Reference: Neil Gorsuch
Summary: Whispering campaign surrounds Neil Gorsuch’s alleged or perceived views on patents, and in particular the America Invents Act (AIA) which brought the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a serial invalidator of software patents, owing to Alice (a Supreme Court decision)
HIDDEN behind an obnoxious paywall today (as is usual for National Law Journal) is this article with an access token (if someone can access the whole, please get in touch with us). To quote the summary: “Though Gorsuch’s views on patents are mostly unknown, the Tenth Circuit judge has had plenty to say in other areas of intellectual property. And attorneys see signs that he might scale back some procedures created by the America Invents Act.”
“So far it’s mainly an enigma, much like Obama in 2008 (people just impose their own projections onto this blank slate).”We don’t know who these attorneys are (could be professional spinners like Watchtroll), but they might be trying to convince themselves — and the media — that Gorsuch, whom we mentioned in [1, 2, 3], would turn the Supreme Court into an opponent of the AIA, which brought PTAB among other things. The other day we mentioned how in January PTAB broke its own all-time record and this is recalled this week by MIP, which has done a decent job tracking PTAB’s workload.
It would be useful to know on which side Gorsuch sits, at least as far as patents go. So far it’s mainly an enigma, much like Obama in 2008 (people just impose their own projections onto this blank slate).
“If Trump’s Administration promotes patent maximalism, then it can eventually find itself sued for patent infringements.”Will Gorsuch be a secret weapon of patent maximalists or more like a Nemesis to them? They still try very hard to scandalise Michelle Lee [1, 2, 3, 4] and install Rader as Director of the Patent Office.
Incidentally, on the subject of patent maximalism in government, there is this new article titled “Suing The United States Government For Patent Infringement And Defending Against A Claim Of Obviousness”, written by a law firm. To quote:
A patentee may bring patent infringement claims against the United States government pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498, in which Congress waived the sovereign immunity of the United States against such claims. Patent infringement actions against the government are similar to those brought against non-governmental entities, but they do have some idiosyncrasies. For example, patent owners can only sue the government for infringement in the United States Court of Federal Claims, as opposed to a district court, and jury trials are not available in the Court of Federal Claims.
If Trump’s Administration promotes patent maximalism, then it can eventually find itself sued for patent infringements. They ought to pursue patent quality (Make Patent Quality Great Again), not patent litigation (Make Litigation Great Again). █
Send this to a friend
Summary: As of today, there is still no official word on whether or not Lee continues her tenure, which saw the demise of patents on software and along with that the demise of patent trolls and frivolous litigation
WITH almost 50 comments in this thread, from which the above screenshot came, we are still not sure (as of Monday night) if Michelle Lee will definitely lead the USPTO. The author proceeds to other topics like pendency, but there is no update on the above.
Lee’s position is important because based on some rumours the person (or people) who might replace her would be devastating and corrupt. Lee has done a decent job cracking down on patent bullies and trolls, as we noted here before, and there are now new kinds of lawsuits over patents (lawsuits for patent abuses/bullying rather than infringements).
The following report from a trolls expert emerged some days ago and said:
With President Donald Trump having taken office today, many government offices are in the midst of a major transition. In one office that’s closely watched by technology and internet companies, however, the leadership looks to remain the same—the US Patent and Trademark Office.
There’s been no official announcement about USPTO leadership from Trump’s team, with the new president having been inaugurated earlier today. But The Hill reported yesterday that Michelle Lee, a former top lawyer at Google, will remain as USPTO director under President Trump. Politico reported the same news, sourcing it to statements by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and confirming it with other unnamed sources.
Lee’s remaining at USPTO is a a surprise victory for the technology sector, which offered scant support for President Trump while he was campaigning for office. She supported President Barack Obama’s patent reform agenda, and Trump’s views on patents are a cipher.
We are still waiting patiently for an official announcement. Lee’s haters, the patent microcosm, will certainly hope it never happens. █
Send this to a friend
Pressure to grant rather than properly examine dooms the core function of the Office
Summary: Whenever Battistelli brags about patent quality he may be consciously and deliberately lying through his teeth if the latest rumours are correct
EARLIER this week we saw rumours about the EPO‘s battle at the top — something we had already become aware of last month. It’s hardly surprising; there is a somewhat of a blame game.
“Some say that the final straw was the most known symptom of the dropping patent quality, the famous patent on the ‘hairdressing container’.”
–Anonymous“There are several rumours about the reasons for VP1′s resignation,” told us a source about Battistelli’s Vice-President Mini Minion (Minnoye), “but nothing is confirmed. One of the rumours says that VP1 Minnoye is the scapegoat for the low patent quality, which has even been criticised by some delegations. Some say that the final straw was the most known symptom of the dropping patent quality, the famous patent on the ‘hairdressing container’.” (mentioned here back in November)
Either way, this serves to reinforce our claims that EPO management is aware of the decline in quality and is thus repeatedly lying about it. “The departure of private Minnoye further weakens the president,” our source told us, “since the VPs are appointed by the Council. They can now choose a VP1 to obtain more control over the Office.” █
Send this to a friend
Jo Johnson rumoured to be the next IP minister
Summary: Rumours about Britain’s head of patents (and copyrights etc.) being the brother of the Brexit campaigner and Foreign Minister; meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, rumours suggest that the corrupt judge Rader might be the next head of patents in the United States
“Hold onto your hats,” IAM wrote yesterday, “we have just heard that Jo Johnson – brother of UK foreign secretary Boris Johnson – is to become the UK’s IP minister. […] Jo Johnson was on other side to his brother in EU referendum – he supported the Remain side. Some claim Boris may have done, too – secretly.”
Is he really the one to replace Lucy, whose departure was quietly confirmed? And if so, what does that say about the state of British politics? Is it the ‘Trump effect’ or the ‘Bergot effect’? [1, 2, 3, 4]
Jo “Johnson joined the Financial Times in 1997,” according to Wikipedia. That’s the ‘news’ paper that the EPO bribed in exchange for puff pieces and apparently also for the pro-UPC propaganda.
What would Johnson do about UPC ratification at times of Brexit, which his brother is still advocating? We don’t even know for sure yet if there’s anything to the rumour.
“Is it the ‘Trump effect’ or the ‘Bergot effect’?”Dr. Luke McDonagh, an academic from London who insists that UPC and Brexit are hardly compatible, says he “will be speaking at Oxford University on IP Litigation post-Brexit on 26th Jan” and here is the outline of what’s at stake:
Each year the OIPRC hosts a number of leading academics from around the world as part of its Invited Speaker Series. These events typically run from 5:15-6:45pm on Thursday evenings at St. Peter’s College; if the venue or time is different, it will be noted on the Events calendar. The Speaker Series consists of a presentation of about 45 minutes, followed by a Q&A session with the assembled group of academic staff, students (both undergraduate and graduate), researchers, and interested members of the public. Discussion is informal and includes participants from several disciplines, with a wide range of prior knowledge.
Meanwhile, over in the United States, USPTO Director Lee is rumoured to be on her way out and some people, as we noted here before, say that the corrupt Rader (raider) might be her successor. Benjamin Henrion wrote about it, as did other opposers of software patents. Rader is a man of serious ethical breaches, not only software patenting (patent maximalism) and patent trolling. Now that Trump is expressing intent to put reckless people in charge of everything (foxes guarding the hen house) Rader would be more of the same. █
Send this to a friend
When a dirty politician is put in charge of the EPO…
Summary: Rumours about the fate of people who are (or have been) criticising Battistelli’s reign of terror at the EPO
THE ‘king’ of EPO, Mr. Battistelli, fights a war against truth itself. He threatens those who say the truth even when he has zero authority over them (unless they’re just his mouthpieces*). This demonstrates just how much a cancer Battistelli has become not just inside Eponia but also in the whole of Europe if not the world.
We have been inquiring for quite a while about the situation at the EPO as there are some uncertainties about internal affairs. Does anyone out there have any news (or even rumours) about the Roland Grossenbacher situation? Not too long ago we heard that Battistelli was trying to ruin his career after he had ‘dared’ — how dare he! — criticise Team Battistelli and made it to the top of the appeals board (report in German), which is apparently to be headed by someone whom Battistelli does not like (in spite of UPC agenda, which Carl Josefsson’s Internet record is all about). Yesterday we found this new poem about the alleged situation (it spells out “ROLAND”):
R ogues Gallery corridor on the first floor
O ne former AC chairman doesn’t appear there anymore
L eft side former presidents do hang
A nd opposite AC chairmen,what a gang!
N ow we all know Batters takes no dis
D id he remove that eminent Swiss?
From what we can gather, Grossenbacher was not prominent in that last meeting and we’re not sure if he was even present at all. Previously, delegates became witnesses to what Battistelli does to other delegates who dare criticise him (even politely). Is Britain’s Sean Dennehey next on Battistelli's 'hit list'? █
* James Nurton, a Battistelli ally (in the puff pieces sense), is writing from London about the case that can put the final nail in the UPC coffin. Under “Cases to look out for in 2017″ he includes this: “The case does not have direct impact on IP, but it will have implications for the timing of Brexit, which in turn will affect what happens to EU trade marks and registered Community designs, the separation from EU Directives and Regulations and perhaps the implementation of the” UPC (behind paywall, but we assume so).
Send this to a friend
And Battistelli hypocritically compares the staff union to "Mafia"
Summary: Pretending there is a violent, physical threat that is imminent, Paranoid in Chief Benoît Battistelli is alleged to have pursued weapons on EPO premises
THE endless EPO scandals mean that the EPO is full of secrets but not full of surprises as nothing — however appalling — is surprising anymore. People from special services and the military are being recruited by Battistelli, making the EPO look like a warzone rather than something scientific.
“The EPO is becoming a madhouse by the day,” said a new comment from yesterday, as it’s rumoured that actual weapons on EPO premises were sought by Battistelli for his expensive goons (hired from the outside, i.e. hired externally at the EPO’s expense). To quote the comment:
wrt bodyguards the rumour has it that first they (Battistelli et al) expected them to carry their weapons IN the EPO before lawyers and infrastructures eventually convince them that this was perhaps a little overstrecht
The EPO is becoming a madhouse by the day. If you loved 2016 watch for 2017 since this is not yet the end of the circus
The internal “Gazette”, according to another new comment, is now being censored by the chronic liars at the top-level management of the EPO:
Your comment is certainly correct, but in the present instance, the contrary is true. An article was prepared, but not accepted by the editorial board of the Gazette.
It is not known whether the board received precise instructions from above or decided on its volition not to publish it. It might well be that the board asked for permission to publish it, but the result is the same in all three occurrences.
There is thus no coincidence.
This relates to a discussion which we previously covered in a couple of posts. These North Korea-like censures (strong criticism) and omissions by Team Battistelli — including Kongstad et al — have expanded their scope of media control to the whole Organisation, not just the Office, and they occasionally step on the toes of bloggers outside the EPO and manipulate the media worldwide (to the tune of over a million Euros of EPO budget… per year).
The Mafia never had this much control over the media. █
Send this to a friend
Photo credit: Bird & Bird, 2015
Summary: Early information (or at least rumour) begins to trickle in as day one of the meeting of the Administrative Council of the EPO reaches its end
NOT much is known to us about the meeting of the Administrative Council of the EPO (information welcome), but we have learned that Carl Josefsson was elected as President of the BoA. We haven’t mentioned Carl Josefsson here before, but a source told us that he is “a senior Judge of Appeal, Svea Court of Appeal,” based on this page from the EPO’s Web site. “I guess that he is a part of the Wolfpack,” our source added. We also understand that this appointment was against the President’s wishes. He gave a talk earlier this year and he appears to be involved in the UPC fantasy [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
“But everything is rumour,” our source emphasised. Josefsson is, as far as we know, Swedish. A fellow Swede, Catarina Holtz From the EPO Boards of Appeal (now retired), was a vocal critic of the EPO's management. █
Send this to a friend
Early Certainty from ILO (serving Battistelli the news)
Summary: Months after we learned that a former staff representative in Berlin had been dismissed we come across an anonymous claim that Berlin’s ‘branch’ of the EPO will be folded onto Munich’s
EARLIER THIS year, at around the beginning of September, we repeatedly wrote about claims that Battistelli’s union-busting actions (with bogus accusations and fake trials) had struck Berlin, not just Munich (and thereafter The Hague). It ought to be pretty clear by now, based on the ruling from judges as well, that ‘justice’ does not exist at the EPO; it’s about as legitimate as Turkish courts in 2016 (after a lot of perfectly-legitimate judges were toppled). We’ve carefully read again all the articles about the latest two ILO-AT decisions (it probably takes a lawyer otherwise, in order to understand the ramification for other cases) and we have just noticed that WIPR wrote an article about this almost a week later, following The Register, IP Watch, and Techrights (which was first to report on this).
To quote the article’s first few paragraphs:
The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization, a UN agency, has set aside two decisions made by the European Patent Office (EPO) and criticised the Administrative Council in the process.
On Wednesday, November 30, the tribunal dismissed the rulings, which had rejected employee challenges to internal rules.
The first decision, judgment number 3785, stemmed from a practice and procedure notice, which concerned the documents that make up European patent applications, issued by the EPO in 2013.
Now that Battistelli shuffles people around in alleged attempts to retaliate (collective punishment), e.g. moving the boards to Vienna, then Haar (not absolutely confirmed yet, except the budget), one should recall what we wrote about Berlin on the first of September, in light of this rumour which says “heard from the Isar building last week that this is exactly what Battistelli has in mind once the “haar-cut” is done: Berlin should be (des)integrated into Munich.”
Can someone confirm? On the right by the way is a photo of EPO staff in Berlin protesting in support of the dismissed staff representatives from Munich, urging Maas to offer support (he never did).
“Officially (usual lullabies) this is to increase efficiency (in reality this is to retaliate on the Berlin sub-office which has refused to submit since the beginning),” the same comment continues.
As we noted here several times before, such relocations can discourage people from staying in their job; some of them have spouses and kids in some job and/or school/kindergarten, respectively. It would be a convenient way to get rid of highly-paid staff without announcing any layoffs. See what happened in the now-understaffed boards. █
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »