Bonum Certa Men Certa

Status and Potency of European Patents Compromised

A seed
If even seeds are patentable, what else is?



Summary: The European Patents -- once renowned for their high quality -- see certainty lowered and the process associated with granting increasingly questioned

THE previous post spoke of the diminishing value of European Patents (granted by the EPO). The more patents get granted (with lowered quality bar), the lower their worth. Just see what the USPTO learned the hard way (about a decade ago).



According to the news (not some patent law firm), European Patents are already being successfully challenged. Apparently, "several European patents" (not just one) became toothless. To quote:

The German pharmaceutical and medical technology group B. Braun melsungen has lost a patent dispute with the Indian competitor Polymedicure since 2009.

This involves intravenous safety catheters, which had protected B. Braun with several European patents.

When a physician applies such a catheter to a patient, a needle guard automatically protrudes over the tip when the needle is withdrawn from the arm. This protects the doctor and nursing staff. Conventional catheters lack such a needle guard. Polymedicure also sells intravenous safety catheters, but their needle protection is somewhat different.


As any examiner can imagine, this reduces the likelihood that B. Braun (among other companies in its domain) will pursue more European Patents. Judging by last year's statistics, the number of patent applications at the EPO is declining.

Yesterday, the following comment turned up in IP Kat (where comments tend to be more informative than shameless self-promotion in 'article' form). It's about Eli Lilly, whose decision we included yesterday evening in daily links. To quote the comment (which relates to the EPO):

So, Lord Neuberger is "inclined to think that the examiner was wrong" in taking the view that the patent should be limited to pemetrexed disodium. However, the examiner does not specify the claims an applicant must file, either during drafting or prosecution. This was solely in the hands of the applicant. The examiner took the view that the claim to 'pemetrexed' was added matter, and rightly so. It is unfortunate that our Supreme court act in total disregard of established case law of the EPO. If the UK courts are so opposed to the strict law of added matter followed by the EPO, maybe they should not be so quick to follow the EPO's position in respect of novelty.

Whether, and to what extent, the courts should protect a patentee from its own incompetent drafting is a separate point as clearly equivalence doctrines exist. However, the present case leads to significant uncertainty in an area where claims can be defined in absolute clarity down to the atomic level. 'Sodium' means one thing only, whereas 'spring' is a functional definition open to interpretation. Even 'vertical' has a degree of error.


The same subject was soon covered by Managing IP, which also spoke of the relevance to the EPO:

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that a patentee can argue that the scope of protection afforded by its patent extends beyond the ambit of the claims. In its ruling in Eli Lilly v Actavis, the Court also provided guidance on when reference to EPO prosecution file would be appropriate in interpreting a patent in infringement cases


It didn't take long for Stephen Jones from CIPA (now writing at IP Kat) to write about it also, reminding us that this blog is written by a front group/lobbyists who also promoted the UPC.

Here is a comment on the blog: "It also rather puts a mocker on the EPO Examiners who expend such time and ink to pounce on any allegedly-impermissible intermediate generalisation. The Examiner insists that the Applicant write in the specific, not the general term - for the Applicant must not improve his position, must he? - and lo-and-behold, the Courts delete the specific and replace it again with the general term."

Yes, how do examiners feel?

Read the next comment:

I'm also surprised, as a first reaction, Stephen. But, on thinking about it, not so surprised. I should say that I've read your write up, above, but the Decision itself, not yet.

If you (the Inventor or Applicant) have only got results for Na, and the Paris priority year is ending, what can you get out of the EPO other than a claim limited to Na? But does that mean you are entitled to no more scope than that? Is it "fair" to confine your scope to Na alone?

What is the law in Germany on Doctrine of Equivalents? I suspect the SC is bearing in mind that it has to i) lay down law compatible with the reality of prosecution at the EPO, and ii) give due deference to the jurisprudence of Germany. I guess it was fully briefed on what the BGH says about any DoI.

And, quite apart from BREXIT, it should bear those two things in mind, shouldn't it?


Speaking of BGH, watch what the Kat Mark Schweizer wrote about a European Patent (EP) from Shionogi in relation to Merck (a competitor of Eli Lilly):

According to its media release of 11 July 2017, the German Federal Court of Justice confirmed the decision of the Federal Patent Court granting Merck a compulsory license to EP 1 422 218 owned by Shionogi. This allows Merck the continued distribution of its antiretroviral drug Isentress, an approved medication for treatment of HIV-patients, on the German market.

[...]

The Federal Patent Court held that the criteria developed under competition law for FRAND licenses were not applicable in the context of €§ 24(1) Patent Act. The media release of the BGH only states, somewhat cryptically, that in view of the specific facts of the case, “namely the uncertain outcome of the opposition proceeding”, Merck’s efforts had been sufficient.


I'm not feeling old, but I'm old enough to remember the days when EPs were the "gold standard" and hardly disputable. After Battistelli it seems like EPs are just riding the wave of their former reputation, which simply won't last long.

Recent Techrights' Posts

Microsoft Bankruptcy
"Microsoft unit in Russia to file for bankruptcy, database shows"
Techrights Does Not Compete With LLM Slop, It Exposes the Bastards, Plagiarists and Scammers Who Do That
People like Scam Altman, still facing a lawsuit from his own sister for sexual abuse against her
 
Links 01/06/2025: Windows TCO, Openwashing, "It's FOSS" Still Promoting Microsoft
Links for the day
Gemini Links 01/06/2025: Simplification and Networks Everywhere
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, May 31, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, May 31, 2025
Google Bribes EFF. EFF Promotes LLM Slop as 'Fair Use'. To GAFAM It's a Low-Cost Lobby Hedge.
So the bribes pay off ("slush fund") and the word spreads
Slopwatch: Fake Text and Images, Financial Bubbles, and Scams in "Intelligent" Clothing
Sometimes what they mean by "AI" is just cheap labour somewhere else, as we discussed in IRC a few hours ago
Why Microsoft is Collapsing (Similar to What's Happening at IBM), As Insiders See It
IBM seems like one heck of a mess
Reliable Computing Means Free (Libre) Computing
Sites that want to promote security ought to deal with the biggest issues
Links 31/05/2025: US Court Orders Sides With RFE/RL, War Updates From Ukraine
Links for the day
Gemini Links 31/05/2025: ARM Server and power_supply Subsystem
Links for the day
Links 31/05/2025: Slop Stigmatised as Disinformation, Catalyst/Driver of "Death of Communication"
Links for the day
Common Sense 101: Do Not Write Blog Posts Saying You Want to Murder Colleagues (or Yourself)
Only crazy people would think stabbings are a joke
Links 31/05/2025: Microsoft-Connected Builder.ai is a Fraud and US is Purging Students Based on Race/Nationality
Links for the day
Gemini Links 30/05/2025: Limmat, Doomscrollers, and Arguments Parsing
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, May 30, 2025
IRC logs for Friday, May 30, 2025
The "AI" (Slop) Bubble Already Popped, But It's Not an Overnight Collapse
where Microsoft put its money
No More Steven Astorino at IBM, Chatter About Weekly/Nonstop Layoffs at IBM
What happened? Good luck guessing.
Looking at Corruption in Europe, Going Beyond the EPO
Expect a new series to kick off very soon
Slopwatch: Security SPAM and LLM Slop for SEO and FUD Purposes, Perpetually Tarnishing the Perception of Linux and (Open)SSH Security
A lot of this Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (FUD) comes from Microsoft and its LLMs
Links 30/05/2025: Google's LLM Slop Pushers Are Killing Journalism and Shira Perlmutter Fails to Stop Bribed Regime From Legalising Plagiarism (in "AI" Clothing)
Links for the day
Links 30/05/2025: Offline Arts and "Threshold of Patience"
Links for the day
Signing Off Serious Lies With a Statement of Truth is No Joking Matter
It's not hard to see what's happening here
Links 30/05/2025: LLM Slop Already Ingests and Vomits Its Own Garbage, Facebook Exec Admits Copyrights a Concern Too
Links for the day
Mass Layoffs at Microsoft Result in More Whistleblowers From Microsoft
Microsoft's predatory pricing is further
Slopwatch: Planet Ubuntu Became LLM Slop and Some People Fail to See the Immorality of Plagiarism
it lessens the incentive for people to publish real articles
EPO Poll: 68% Dissatisfied With Quality of Slop (Wrongly Framed as "AI") for Patent Classification
Slop does not work, it's just falsely advertised with extra hype (funded by slop pushers that sponsor the major media)
Big Crowds Gather to Learn About Software Freedom From the Man Who Started GNU/Linux in 1983
"It was a great success"
Microsoft Layoffs Again in Bay Area
Microsoft relies on people's false belief that being "in LinkedIn" will get you a job; well, seems like even working inside LinkedIn really sucks and you lose the job
Gemini Links 30/05/2025: Fighting Against the Bad News, and Slop is Dehumanisation Disguised as "Intelligence"
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, May 29, 2025
IRC logs for Thursday, May 29, 2025