Reference: genome.gov (US)

MUCH as we had feared, the EPO under Battistelli (i.e. totally dysfunctional) went on to granting all sorts of crazy patents, making itself the world's laughing stock when it comes to patent quality. Battistelli does not even understand patents. He didn't touch the subject until he was near retirement age. He thinks of them like commodities in a factory and uses words like "demand", "production", etc. That's how frustratingly hopeless he is.

"Battistelli does not even understand patents."Based on these two press releases from yesterday [1, 2] and a new article from the UK, in spite of oppositions and objections (from courts even), the USPTO follows crooked Battistelli and lets CRISPR be patented. "Scientists and inventors have been watching the decisions of the EPO and USPTO," says the article, "because these decisions may leave one of these entities with a patent portfolio worth billions of dollars."

"It does not take a genius to understand why hitherto, for a very long time in fact, patents on CRISPR have been verboten."So it's all about greed, isn't it? And at whose expense? Where are the honest economists of the EPO as opposed to French cronies of Battistelli? (Yann Ménière)

It does not take a genius to understand why hitherto, for a very long time in fact, patents on CRISPR have been verboten. "In parallel with the USPTO's review," the article says, "the EPO was considering what, if any, patent protection it should grant UC. UC's European patent application was the subject of great interest, as several third-party observations were submitted to the EPO seeking to impede the issuance of the patent. These observations included arguments that the UC patent publications did not support a claim scope that encompassed CRISPR in a eukaryotic environment, similar to those presented in the United States. Despite these submissions, the EPO has notified the public that it intends to issue a patent to UC for the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in either prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells. Within nine months of issuance, this patent may be the subject of third-party oppositions that challenge whether the patent should have issued. If filed, an opposition will afford the third-party a substantive role in the arguments before the EPO than it had before, similar to the procedure in the US where a third-party cab remain involved during an interference proceeding. This may increase the likelihood of the EPO questioning a claim scope that includes use in a eukaryotic cell."

"That's why scientists, not crooked politicians, are needed for top positions at the EPO."As is widely known by now (even by EPO stakeholders, not just insiders), Battistelli has attacked oppositions and appeals, narrowing their impact and ensuring that a massive decline in patent quality will be harder to detect and measure.

Battistelli's regime and bullies have already cost many people their lives. With patents like the above, Battistelli might soon have a lot more 'blood on his hands' (maybe millions of people). That's why scientists, not crooked politicians, are needed for top positions at the EPO. Battistelli's political associations have in fact disqualified him, but he doesn't obey rules, not even his own. ⬆