THE quality of patents at the EPO declined sharply. Many insiders say so; they would know, wouldn't they? They are, after all, those under pressure to work faster and more sloppily, often granting or rejecting patents based on a more superficial examination.
"It's a lot better when an application or a patent is found ineligible/invalid early on, albeit that kind of trajectory is becoming rare as workload grows and the appeal boards are further marginalised, threatened, understaffed, and even illegally suspended."Watch this new press release (found today). A company "on Wednesday had received so-called Intention to Grant from European Patent Office (EPO) regarding the company's patent application for Europe" (and beyond, as EPO covers not only Europe).
Is this what "Early Certainty" (i.e. superficial examination) might look like? Or "legal certainty on pending applications," as the EPO euphemistically calls it? Here is yet another example of patents in this week's press releases [1, 2, 3]. "The EPO upheld a decision that found the patent to be invalid," it says. It's not unusual for European patents (EPs) to be found invalid some time down the line these days. Each time a patent is granted in error the outcome would be innocent people (defendants, the public etc.) being punished. It's unjust. It's a lot better when an application or a patent is found ineligible/invalid early on, albeit that kind of trajectory is becoming rare as workload grows and the appeal boards are further marginalised, threatened, understaffed, and even illegally suspended.
Yesterday, on the 1st of February, Matthew Fletcher from Abel & Imray wrote about the Enlarged Board of Appeal and his colleague Paul Brady wrote about the Enlarged Board's recent case, which IP Kat mentioned as well (as the referral got published). To quote the detailed analysis from Abel & Imray:
Has The EPO's Enlarged Board Detoxified "Poisonous Divisionals"?
In G 1/15, the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal was asked to clarify the position regarding the entitlement to "partial priority". A key issue was whether it is necessary for subject matter to be defined as alternatives in a claim in order for the claim to be entitled to multiple priority dates.
While the full decision in G1/15 is not yet out, the Enlarged Board has issued an order to the effect that the only aspect that needs to be considered is whether the subject matter claimed is disclosed in a priority document. This possibly more liberal approach to partial priority may be good news for many applicants.
"We are growingly pessimistic about patent quality at the EPO and so are stakeholders of the EPO, based on a new survey."What we are basically seeing here is lenience being expanded/broadened, thanks perhaps to boards that are under growing pressure from Battistelli and his thugs not to "interfere" with "production" (i.e. devaluation of patents for artificial growth).
We are growingly pessimistic about patent quality at the EPO and so are stakeholders of the EPO, based on a new survey. They want Battistelli out, but Battistelli is guarded by a Chinchilla of a person (who is otherwise supposed to boss him). Chinchilla Man of the Administrative Council actually played a role, at Battistelli's behest, in trying to get a judge fired. It serves to show just how crooked the whole Organisation has become. ⬆