Bonum Certa Men Certa

The UK Supreme Court's Latest Decision is Ammunition for the FCC to Scuttle the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)

Team UPC is, understandably, going bonkers (feeling unlucky in the face of justice)

A black cat



Summary: The quality of European Patents is appalling enough that no courts would entrust EPO people with something like the Unified Patent Court (UPC); The UK Supreme Court has proven this point yet again and we suppose that the German Constitutional Court (FCC) pays close attention not only to dirty tactics from Team UPC (trying to trick the court into premature decisions, based on fabrications)

THE European Patent Office (EPO) suffered a blow some days ago because its impotent patent on impotence treatment was smashed to pieces at one of Europe's most respected courts, the UK Supreme Court.

"They're both spoiled brats of UPC, who on behalf of large (and international/foreign) pharmaceutical giants try to pass the UPC (ratify UPCA)."Marks & Clerk's Mike Gilbert and Jonathan Stafford wrote about it before the weekend, as did the liars and crooks from Bristows LLP. They're both spoiled brats of UPC, who on behalf of large (and international/foreign) pharmaceutical giants try to pass the UPC (ratify UPCA). We'll say more about that in a moment.

Here is what patent maximalists at Managing IP [sic] wrote about it:

The UK’s highest court yesterday affirmed that a patent licensed from former biotech company Icos to Eli Lilly for the erectile dysfunction (ED) drug Cialis (tadalafil) is invalid.


A couple of new comments have also just appeared at IP Kat [1, 2], another site of patent maximalists. It's about the highest British court finding that EPO granted this bogus patent. "Here is how there is a "reasonable expectation of success"," said the first of those two comments. "When you follow the reasoning, the court decided that when carrying out trials of the drug the skilled person would have investigated the effect of 25mg, 50mg, and 100mg doses. Doing this they would have inevitably found the dosage plateau. They don't need to have expected to find the plateau or have a reasonable expectation they would find it, it was an inevitability that they would find it just by carrying out the routine trials of the drug. Having found the dosage plateau that extends over the 25mg to 100mg range there is then a reasonable expectation that the lower end of the dosage plateau might extend down to 5mg."

Notice that the so-called 'innovation' is to do with dosages. The comment continued: "There is no hindsight in this assessment just a reasonable assessment of how the trials of this, or any other, new drug would have been carried out at the priority date of the patent. Essentially, the dosing patent is just the Applicant applying to protect the inevitable outcome of the clinical trials of the drug because it is different from what was envisaged in the original patent. There is no inventive step.

Why was it even considered patent-eligible? Imagine if something like UPC was tasked or assigned to rule on this...

The second comment said: "I perfectly understand this line of reasoning, but I still can hardly adhere to it. The criterion of "reasonable expectation of success" says what it says: was it expectable for the skilled person to find the identified effect at the time of filing ?"

Why is this even considered an invention? It's more like a recipe? Are cooking recipes next in line? We gave examples to that effect a few days ago.

“Importing the research process into that reasoning is no longer inventive step, because otherwise only new research processes could remain patentable, any finding based on known research processes would simply be obvious to try, whatever the efforts.”
      --Anonymous
"Research," the comment continued, "even being made in clinical trials, remains research, i.e. exploration of the yet unidentified (and unsuggested for inventive step). If the prior art would have suggested that this drug would be active at low doses, I would then have agreed that a motivation would exist to specifically look for the lower dosages. However, even though this exploration was made in standardized clinical trials, this remained research and exploration. Moreover, the inventors have no choice but to carry out this research in clinical trials because it is performed on humans. If the product would not have been a drug, hence would not have required clinical trials, the same dose-effect experiments would have been performed to find out what doses are the most efficient. And, if I follow properly the court's reasoning (and yours), it could then have been considered inventive because there would have been no clue how the inventors had come to this finding in theri research process. For all types of inventions, the more so for inventions in the life science field in which the "resonable expectation of success" principle has been developped, my view is always the same, inventive step does not have to be assessed based on the process how to come to a certain finding, i.e. the invention, but only on the facts available, in particular what the prior art is teaching and what level of skill does the skilled person have. Importing the research process into that reasoning is no longer inventive step, because otherwise only new research processes could remain patentable, any finding based on known research processes would simply be obvious to try, whatever the efforts."

This is similar to the 'Teffgate', where some arbitrary numbers were used to attribute "innovative" aspects to what's in nature (and has been in nature since before humans even existed).

It was very much expected that Team UPC firms (like the above) would condemn or spin or just moan about this decision. Team UPC is a very dishonest bunch which only cares about litigation, not science. Wait and watch their next stunts. They lie a lot.

As an example of their lies, consider this UPC 'book' spin. It's amazing and it's only days old. The FFII's President has already responded to it with: "The complaint is secret, on which basis they gonna discuss?" (the complaint)

"It was very much expected that Team UPC firms (like the above) would condemn or spin or just moan about this decision. Team UPC is a very dishonest bunch which only cares about litigation, not science."Basically, the longtime UPC booster (going by the Twitter handle "UPCtracker") wrote: "Oxford University press and CH Beck have published the legal commentary on the UPC (Tilmann/Plassmann ed.), an event which the German constitutional complainant saw as a bad omen or indicator his UPC complaint could be denied shortly. Case still pending, however."

So we're supposed to think, yet again, that there's a decision coming soon (dismissal). How many times before have they lied along those lines? We've lost count. The tweet (reply) from the FFII's President had us investigating the merit of the statement. It's basically a lie.

In fact, the book in question, namely its German version, has still not been published. Its publisher, C. H. Beck, currently announce it for "approximately May 2019" (see their German Web page). The book mentioned in the said tweet is the English version which is sold by a different publisher (Oxford University Press) and has been on the market since late summer of 2018 (see the same Web site but a different page). Although it has a higher price, it is commercially not as interesting as the German version which will sell in much higher numbers should the UPC become a reality. Either the said UPC advocate does not understand the difference between the two books, which we doubt, or he is acting against his better judgment, trying to spin a story suiting his own interests. Stay classy, Team UPC. Stay vigilant, FCC.

Recent Techrights' Posts

Debian Developer at Sirius Was Under the Wrong Impression That Staff Must Check or Should See E-mail All the Time (24/7 Work Attention is an Occupational Health Hazard)
My personal and professional experience with a Debian Developer (DD) at work
Techrights More Productive Than Ever Before
Today we finally crossed the 1,900-page milestone
Europe's Adoption of GNU/Linux, by Country (Now About 6%)
in Switzerland, for instance, adoption of GNU/Linux has been profoundly low
Not Only Has Adoption of Windows Vista 11 Flatlined/Plateaued, Now It is Going Down!
Did many people delete Vista 11 and install GNU/Linux instead?
 
[Meme] Microsoft Fan: "Microsoft is in a panic from the continued loss of its user base"
Published a couple of weeks ago
Android Has Reached New Highs in Mexico, According to Web-Derived Data (Android Now Almost a Majority of the "Market")
Not far from 50%, i.e. half of the "market"
In defence of Albanian women: Outreachy & Debian favoritism scandal
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Links 04/03/2024: Old Crisis Looming, UPC Already in Infringement of Article 6 ECHR
Links for the day
The Right to Disconnect (Meme and Very Recent References)
relatively new press
Links 04/03/2024: Techno-Babble in Tech Job Ads and Vision Pro Already Breaking Apart
Links for the day
[Meme] 'Debating' People by Subscribing Them to Lots of SPAM
Rebuttal? No, spam.
From Sexual Harassment of Women to Yet More Cybercrimes
They can be prosecuted
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, March 03, 2024
IRC logs for Sunday, March 03, 2024
Venezuela: Windows Below 70% (Laptops and Desktops), GNU/Linux Up to 7%
It's a lot higher in Cuba
ICYMI: ZDNet Financially Controlled by Microsoft
a history of censoring SJVN's Microsoft-critical articles
Argentina Joining the 4% 'Club' (GNU/Linux on Desktops and Laptops)
Data as ODF
Transparency Sets Society Free
"Convenient delusions" aren't bliss but temporary relief
[Meme] The EPO, Europe's Second-Largest Institution, Which is Contracting With Belarus
Socialist EPO
The European Patent Office's (EPO) Illegal Ban on Mass Communication Gets in the Way of Democracy
The scientific process (patents apply to science) must allow scrutiny, both from within and from the outside
Links 03/03/2024: Depression in Hong Kong, Sex 'Apps' and STIs
Links for the day
Links Gemini 03/03/2024: NixOS and NextCloud, Back Into Ricing
Links for the day
The Debian family fallacy
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
GNU/Linux Peaking in Europe, Android Measured as Higher or More Prevalent Than Windows
Android topping Windows
For Every Action There's a Reaction
Gates lobbying Modi
Like in Africa, Android Takes Control, Raking in Almost All the 'Chips' in Asia
So Microsoft has no OS majority except in Japan and Russia (and tiny Armenia).
Links 03/03/2024: Goodbye, Navalny (Funeral Reports)
Links for the day
Gemini Links 03/03/2024: A Wild Devlog Appeared and GrapheneOS Ramble
Links for the day
Gemini at 3,800+
total number of known capsules at above 3.8k
Be a Navalny
We salute Mr. Navalny
Mozilla Firefox is Back in ~2% Territories, Jeopardising Its Status as Web Browser to Test/Target/Validate With
Some new stats
[Meme] Russian Standards of Law: The Executive Branch Decides Everything
the president's kangaroo court
Up Next: The Tricky Relationship Between the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO and the European Patent Organisation (EPO)
We've moved from presidents who run a republic by consent to corrupt, unqualified, dictatorial officials who bribe for the seat (buying the votes)
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, March 02, 2024
IRC logs for Saturday, March 02, 2024
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
Beware Imposter Sites of Techrights (Not Techrights.com or Techrights.org)
Only trust pages accessed through the domains controlled by us
Italy visa & residence permit: Albanian Outreachy, Wikimedia & Debian tighten control over woman
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock