YESTERDAY and the day before that we wrote about the new European Patent Office (EPO) survey [1, 2], which claims to represent the views of staff but merely insults the staff (or the staff's intelligence). The EPO has not mentioned it publicly, at least not yet; instead, yesterday it was tweeting and retweeting 'results' [1, 2], with new puff pieces like this one emerging. Not a word is said about patent quality, only quantity. António Campinos, who advocates software patents in Europe, already wrote to staff (internally) about patent quality, relying on vague pseudoscience and likely the same kind of distortion he used to tell staff that people are now happy(ier). Mike Gilbert and Jonathan Stafford, two patent maximalists from Marks & Clerk (the British litigation 'industry'), have meanwhile commented somewhat belatedly on the highest British court finding European Patents to be invalid -- yet again! To quote their spin of it:
In a long awaited decision, the UK Supreme Court (Lord Hodge giving the speech on behalf of a unanimous panel) has dismissed ICOS's appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision holding that its patent for a low dosage regimen for tadalafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction was invalid for obviousness. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that, under the specific circumstances of this case, a skilled team would have arrived at the claimed low dosage regimen without using inventive skill, as a result of conducting routine clinical experimentation. This is therefore an important decision for innovators seeking to obtain patent protection for new medical dosage regimen.
[...]
The Supreme Court accepted that the Court of Appeal had been correct to overturn the first instance decision. In essence, both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court held that the first instance judge had erred in principle by not appreciating the logical consequences of his finding as to whether the skilled team would continue tests on low doses of tadalafil and thus arrive at the claimed dose. In so doing, the Supreme Court adopted the step by step nuanced approach on the facts of the case, correctly leaving factual determinations made by the first instance judge untouched. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was entitled to have overturned the first instance ruling.
“The Supreme Court accepted that the Court of Appeal had been correct to overturn the first instance decision.”
--Marks & ClerkSpeaking of the UPC, do not expect 'unitary' patents to come. European Patents are bad enough and making them 'unitary' would only exacerbate things (e.g. bypassing British courts like the above). UPC booster Thomas Adam (we assume a Brit living in Munich for litigation profits), desperate for some UPC spin (seeing that Team UPC has been entirely silent so far this month), has just attempted to twist something totally unrelated as pertaining to UPC: "Reviewing its competencies under the GDPR, a German administrative court (Verwaltungsgericht) considers itself non-compliant w the definition of independent and impartial courts of Art. 47(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights refers issue to CJEU. https://openjur.de/u/2169849.html [...] Question b) of referral (abbrev.): "Is the referring court an independent & impartial court within the meanig of Art. 267 TFEU in conjunction with Art. 47(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?" Impact on pending DE constitutional cases on independence of EPO BoA and UPC?!"
No. Not even close. Not connected. He recently (end of last month) spread some other insane/inane lies in an effort to influence the decision. These people know that the patents have little or no merit, so they want kangaroo (patent) courts. ⬆