What a classy move!

Reference: Document dump

Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) discloses its controversial judgment in a relatively minimal form and in a language that suits people in Germany and Austria; they don't want people to notice that all EPO judgments for a number of years were likely illegal (in defiance of the European Patent Convention ("EPC"))

THE PREVIOUS POST ended with a mention of the "Guidelines for Search and Examination at the EPO," by which the EPO hopes to grant software patents through buzzwords. But there's an even worse aspect; the judges of the EPO lack independence and the EPO isn't doing anything to correct this.

"...the judges of the EPO lack independence and the EPO isn't doing anything to correct this."Promoted via Lexology was this new article by Potter Clarkson LLP's Tony Proctor. He wrote about the EPO's Boards of Appeal, which have no independence whatsoever (this whole system is rogue now), and this is what he had to say about "Changes to the Rules of Procedure of the EPO Boards of Appeal": (notice nothing at all is being done regarding much-needed autonomy)

The rules governing the appeals process at the European Patent Office are being changed, with the aim being to speed up the appeals process and the expected effect being to reduce flexibility for appellants. Here we discuss the expected knock-on effects on first instance proceedings, particularly oppositions, as well as on existing and new appeals.

There's still high-level EPO corruption that ensures judges are indebted to (and afraid of) the Office -- the very authority that they were created to scrutinise rather than guard. Just published in German was this decision with "full reasoning in G2/19". Why only in German? Big Phrama blogger Rose Hughes (Patent Attorney at AstraZeneca) wrote: "This Kat is therefore currently forced to rely on the EPO summary."

The EPO is, as usual, making it harder for people to see its coverup of sheer corruption, subversion of justice and so on. When the case went on the EPO posted a whole bunch of distractions. The EPO was gaming the media and nobody but us covered it at the end. "The appeal was considered inadmissible," as noted below:

The EPO has announced the issue of the Enlarged Board of Appeal's full reasoning in referral G 2/19. As previously noted on IPKat, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) had previously released their decision in G 2/19 but had not published the decision (EPO press release).

The referral originated from the Board of Appeal decision T 831/17. The appeal related to a case in which a third party had submitted observations pursuant to Article 115 EPC that a patent application (EP2378735) lacked clarity. Clarity is not a ground for opposition. The third party was therefore not able to oppose the subsequently granted patent on the same ground.

In order to pursue their clarity objection to the now granted patent, the third party filed an appeal against the decision to grant. The appeal was considered inadmissible. The Board of Appeal also referred the question to the EBA of whether the right to oral proceedings in appeal proceedings is limited if the appeal is evidently inadmissible. The referral also asked the question of whether the relocation of the Boards of Appeal to outside Munich contravened a party's right to be heard.

Prior to the decision, the Haar/Munich aspect of the referral was covered by IPKat here, and the oral proceedings issue was covered in more detail here. The referral attracted a number of amicus curiae, including submissions from EPI and CIPA.

[...]

The G 2/19 decision is currently only available in German. This Kat is therefore currently forced to rely on the EPO summary. Stay tuned to IPKat for further commentary once an English translation becomes available.

This is pretty astounding. For a number of years the EPO issued a lot of judgments in a court whose existence (in this particular form) violates the EPC and they refuse to even deal with that issue.

"The EPO bullies its staff. The majority of them have rather severe stress, many need to seek professional help and a large proportion develop physical problems that are chronic."This is typical EPO. It's a bully, a thug, and a foe of justice. Just ask its own staff; no, not the mythical staff the EPO has just promoted ("How do our #patent examiners work?").

The EPO bullies its staff. The majority of them have rather severe stress, many need to seek professional help and a large proportion develop physical problems that are chronic. The EPO is no place to work and it's not hiring. It's also outsourcing the jobs.

Incidentally, retweeted by EPO a short while ago was this tweet from Saudi Arabia: "The bilateral meeting between @SAIPKSA and the European Patent Office(EPO)was held today in Geneva.The two sides reviewed aspects of cooperation in the field of patents and the opportunities of enhancing the strategic partnership between the sides."

"Even EPO staff that complains isn't being listened to. It's like these people don't matter because they interfere with 'Big Litigation' agenda."I responded by saying that it makes perfect sense for EPO to have alliances with countries that chop people like me to pieces and put them in tandoori ovens (for speaking about injustices like those in EPO).

Sadly, most if not all of the above issues are no longer discussed by the media. The EPC being violated should be front page news, but somehow that's being ignored. What do so-called 'law' firms speak about? Nothing but marketing or shameless self-promotion; in this particular case we have Paul Calvo and Fei Sha (Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.) citing the EPC as if it still matters at the EPO. But it doesn't. They would be wiser to point out EPO violates the European Patent Convention ("EPC") every day. From their new article:

The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (EPO) permit the use of post-filing experimental data in a limited manner to support the scope of objected claims. However, reliance on post-filing data differs when claims are objected to for insufficiency of disclosure or lack of inventive step.

Sufficiency of Disclosure

Article 83 of the European Patent Convention ("EPC") requires European patent applications to "disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art." A single example may suffice, but for claims that cover a broad field, a patent application must disclose multiple examples or describe alternative embodiments or variations extending over the technical area encompassed by the claims. If a patent specification lacks disclosure of tangible proof that the claimed concept can be put into practice, post-published documents can confirm the teachings of a patent application, but cannot be used to "cure" an insufficiency in disclosure.[1]

For example, if a patent disclosure provides no guidance as to how to perform a particular aspect of a claimed invention, post-published documents that later show how such performance is accomplished cannot "cure" the insufficiency.[2] In addition, if a patent specification provides only a vague indication of possible medical use for a yet-to-be-identified chemical compound, post-published documents containing details as to the identity and medical use of the compound cannot remedy the insufficiency of disclosure.[3] However, where an application lacks such explicit data, but discloses a technical concept that is plausible in view of common general knowledge at the relevant filing date, post-published documents may be used to support sufficiency of disclosure.[4]

Notice how they examine little details while ignoring all the big questions and the severe issues; this has become so typical that it's almost sickening. Even EPO staff that complains isn't being listened to. It's like these people don't matter because they interfere with 'Big Litigation' agenda. ⬆