Reference: Loose Patent Scope Becoming a Publicity Nightmare for the EPO and Battistelli Does a China Outreach (Worst/Most Notorious on Patent Quality)

Summary: While a lot of British media continues to push the agenda of law firms, a technology site in the UK (The Register) continues its coverage of EPO scandals and the sad state of the Unitary Patent (UPC)

Kieren McCarthy, writing from San Francisco for the largest British technology publisher, revisits EPO scandals this morning. His article actually focuses on the UPC, but the last few paragraphs allude to one the latest scandals. To quote:

That demand had a deadline of October 31. The FCC has now confirmed that following requests for more time, it extended that date to the last day of the year.

That is a sign, patent experts say, that the issue is not as simple as many hoped, and the UPC is unlikely to emerge at all during 2018, and may be delayed to 2019, 2020 or even further.

The exact timeline is impossible to divine until the FCC takes its next step. The constitutional court could simply throw the complaint out – although that is looking increasingly unlikely, given it extended its deadline: it is clearly interested in weighing up responses to the complaint.

Much more likely is that the court either runs the complaint through its usual processes, or refers the question up to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). If the German court decides to take on the case and make its own decision, it is likely to decide in mid-2018. Assuming it rules that the UPC is in fact constitutional, that would point to a 2019 launch.

[...]

And talking of unholy messes, King Battistelli continues to infuriate EPO staff and political circles. This time, it is Benoit's decision to take on a political role as deputy for culture in his home district of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, just outside Paris, France.

Aside from the fact that Battistelli is supposed to stay away from any political role while head of an international organization, the rumor in EPO circles is that Battistelli is applying pressure on the EPO to hold its annual inventor of the year ceremony – which will take place one month before his term at the EPO ends – at his preferred location. You guessed it: Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

The first comment on this alludes to the last part of the article (quoted above): "How is that not a breach of contract?"

We wrote about it more than a month ago (we broke the story, but media prefers to keep quiet on EPO affairs). Battistelli is basically like a classic "crook" who additionally enjoys immunity. Here is the full comment:

How is that not a breach of contract? I've never heard of any contract where you can just decide to take another Job without approval from your employer. Which in this case would be the EPO Board, and considering that they want him out, I would be surprised they would agree to something like that.

Additionally, I would be hugely surprised if there wasnt something about being politically neutral in the contract with a Position like this. If not, which ever lawyer wrote up the contract should be fired on the spot.

Still with everything else going on at the EPO, I guess None of this should be surprising...

Well, the UPC has long relied on political corruption and another reply to the above says this:

"With the appropriate political pressure applied, it should pass"

Do they have a bunch of politicians who vote on issues to the benefit of their constituents or a bunch of yes men who rubber stamp decisions made by some other authority?

The next commented says: "Was this a rhetorical question? Most parliaments tend to follow the second model, with the 'authority' ranging from the Politburo via the President/Prime Minister to the most munificent lobbyists."

There are then a bunch of comments, including some which attack the author (McCarthy), over the Brexit mention, perhaps not understanding that while the EPO has nothing to do with the EU the UPC by all means does (hence Brexit's relevance).

What's more, the UPC threatens to bring software patents to the UK (bypassing British law and British courts) -- much to the fear of software companies in the UK (there are many of these and they have been mostly secured from trolls up until now).

Apropos, the lobby for software patents in the UK carries on and it's obvious who's behind it.

"This article has been submitted by Greenaway Scott," a Welsh news site said this morning. The only problem is, it's not an article. It's an advertisement for software patents (a patent law firm speaking out to harm software developers) with several links to the firm and even an E-mail address. From the 'article' (advertisement):

There is also the option to patent software, however this is very difficult. To obtain a patent the invention must new, involves an inventive step, is capable of industrial or technical application and does not fall within the exclusions. UK and EU law states that patents for a programme for a computer will not be granted.

However, if the software/computer programme contains a necessary technical character it may be patentable. The EU and UK patent offices have been granting patents in relation to software/computer programmes for many years. The issue here is that there must be an inventive step.

Firms like this have been pushing hard for the UPC, which they view as a boon to patent applications and litigation (the most expensive 'product' of the whole lot). As we have been showing before, the litigation 'industry' routinely takes over British media (in Scotland too) and habitually spreads fake news, e.g. regarding UPC 'progress'. ⬆