Not worth the money anymore

Summary: Growing unrest from EPO applicants and harsh position papers are on their way, expressing disapproval of the direction the EPO has taken under Battistelli's appalling leadership (which 0% of the stakeholders recently polled approve of)

INSIDERS from the EPO are rightly concerned that quality control at the EPO is not only declining but may eventually lead to a French style system where all applications are just shelved and presumed valid. EPO stakeholders, who have evidently grown tired of Battistelli and very much upset at the direction the EPO has taken, finally speak out, just as their attorneys did. There was an article about it some hours ago (screenshot above) and here are some snippets from it:

Biotechs concerned over EPO rules

Gavin Recchia, Principal at Australia’s large IP attorney firm Davies Collison & Cave told European Biotechnology that the so-called Early Certainty on Examination “may well have the unintended consequence of reducing the filing of life sciences patent applications in Europe”.

[...]

European experts had carefully criticised the Early Examination plans earlier. Now, sources told European Biotechnology that the German biotech association BIO Deutschland and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) will come up with position papers soon. According to leaked information, the lobby groups will propose to the EPO to establish an option to de-pace the accelerated examination on request in order to grant early legal certainty on one hand but also to prevent potential downsides of the new rules to the life sciences sector.

This indicates that some major action is poised to start. What will Battistelli have to say for himself? He ruined the EPO in order to fake "production" and he tarnished the reputation of every single EP in the process. The whole well is muddied. The certainty associated with the validity of European patents (EPs) is no more.

"What will Battistelli have to say for himself? He ruined the EPO in order to fake "production" and he tarnished the reputation of every single EP in the process."Battistelli actually does have something to show. This Cambodia thing which was more like a joke/farce is resurfacing again today, this time courtesy of Schmitt & Orlov with some more 'copypasta', just like the two articles we saw in the Cambodian press. "Sources https://www.epo.org/" says this so-called 'article' at the end; they're like parrots of cheaply-made PR, sourced from the incompetent PR staff of Battistelli. We just can't help wondering, why do some patent firms still prop up this nonsense? Yesterday it was Shelston IP doing it and now Schmitt & Orlov. Can't they see how truly and utterly ridiculous this whole thing is? For EP holders to be able to go to Cambodia? Because they can enforce their patents in Cambodia, a country with no EPs at all, some time later this year (summer)?

The one thing Battistelli attempted to market (perceptual promises, always in vain) was the UPC, but there will be no unitary effect any time soon (if ever!). Dr. Luke McDonagh is planning to explain why, having already written a great deal about the subject, including a whole book. The subject is to be explained in London tomorrow (or technically, as per local time, later today). Here are his thoughts:

One of the most pressing questions that remains unresolved regarding Brexit and IP concerns a centrepiece of EU innovation policy – namely, the ongoing process for setting up a single unitary patent (the EP with unitary effect) and a Unified Patent Court (UPC) common to participating EU member states (including, at least for now, the UK).

[...]

So far, 25 out of the 28 EU member states have agreed to join the UPC, with Spain, Poland and Croatia the only ones not participating. Until the Brexit referendum, the UK seemed to be well on the way to full ratification of the UPC. Indeed, for the past four years the UK government has been making plans to host one of the new court’s central divisions in Aldgate, east London, where a building has already been leased in preparation for the new court’s establishment and mock trials have taken place.

What is crucial in the Brexit context is that even though the UPC will have its own jurisdiction to rule with respect to most patent issues – like the infringement of patented drugs – it must defer to the CJEU in a small number of areas of EU law, such issues arising under the Biotech Directive or matters relating to Supplementary Protection Certificates. In line with this, the CJEU in Opinion 1/09 held that only states that accept the supremacy of EU law and the jurisdiction of the CJEU may sign up.

[...]

One final point – the fate of the UK’s continued participation in the unitary patent scheme remains less certain. The UP, unlike the UPC, is created by an EU regulation, and there is no way to consider it a purely ‘international right’ (although the existing EP granted by the EPO would fit this definition). Accepting the UP would require a more extensive assessment of EU law and as yet the UK government has not given us any clues as to its intentions. It remains possible that the the UK – post-Brexit – will stay within the UPC but not the UP.

In summary, EPO applicants receive EPs that are of low quality, are generally overpriced, have no unitary effect, but may be enforceable in Cambodia later this year. For those who don't know, Cambodia is one of the poorest countries in Asia.

And some people still wonder why and how the EPO became Europe's (or the world's) laughing stock? ⬆