Bonum Certa Men Certa

When European SMEs Make the Mistake of Relying on the EPO's Integrity, Now Want to Even SUE the EPO

And the European Patent Office (EPO) wants even more power with the Unitary Patent?

Sorting ideas



Summary: The EPO's alleged mistreatment of small applicants that actually come from Europe (unlike prolific applicants that enjoy a fast lane and come from outside Europe) riles up even the most important stakeholders and creates a desire to sue the European Patent Office

TECHRIGHTS has mostly focused on the serious human rights violations by the EPO in recent years. Prior to that, software patents in Europe were the main subject of focus and earlier this month, opening the year 2016, we also revisited the gross discrimination against small European businesses. The EPO is not European (in the EU sense); it's an international institution for internationalists, globalists, multinationals or whatever one calls billionaires and their large corporations that are politically connected and often evade tax using all softs of dirty (but legalised by their lobbyists) tricks.

"The EPO is not European (in the EU sense); it's an international institution..."As recently promised, today we start shedding some more light on how small European businesses feel about the EPO. European businesses that actually had the displeasure of dealing with the EPO that is, not some mythical SMEs that the EPO's PR team speaks of...

We wish to start with the following letter, redacted a little in order to better protect various people's identities and cases.

President Benoît Battistelli

European Patent Office

80298 Munich

Germany

Dear M. Battistelli

[redcated]

Further to my letter of [redcated] I have received a reply from [redcated]. I remain gravely concerned about how inventors, in particular individual inventors, are handled by the EPO.

My concern is that European citizens are able to secure the maximum possible Intellectual Property (“IP”) that they are entitled to in the shortest possible time so that economic value is maximised. This cannot be the case if the EPO refuses applications on which the EPO accepts there is patentable IP and if the EPO takes more than 6 years to arrive at this position.

In the case of my [redcated] EPO agreed to grant a patent on the basis of [redcated] as set out in the document [redcated] and that he could review that claim to ensure all IP was included and submit dependent claims. This resulted in submissions [redcated]. The first, [redcated], addressed the omissions and the subsequent filings were modifications to accommodate EPO objections. Contrary to the refusal letter just sent out [redcated] did not refuse [redcated] per se but was seeking the above augmentation (IP omitted and dependent claims) previously agreed. In accordance with the advice of [redcated] in his submission of [redcated] set out revised arguments and the order by which his claim revisions should be reviewed.

[redcated]

Had this review process been followed then, as a very disappointing minimum, there should have been a letter to grant on the basis of [redcated] and not the refusal [redcated].

Not only have the documents not been reviewed as outlined (they have reviewed [redcated]) but your examiners claim there is no [redcated] on file! If the examiners believed there to be no such document why did they not contact [redcated] to clarify the position? [redcated] is on file dated [redcated].

In addition to losing [redcated], your examiners appear to have lost the inventive step agreed at the first oral hearing. As the diagram below shows all the features present in [redcated] have been migrated into [redcated]. How therefore has the inventive step in [redcated] been lost in [redcated]? The text also shows the correction to the structure and addition of the [redcated].

[redcated]

Most troubling of all the issues is the basis on which the EPO has rejected [redcated]. [redcated] outlines this as follows: -

[redcated]

I am gravely concerned because it would appear that the examiners have themselves created a false inventive step solely for the purpose of rejecting claim [redcated]! Taking features in common between inventions then falsely making out that this is the inventions inventive step is clearly a basis by which all inventions could be refused. If this is so there is a very serious affair to address.

[redcated] has [redcated] for an explanation but none has been forthcoming from any of them. This in itself speaks volumes. [redcated] enquiries should be answered as a matter of urgency. The inventive step agreed at the first oral hearing is surely documented on the file. Please could I see this document? I am keen to understand the truth of this matter. I understand [redcated] has a recording of the first oral hearing which, if necessary, will provide definitive answers. Apparently inventive step was discussed for at least an hour.

I find it unacceptable that the EPO should issue a letter of refusal whilst disputed items are still being debated and to do so without first consulting the applicant. The examiners have written off years of work at the stroke of a pen despite accepting there is patentable IP to be had. The only option for [redcated] is further expense and further delay none of which seems fair or reasonable.

Surely it would be helpful in most instances to talk through the issues with the applicants in advance of reviews to ensure mutuality of understanding. I am dismayed that there has been no attempt on the part of the EPO to have any sort on conversation whether by email or conference call with [redcated]. Considering the process involves highly technical scientific and legal points between people of different cultures and languages I would have thought dialogue absolutely essential and by far the easiest way to remove misunderstandings and expedite matters.

Given the gravity of the situation I would ask that in addition to the specific questions raised that require an immediate response that it would seem appropriate that [redcated] file with the EPO be independently reviewed so that lessons can be learned from his experience and his invention can be considered fairly.



"I believe the action of the EPO has effectively stripped me of all economic value of my invention already," told us the person who had been victimised above. "I think the only thing that will get them to sit up and pay attention/change is if they are sued. I am not sure if this is possible and what the risks and costs to myself might be. Have you ever heard of them being sued?"

"The EPO has become just an instrument of power to be habitually misused by people in power without them facing any consequences."As even the Dutch government begrudgingly finds out, this isn't so simple. The EPO cannot really be sued for various reasons (they cannot sue either, but they threatened to sue me in an effort to intimidate and induce censorship). One can find the reasons for their legal immunity/impunity in our past articles. This is in fact one of the more outrageous things about the EPO. They're unaccountable and not liable to anyone.

It must be a thrilling experience working inside Team Battistelli, essentially being a tyrant above the law.

As various different factors serve to indicate, today's EPO is not about invention but about protection or protectionism. The EPO has become just an instrument of power to be habitually misused by people in power without them facing any consequences.

"To us, the moment 8:17 A.M. means something - something very important, if it happens to be the starting time of our daily train. To our ancestors, such an odd eccentric instant was without significance - did not even exist. In inventing the locomotive, Watt and Stevenson were part inventors of time."

--Aldous Huxley

Recent Techrights' Posts

Microsoft Windows Fell to All-Time Lows in Egypt This Summer, Vista 11 Adoption Decreases While GNU/Linux Increases
Vista 11 is going down rather than up
12 Hours Ago The Register MS Published a Fake (Paid-for) Article, But This One for a Change Did Not Promote a Ponzi Scheme
There are also Free software alternatives, but they don't pay The Register MS for "synthetic" so-called 'journalism'
 
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, August 27, 2025
IRC logs for Wednesday, August 27, 2025
Slopwatch: linuxsecurity.com, Slopfarms in Google News, and More
Some readers of ours end up sending us links that are from slopfarms, not realising those are slopfarms
Gemini Links 27/08/2025: Katrina Memories and Google Versus Software Freedom
Links for the day
Links 27/08/2025: Police Against Media Freedom in the UK, Energy-Hungry Countries Targeted by China
Links for the day
Links 27/08/2025: Microsoft Demoralises Staff With Slop Demands, Leaving Mastodon Explained
Links for the day
More People Need to Call Out and Put a Stop to Serial Sloppers
Unless slopfarms are stopped, people will read and share Microsoft propaganda made by chatbots
Gemini Links 27/08/2025: Headphones and Tartarus
Links for the day
Morale at Microsoft is Terrible (Proprietary Plagiarism Machines Have No Future, LLM Slop is a Bubble)
The slop sceptics/critics are going to have lots of "told you so" moments
GNOME "governance issues, staff reduction, etc." amidst Albanian whistleblowing and women trafficking
Notice the connection to Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) and GNOME
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, August 26, 2025
IRC logs for Tuesday, August 26, 2025
Richard Stallman (RMS) Was Right About "Sideloading" in 1996
We now have computers that treat booting GNU/Linux like an act of "Sideloading"
Panama: Windows Down From 97% "Market Share" to Less Than 30%
In 2009, Windows was measured at 97.24% (compared to 62.32% right now or less than 30% if one also counts Android)
The UEFI 9/11 - Part I - Introduction to Impending Catastrophe (Microsoft Preventing People From Booting Non-Windows Systems)
eight-part series
Why Techrights is Slow Today (Bot Floods)
We don't know if those bots are connected to LLMs (we have not checked), but that is a possibility
Slopwatch: DDoS Slop, LinuxBSDos.com Spam, and Slopfarms in Google News, Including webpronews.com
Among the news we also found fakes, albeit not so much today
Links 26/08/2025: "Ballooning Debt" in France and "Transnational Repression in the UK"
Links for the day
Gemini Links 26/08/2025: Listening to Alcest and Google Doing Evil (Users Installing Software is "Sideloading" and Prohibited)
Links for the day
Links 26/08/2025: DNS Tampering and TikTok Layoffs
Links for the day
Microsoft's Windows "Market Share" Overestimated
Microsoft's income sources are shrinking
We Shall See...
My wife and I are hardly the first victims of Brett Wilson LLP
This New Determination on a Case Echoes the Modus Operandi of Microsoft's Serial Strangler vs Techrights (Its Online Decision/Judgment Says Truth and Public Interest Defend the Publisher)
Noel Anthony Clarke hopefully has enough money left to pay his victims, which include the publishers
Going Offline
There was life before the Net
The Register MS Has Apparently Shut Down Its Office
It is basically a fake address on the face of it
There Are Also Expectations of IBM Layoffs Very Soon With "Narrative Control."
Some of them mention Red Hat and how IBM failed to achieve anything substantial with that acquisition
After at Least Two Rounds of Mass Layoffs in August Microsoft Said to Have "September Layoff Confirmed - Performance Based"
Those "M5 level meetings" sound plausible
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, August 25, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, August 25, 2025