrule 35 U.S.C. § 101 precedents. We got none. Nothing of high importance/level (higher courts) and/or precedential. Nothing since Valentine’s Day of 2018 (Berkheimer). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the ITC are managed by patent maximalists like the EPO‘s António Campinos, who is promoting software patents in Europe. But what has far more weight is a combination of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs), which are still effective at squashing software patents in the US, and the Federal Circuit affirming PTAB much of the time and correcting (overturning) district courts if they tolerate software patents. I’ve put links about it in Techrights daily links. We try to focus on the Linux Foundation and the EPO instead. Our battle against software patents has been partly successful in the US, but not in Europe. Not yet anyway.

“Apparently, everything (or just about anything) software or code or computer or machine or algorithm is “AI” now.”Focusing on Europe, as usual, yesterday we caught the EPO tweeting about “blockchains” again (i.e. illegal patents that the EPO keeps granting in defiance of caselaw, EPC, instructions from European authorities and demands from software professionals).

“Have a look here to learn how patent professionals are navigating the changing landscape of blockchain,” the EPO wrote, linking to the usual nonsense.

Also yesterday (nighttime) Managing IP published 3 new articles. The first said “Argentina’s trademark updates continue clumsily” and readers can guess what they mean by “clumsily” (not as profitable for us and our clients). So says a headline of a lawyers’ front group, funded by law firms to masquerade as a news site and grant them awards, puff pieces, lobbying events…

On the same night the site resumed promoting software patents disguised as “AI”, alluding to its “US Patent Forum” as follows: “Conversations around artificial intelligence (AI) innovations concluded with more questions than answers at Managing IP’s US Patent Forum in New York City on April 4.”

“So the USPTO basically continues granting patents which it knows in advance courts would reject.”Apparently, everything (or just about anything) software or code or computer or machine or algorithm is “AI” now. It’s a passing fad, surely, which faded away before (the term ot the concept is hardly new). Then the site promoted this sheer nonsense about patents on “tech and life sciences” (they mean software and nature/life). This article is thoroughly false as its title (yet again) claims “USPTO eligibility guidance could create consistency” even though the opposite is true (judges throw out patents while puring cold water on Iancu).

So the USPTO basically continues granting patents which it knows in advance courts would reject. This is the same thing the EPO is nowadays doing. This is one of the many reasons examiners have complained for about half a decade.

“It’s like a copy of the EPO’s press release, which was dishonest.”IPPro Magazine’s Rebecca Delaney has just published this article that’s a puff piece (as it’s not Barney, her colleague). It’s like a copy of the EPO’s press release, which was dishonest. We wrote about it yesterday, stressing that the EPO is again offering money for sellout 'scholars' who produce propaganda disguised as 'research' in an effort to “encourage more academic research” (to use their words).

Research like what? How wonderful patents on pigs, figs and seeds would be? As recently as yesterday we saw patent maximalists like Andrew Bentham (J A Kemp) not caring about common sense, only litigation euros, even over patents on life itself (and nature itself). In Mondaq J A Kemp published (probably for a fee):

Recent weeks have seen important developments in the debate on patent-eligibility of plants in Europe, with the EPO’s Boards of Appeal and its President, Administrative Council and member states pulling in opposite directions. The President has now referred questions, published today, to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, but the admissibility of the referral is uncertain, so it is unclear how or when the Enlarged Board will react. Applicants in this field will therefore face further delay and uncertainty. More generally, this is also a highly unusual, polarised situation that highlights the potential for conflict between different branches of the European patent system. Fortunately, however, this issue only directly affects some plant-related applications, not all that generally relate to plants in some way.

Rose Hughes also wrote about it yesterday (third time in recent weeks!) to say:

The President’s referral follows swiftly from the Board of Appeal (BA) decision in T 1063/18 (Pepper). For the full background to the case see IPKat post here. In summary, the EBA found in G 2/12 (Broccoli/Tomato II) that Article 53(c) did not exclude plants produced by essential biological processes from patentability. The European Commission subsequently issued a notice of the (non-legally binding) opinion that the biotech directive excluded plants produced by essentially biological processes from patentability. In response, the Administrative Council (AC) amended Rule 28 EPC to explicitly exclude plants produced by essentially biological processes from patentability.

The BA in T 1063/18 (Pepper) found that the AC’s interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC by amendment of Rule 28(2) EPC was in conflict with the prior interpretation of the Article by the EBA in G 2/12 (Broccoli/Tomato II). The Board in T 1063/18 (Pepper) found that the AC Rule amendment was void. The Board in T 1063/18 (Pepper) also did not feel it necessary to refer the issue to the EBA, reasoning that the EBA had already decided on the question in G 2/12 (Broccoli/Tomato II).

Sadly, EBA cannot rule as it sees fit as per the law; there’s a risk involved, having witnessed the fate of Judge Corcoran, their former colleague (back in the days before the exile to Haar, which is rightly perceived as collective punishment and a stark warning).

“…the EPO is again offering money for sellout ‘scholars’ who produce propaganda disguised as ‘research’…”A comment was left yesterday to speak about the defunct EPO structure: “It will be interesting to see how independent from the president and the AC the members of the BoA and of the EboA are under the new performance evaluation system which has a direct influence on their reappointment.”

People aren’t forgetting. The above site (IP Kat) has also just published an article for the notoriously aggressive law firm the EPO hired to stalk and bully me (Mishcon de Reya). Rosie Burbidge published for these thugs something about “IP [sic] and the gaming industry”. Yesterday I got a couple more threatening letters asking me to remove articles — a request I strongly reject. I will say more on that sooner or later as we examine and consult people who know how to handle it.

“Yesterday I got a couple more threatening letters asking me to remove articles — a request I strongly reject.”The book in question does not mention “IP”, but Mishcon de Reya interjected this nonsense into the headline. There is no such thing as "IP", but yesterday the EPO wrote: “University spin-offs need access to the relevant IP early on.”

I responded by asking: “Did you mean to write patents and then some PR person or lawyer rewrote it?”

That misleading propaganda term is again supposed to make us think that patents are rights, are property (hence “property rights”) and are granted some magical power for being “intellectual” (are plants and seeds intellectual even though they had existed in nature since before humans even existed?). We’re supposed to think nature itself is science.

“That misleading propaganda term is again supposed to make us think that patents are rights, are property (hence “property rights”) and are granted some magical power for being “intellectual” (are plants and seeds intellectual even though they had existed in nature since before humans even existed?).”“We’ll be discussing the business advantages of IP,” the EPO also wrote a short time apart, “illustrated by the story of a successful SME, at this event in Bucharest…”

Here are some more “IP” tweets from yesterday, some with “IP” in their hashtags too.

We’re guessing that the EPO will resort to more two-letter acronyms like PR, IP and AI because that’s about short enough for the mental capacity of Team Campinos, a team led by a former banker with zero background in science and several of his former colleagues.

Global Finance Magazine Spreads Lies About the Unitary Patent and German Constitutional Court

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The front page of Global Finance Magazine at this moment

Global Finance Magazine

Summary: Alluding to the concept of a “unified European patent,” some site connected to Class Editori S.p.A. and based in Manhattan/New York City tells obvious lies about the Unified Patent Court (UPC), possibly in an effort to sway outcomes and twist people’s expectations

THE UPC is pretty much dead. UPC-related Twitter accounts are largely inactive, blogs associated with the advocates (Team UPC) have barely said a thing for a month, and the European Patent Office (EPO) never mentions it anymore. It is very rarely mentioned in news sites (in any form).

“Will these people stop spreading these patently false claims?”Yesterday we saw Global Finance Magazine (of Class Editori, an Italian publishing giant) pretending that Brexit can be overcome by shifting the court to Milan (Italy) and the German Constitutional Court (FCC) isn’t an obstacle but just some temporary ‘nuisance’ — both typical lies of Team UPC. We don’t know the author of this terrible new article, but we’ve never heard of this publication called “Global Finance” before (it probably didn’t cover UPC); we started wondering who owns it. Misinformation of this kind typically comes from “news” sites of Team UPC, such as The Law Society Gazette [1, 2, 3].

The author starts by spreading an appalling lie: “Long in the works, a unified European patent is now ready to launch, most likely in mid-2019.”

Really? Based on what? Notice the future tense being used throughout (as if it’s all a certainty, no “would… if”). It doesn’t take a genius to say that the UPC is dead. Even some of its biggest cheerleaders admit so. More from that same article:

Courts with oversight over the European unified patent system will be based in London, Paris and Munich; although the German Constitutional Court must evaluate its constitutionality and the London Court could move to Milan for pharmaceutical patents.

The proposed Unified Patent Court will have power to take action on patent infringement, counterfeiting, ascertainment of invalidity and revocation, as well as related provisional and precautionary measures and application counterclaims. Damage claims related to supplementary protection certificates issued on the basis of a European patent will also be under the court’s purview.

Will? It’s not happening. Will these people stop spreading these patently false claims? Will they also mention just how terrible the UPC is, for a whole plethora of reasons? According to Wikipedia, this magazine has a circulation of about 50,000 people/subscribers. Who’s seeding these pieces?

New Building as Perfect Metaphor for the EPO Under the Frenchmen Battistelli and Campinos

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A “Dutch-French architectural cooperation,” according to the EPO (yesterday)

Summary: The EPO is in “propaganda mode” only 9 months after the latest French President took Office; the Office is seen as dishonest, even under the new leadership, which routinely lies to the public and to its own staff

LAST week we began writing about the propagandistic nature of the EPO‘s President António Campinos. Last month he lied to staff about patent quality and this month he lies about staff’s sentiments [1, 2], aided by a ‘study’ he paid for (at the EPO’s expense of course, in essence manufacturing one’s own “support” for bogus claims/hypotheses). It’s another Battistelli. The mask keeps slipping, António. Sort it out please…

“The building received a lot of negative press throughout its construction, which involved serious injuries.”Campinos and his French nationality (which we were first to mention; no other publication had done that) isn’t the main issue, even though it makes Frenchmen dominant in the EPO with 3 French males managing it for 17 years in a two-decade timespan. Is the EPO becoming another INPI (France) little by little? Is examination being deprecated? Or semi-automated, based on pseudoscience or the false assumptions that machines alone can analyse prior art and compose decisions?

French company Valeo was mentioned here before, as recently as days ago in relation to ridiculous claims pertaining to INPI, which Battistelli and many former ‘mates’ came from (Campinos copies this nepotism too). Here they go again with “Valeo Ranks As France’s Leading Patent-Filer For 3rd Year In A Row” (they’re measuring rankings by quantity alone, even where no examination exists, just registration).

INPI and the EPO become more alike; they may seem shiny from the outside, but deep inside it’s all cracks, with a defective building (see video above) that generates massive losses and is years late to complete. But facts don’t matter to the EPO, which has just published this puff piece (warning: epo.org link) that says: “The new premises of the European Patent Office (EPO) in The Hague have been named “Best Tall Office Building” by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), an internationally recognised arbiter on tall buildings.”

Were they too bribed? The EPO has a long history of bribing anything from journalists to academics (more on that in our next post). Battistelli’s abuses include theft, corruption, and worse things. It’s a miracle that he has not been arrested yet.

Remember that old Battistelli tale in relation to the above building? The guy is a maniac. “Construction began in 2014 and four years later,” the EPO wrote yesterday, and “the building was inaugurated in the presence of His Majesty King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands. Staff moved into their offices in September and October of 2018, bringing together examiners, lawyers and support teams on one site and in doing so, fostering greater synergies among EPO departments.”

Some of them are unhappy, based on what we were told. Yes, this building is faulty and it poses a risk of fire. There are other issues associated with wind and water pipes. It’s also regarded as a leading environmental disaster in that area. Locals (residents) dislike it; many consider it to be an eyesore.

“It’s a great honour for all of us at the EPO for our new building in The Hague to be crowned “Best Tall Office Building” at the @CTBUH Tall + Urban Innovation Conference,” the EPO tweeted yesterday. Funny how all other aspects have been entirely ignored. The building received a lot of negative press throughout its construction, which involved serious injuries.

04.11.19

EPO Still Wasting Budget, Paying Media and Academics for Spin

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

António Campinos FTI

Summary: EPO money continues to flow like water into hands that are complicit in legitimising the EPO’s management and policies; this highlights the grave dangers of lack of oversight at the EPO, not to mention lawlessness or lack of enforcement

ONE aspect of EPO misconduct has been corruption and bribery of media — a topic we’ve covered in literally dozens of posts over the years. It leads to erosion of public trust in journalism. To make matters worse, the EPO did the same thing to academia. For a number of years it had been paying scholars to produce EPO propaganda. As a former scholar myself, I find that rather disturbing. It represents one of the things I hated most, having seen industry-funded colleagues and ‘research’. This is not acceptable as it causes the public to be sceptical of universities, even when they speak of serious issues such as climate change. The EPO has been lying to its staff for a very long time, never mind the lies to journalists (some of whom repeated EPO lies without being paid for it). We gave a lot of examples.

“This is not acceptable as it causes the public to be sceptical of universities, even when they speak of serious issues such as climate change.”Earlier this week when we wrote about the new survey — a load of spin that we later dubbed Management's Voice, Management's Future — readers wrote to us with further input. They found the survey insulting. It insulted their intelligence. Yesterday JUVE’s most familiar face tweeted: “The 2019 EPO staff survey results yield a mixed bag. Staff workload shows a marked improvement compared to conditions under the previous president. But not all feedback about the new mangement is positive.”

JUVE’s article was composed by Christina Schulze, generally a good journalist with solid knowledge and understanding in this area (she has a good track record when it comes to covering EPO scandals). The title says “Aiming for peace at the EPO,” but who wouldn’t be aiming for it? Even dictators say they want peace. They want calm. They want people to stop resisting injustice, dictatorship. But does the EPO aim for justice? No.

“The EPO is amplifying its employee voice,” say the article’s first words, but in reality that’s just EPO management claiming to be doing that while distorting that voice. Ask the staff (without that staff risking reprisal). The opening paragraph states:

The EPO is amplifying its employee voice through a new staff survey. It was conducted this year by risk management and advisory company Willis Towers Watson.

The study aims to determine if the revamped management strategy is having a positive impact on staff participation in the EPO. With a response rate of 85%, exactly 5,675 EPO employees participated.

We expected such press coverage, not necessarily from the above site with its often pro-UPC and sometimes pro-EPO spin — all in the name of ‘balance’ of course! (i.e. believing Team Battistelli and greedy Team UPC)

As we shall see (or already show at this moment), being pro-EPO (management) is a “smart” business decision because there’s money up for grabs. Battistelli seeded millions of EPO euros for such a purpose. Sites like IAM grabbed that money (e.g. pro-UPC event in the US).

Looking around for some UPC coverage, we’ve just found US media with connections to the EPO boosting the UPC. Vincent Look, “an intellectual property and registered patent attorney” by his own description, published under the loaded headline “What to Know in the Lead-Up to Brexit and the Unitary Patent System” even though the UPC is dead. This comes from Watchtroll, so it’s consistent with what they did before. The EPO links to them and gives them interviews, never mind the site’s aggressive tendencies. Watch what politicians they’re associated with (notice IAM at the background):

Malathi Nayak on Coons

He also spoke at IAM events and here’s Watchtroll:

Lobbying for Watchtroll

Shown above is Coons. Watchtroll has has just published an article titled “Tillis, Coons Ask Iancu to Take Action on Serial IPR Challenges” (like appeals at the EPO).

These spinners try to make people who call out fake patents seem like the moral equivalent of trolls. In their own words: “In their latest letter weighing in on intellectual property issues, Senators Thom Tillis and Chris Coons have expressed their concerns about the effects of “serial” inter partes review (IPR) petitions on the U.S. patent system.”

Notice the wording; it’s like “serial infringer” or “efficient infringer” — terms they habitually use to demonise practicing companies as opposed to trolls and law firms (i.e. themselves). Coons is just trying to make a name (and career) for himself out of this anti-PTAB trash [1, 2, 3]. He has done that for years. He failed. For years! Watchtroll is again conflating patents with science or invention (“Senate IP Subcommittee Witnesses Offer Solutions for Finding ‘Lost Einsteins,’ But Miss Opportunity to Discuss Broader Patent Problems” published yesterday). Such is the effect of making a fake ‘industry’ of lawyers and lawsuits; they obstruct science for legal billing.

Whose side is the EPO on? Today’s EPO is working for patent bullies and trolls.
An article by José Santacroce (Moeller IP Advisors) reminded us of it yesterday. To quote:

The European Patent Office (EPO), the European Committee of Standardization (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) have signed recently a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to enhance the support they provide to industry and stakeholders in Europe and beyond in the field of standard-essential patents.

This is the first MoU between the organizations who will now work together to extend knowledge about the relationship between standardization and patents.

The purpose of this collaboration is to support inventors, innovators, researchers and industry on standard-essential patents (SEPs) in different areas of technology by promoting the dissemination of technical standards including relevant patented technologies. The agreement complements the established co-operation in this field between the EPO, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and the European Commission.

The above from Mondaq is self-promotional (as usual from that site), but it shows that law firms like what the EPO is doing. It’s good for them. It’s good for their biggest clients (large multinational corporations). And yet the EPO still pretends to care about “SMEs” while constantly undermining them, discriminating against them and so on. Yesterday it wrote: “Claire Fentsch from @IPRHelpdesk will set out the basic IP toolkit that SMEs need at this event in Bucharest” (an EPO promotional event).

There’s a similar issue in the US, but we do not cover US cases and affairs anymore (not at the same level of granularity). See our daily links under “Intellectual Monopolies” for more details. At the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) PTAB continues to leverage prior art and obviousness (Sections 102 and 103, not just Section 101) to eliminate bad patents. Even the anti-PTAB Anticipat says so and presents numbers/graphs. So patents continue to be thrown out aplenty. If they’re not valid, they should bin them. We also took stock of some upcoming cases and outcomes that are encouraging. Software patents are definitely not coming back to the US (not soon anyway).

Meanwhile, proponents of software patents in Europe have mentioned the UPC in this piece that was mentioned by SUEPO before. Tobias Kaufmann (Bardehle Pagenberg) speaks of the employer’s “Contribution To The Public Consultation” of the EPO, which hardly changed at all.

Based on yesterday’s tweets and “news” from the EPO, António Campinos belatedly continues the same program Battistelli created as a publicity stunt while bribing academics for bias and lies. In this tweet about call for proposals the EPO links to this old page (warning: epo.org link) and says: “We’ve just launched a new edition of our Academic Research Programme. What it is, how to win a grant and all other details are just a click away…”

The press release (warning: epo.org link) says:

Under the programme, grants of up to EUR 100 000 are awarded in respect of selected proposals on patent-related matters.

[...]

The 2019 call for projects addresses the following thematic areas spanning various disciplines including economics, IP management, and data sciences:

Measuring the impact of patents on innovation
The role of patents in technology transfer, commercialisation, and/or investment decisions
Patent services and intermediaries
Patents and disruptive technologies (AI, Blockchain, 3D, etc.)
Impact of public policy and the regulatory landscape on the use of patents by SMEs and PROs across Europe
Patents and climate change mitigation technologies
Advanced use of PATSTAT, patent searching, and analytics (e.g. classification, potential of IP linked open data)

So the EPO is like oil companies funding ‘research’ on pollution caused by oil. Wonderful. Nothing has changed. Campinos pays PR firms, he produces expensive fake narrative of staff welfare and now he pays for sellout ‘scholars’ (like the Koch brothers do for patent 'research' in the US).

Speaking of sellouts, only months after EPO Attaché Albert Keyack entered the private sector (like Jesper Kongstad) we now see Alberto Casado Cerviño doing the same.

“Alberto Casado Cerviño, the European Patent Office’s former vice president, has joined Spanish IP boutique Baylos,” World Intellectual Property Review wrote yesterday. Battistelli’s bulldog has meanwhile created his own business in Croatia.

The EPO has a 'revolving doors' problem, just like the USPTO. From corridors of EPO corruption these people move on to private firms or create their own, ‘monetising’ their connections.

04.10.19

EPO Benefits European Patent Trolls With Dodgy European Patents

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Grasshopper

Summary: The EPO is a stepping stone for parasitic entities looking to leverage patents for exploitative extortion rackets all over Europe; if they get their way, companies that manufacture and sell things will pay a hefty tax to those who create nothing at all and are often not European, either

EARLIER this year we wrote on a number of occasions about the European Patent Office (EPO) and Licensing Executives Society International (LESI) getting together; it was upsetting but not shocking because we had already seen the EPO getting together with patent parasites and trolls.

LESI now has this new press release about “[j]oint LESI-EPO training course for SMEs on technology commercialisation” (typical “SME” spin) and this was retweeted by EPO PR people yesterday, saying that they have “jointly developed 2-day training course, “Succeeding at Technology Commercialisation and Negotiation” to be held in Basel, Switzerland, 26 – 28 June.”

“The patent maximalists are like politicians who leverage “the kids” and “terrorism” in order to get their way. They use words like “pirates” and “theft” (when talking about similarity of things).”It’s bad enough that the EPO is liaising with front groups of patent trolls in another continent. António Campinos has done that several times before, reinforcing the perception that the EPO is a foe of European people and ally of large non-European multi-national corporations. This is more of what we have come to expect, having seen the EPO doing interviews with American patent extremists (sites that promote software patents and patent trolls, bash judges and bully officials). We’re thinking primarily (but not only) about Watchtroll. To give examples from this week, Eileen McDermott (editor) is now trying to paint software patents as “medical” — the new lie/trick of patent extremists. She calls it “diagnostics and computer-implemented inventions” as in (as per the summary): “Current patent eligibility concerns tend to tip the scales against patenting. Uncertainty about being able to get a patent and license it weighs against pursuing diagnostics and computer-implemented inventions—at least in the United States.”

Over at Watchtroll, software patents gradually become “computer-implemented inventions” (CII) and even though there is nothing inherently "medical" about algorithms they use terms like SaMD. This relatively new “medical” slant on software patents is designed to steer us into a moral panic, as in “if you don’t grant me software patents, then people will die!”

The patent maximalists are like politicians who leverage “the kids” and “terrorism” in order to get their way. They use words like “pirates” and “theft” (when talking about similarity of things).

Watchtroll also wrote this yesterday: “Recently, I’ve written several articles laying the blame for the patent eligibility crisis squarely on the Federal Circuit.”

So says Gene Quinn, who regularly attacks judges and courts which aren’t patent extremists like him. Paul Morinville does not get it either. Patents are a monopoly, yet he says “Startups with Patents are the Ultimate Anti-Monopoly” and was unable to put together a coherent argument when challenged over it last week. Startups are most vulnerable to patent lawsuits. Morinville and Quinn regularly bash PTAB (the equivalent of EPO judges) and promote software patents. These are the sorts of people the EPO nowadays chooses to associate with. But thankfully, Watchtroll is collapsing. The same is true for other such site. The patent microcosm in the US is in a state collapse/disarray. So their sites are rotting too. I remember when they used to regularly write articles. Actual articles. Analyses…

When not posting ads for events, Patent Docs reduces itself to marketing spam for companies that do privateering with patents (as it did yesterday). Patently-O barely even writes a single article per day now. It used to do several.

Going back to Europe, where does it stand on patents? Well, a couple of weeks ago we wrote about a European patent troll, Sisvel, targeting the Free software community by aiming software patents at Free/libre codecs. “The Alliance for Open Media Statement” has just been published to say:

The Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia) unites leading internet and media technology companies in a collaborative effort to offer open, royalty-free and interoperable solutions for the next generation of media delivery. AOMedia is aware of the recent third-party announcement attempting to launch a joint patent licensing program for AV1. AOMedia was founded to leave behind the very environment that the announcement endorses – one whose high patent royalty requirements and licensing uncertainty limit the potential of free and open online video technology. By settling patent licensing terms up front with the royalty-free AOMedia Patent License 1.0, AOMedia is confident that AV1 overcomes these challenges to help usher in the next generation of video-oriented experiences.

A large German patent troll has a lot to do with it, as well as the American front group, MPEG-LA, which is supported by Microsoft, Apple, and Nokia. They try to impose software patents on everything. In the case of video, Unified Patents keeps targeting Velos, as this post from yesterday reveals:

On April 8, 2019, Unified filed a petition (with Finnegan serving as lead counsel) for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 9,100,634, owned by Velos Media, LLC (Velos), as part of Unified’s ongoing efforts in its SEP Video Codec Zone.

The ‘634 patent and its corresponding extended patent family is one of the largest families known to be owned by Velos. Including this petition, Unified has now challenged patents representing over 35% of Velos’ total known U.S. assets.

Unified Patents has already gone after several other patents of Velos and there’s this Microsoft-connected patent troll (Dominion Harbor armed by Intellectual Ventures) perishing in PTAB because Unified Patents makes new gains. Also on the subject of Microsoft, which truly turned Mokia into a patent troll (and troll feeder), mind this latest post at FOSSPatents. “My NokiaPlanP [Patents] is happening,” Benjamin Henrion wrote yesterday, citing this report:

It is high time that the automotive industry stopped being the ideal target of shakedown attempts by standard-essential patent (SEP) holders due to its sheer size, the high prices of its end products, and its pacifist attitude. For a long time, car makers used to be on the sidelines of major disputes. They generally resolved any IP issues out of court, respecting exclusionary rights in some cases and cross-licensing (or simply refraining from hostilities) in many others. But times have changed, and with cars increasingly becoming smartphones on wheels, those car makers are no longer dealing with a herd of sheep when it comes to patent assertions but have entered a jungle teeming with predators. As a result, they must confront those challenges more decisively, lest they be eaten alive.

Against this backdrop I’d like to promote (not getting anything for it) an upcoming Munich conference hosted by the Bardehle Pagenberg firm: Automotive Patent wars — To pay or not to pay: That is the question.” on May 9.

[...]

Having watched Nokia in litigation over many years (even going back to its first dispute with Apple), and the unfortunate (for Nokia and its stakeholders, though not for consumers) demise of its mobile device business that changed its attitude toward patent monetization, I’m not surprised that it apparently made demands that Daimler wasn’t willing to meet without a fight. Daimler is also defending itself against Broadcom’s German lawsuits (as is BMW).

The EPO has already adopted a bunch of new buzzwords and acronyms like SDV, which it used to disguise abstract patents "on a car".

« 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