11.26.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Observing the latest attempts by Team UPC (Winfried Tilmann etc.) to ram the UPC down politicians’ throats, even though it is neither desirable nor legal/constitutional as things stand
TECHRIGHTS spent many years covering the UPC (also in its previous incarnations) and earlier this month we wrote about imminent attempts (at the end of this month) to revive this zombie of a treaty-like sham — something which European citizens would strongly disapprove of if they actually knew anything about it. Team UPC likes to keep it sort of secret, or simply lie about it, insisting that it’s good for SMEs when in fact the very opposite is true. The UPC is a huge, gross injustice, but thugs and liars like Battistelli (and those blindly loyal to him, maybe out of fear) keep pushing for it (see the screenshot above, including the quote from Battistelli).
“The post-Brexit vote future of Europe’s unitary patent system is set to become much clearer on Monday,” IAM’s editor wrote yesterday (his headline in fact). Our expectation is that on Monday the UPC will remain as dead as it is now, but Team UPC will deny it. Here are the concluding words from IAM, which in the past organised pro-UPC events, supported by the EPO and sponsored by the EPO's PR firm:
In addition to the above, there are undoubtedly other scenarios that might play out; while it is also quite possible that contrary to expectations the UK will not say anything definitive on Monday. If I were to place a bet, though, I would plump for a confirmation of non-ratification and the other EU member states then refining the UPC agreement to make the UK’s participation non-essential. But I would not put a lot of money on it. The best advice is to avoid betting shops and to keep a look out for an announcement sometime late Monday afternoon or evening Central European Time. Early next week, a period of post-Brexit IP uncertainty could well come to an end.
Previously, the same author said that it would take another 2 years (or more) before there is sufficient clarity for the UPC to proceed (if at all). As we noted here just a couple of days ago, IAM is now organising another UPC-centric event. They won’t give up until the EPO runs out of budget or Battistelli gets admitted into a mental asylum.
“Yet another echo chamber for the UPC,” wrote Benjamin Henrion (FFII) yesterday, adding: “can we have a real debate please?”
Henrion referred to “yet another echo chamber” as he called it when he told us about it. “There seems to be the same conference with the same speakers next week 30th Nov (in my latest tweets). Council meeting is 28th Nov, they expect UK to say something…”
The “same conference with the same speakers” is being advertised via E-mail and this one too is titled “Finalising the Unitary Patent Package,” to take place on the 8th of February in Brussels.
They are sending this around via E-mail:
Finalizing the Unitary Patent Package:
Challenges and Ways Forward
Thon Hotel Brussels City Centre, Brussels
Wednesday 8th February 2017
Willem A. Hoyng
Partner
Hoyng Rokh Monegier
Pierre Véron
Lawyer, Member of the Paris Bar
Véron & Associés
Katalin Lubóczki,
Member, UPC Preparatory Committee, Attaché for Intellectual Property, Audiovisual Policy and Consumer Protection
Permanent Representation of Hungary to the EU
Prof. Dr. Winfried Tilmann
Of Counsel
Hogan Lovells, Düsseldorf
Darren Smyth
Partner, Patent and Design Attorney, London, EIP Europe LLP
Author for The IPKat & IP Alchemist
Member of the Editorial team for the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
The introduction is as follows:
In December 2012, after a 40 year long quest, the European Parliament and the European Council finally reached a formal agreement on two EU regulations, making the European Patent with Unitary Effect (EPUE) an achievable prospect. With almost all EU member states – except for Spain and Croatia – participating in the enhanced cooperation, the legislation is supposed to come into force by the end of the year 2016/beginning 2017.
Experts, however, argue about the intended cost saving factor as well as the theoretical simplicity the EPUE package will bring, being mostly concerned about the patchwork nature of the system. Also, with the recent Brexit vote, additional straits are adding up, making the future of the Unitary Patent unclear.
This timely Symposium will offer an opportunity to inform and find out more about the current developments and challenges regarding the Unitary Patent and the Unitary Patent Court. The conference will evaluate advantages and disadvantages, build strategies for businesses on how to proceed and support the exchange of information and best practices with experts, practitioners and policymakers at EU level.
We saw — and covered something similar to this — before. Pay attention to the pricing; as we noted here before, these events are also priced out of reach, with concession to the ‘choir’. So it looks like it’s open to everyone, but it’s not. It’s like a paywall for the rich, by the rich. The price is the gatekeeper.
Yesterday someone left this comment in IP Kat, in relation to another event. “Good grief that is a lot,” said this person. “Go to one of cheaper seminars or even the free ones -Brussels is full of free ones as well which are just as good. Ok not so many corporates crammed into one place but if it is the Commission speakers you want to hear -these particular individuals are the regulars and turn up anywhere.So save your money and go to those e.g which the Lander host for free, are smaller and so you get to talk to the speakers and where the food is excellent.”
Well, Team UPC isn’t interested in a large audience; it just wants to ensure that the audience is in the same bed, it doesn’t want dissent. This pretty much says what the event is all about: lobbying. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
We recently received the following news from sources in Croatia, after Topić had lost the lawsuit for the second time (early this year)
Summary: The latest in the Topić saga is more bad news for Topić, with potentially a lot more on the way
According to information received from reliable sources in Croatia, on November 21st at the Municipal Criminal Court in Zagreb a further round took place in the long-drawn out defamation lawsuit which Mr. Topić has been pursuing against a former Assistant Director of the SIPO.
“Mr. Topić was leading the prosecution as a private plaintiff.”The original lawsuit was filed as a private complaint on February 4th, 2011 which means that the Public Prosecutor was not responsible for the case. In other words, Mr. Topić was leading the prosecution as a private plaintiff.
The first round ended in January 2015 with a resounding defeat for Topić as the defendant was acquitted of all charges in the judgment of January 26, 2015 (file number 7.K-26/11).
At that time Topić was represented by Mr. Janjko Grlic from Gajski, Grlic, Prka and Partners, a leading Zagreb law firm with a lot of high-level political connections.
“At that time Topić was represented by Mr. Janjko Grlic from Gajski, Grlic, Prka and Partners, a leading Zagreb law firm with a lot of high-level political connections.”It seems that Topić filed an appeal against this judgment and tried to have the case sent back to a different judge. The appeal court did not grant that request but sent the case back to the same judge for the correction of a number of minor formal errors in the original judgment concerning the paragraphs of criminal law which had been cited. Some confusion seems to have arisen here because there had been amendments of the criminal law between the filing of the complaint in February 2011 and the passing of the judgment in January 2015.
The case went back to the same judge (Marijan Bertalanić) at the Municipal Criminal Court for a second round, this time with the file number 7.K-586/15.
In the meantime Topić had switched his attorney and was now represented by another prominent Zagreb lawyer Branko Šeric.
.
“In the meantime Topić had switched his attorney and was now represented by another prominent Zagreb lawyer Branko Šeric.”At a hearing which took place on January 14, 2016 neither Mr. Topić nor his lawyer showed up in court.
The judge decided to discontinue the proceedings.
“But this seems to have been a deliberate strategic move on the part of Topić to delay the proceedings.”It may seem like strange behavior on the part of a private prosecutor not to show up in court to prosecute the lawsuit he has filed himself. But this seems to have been a deliberate strategic move on the part of Topić to delay the proceedings.
Afterwards Topić filed an appeal against the decision to discontinue the proceedings and the case was reopened before the same judge at the Municipal Criminal Court.
Round three took place during a hearing held on November 21st.
Once again Topić had switched his representative and was now represented by another attorney.
“The judge seems to have finally lost patience with Topić’s time-wasting tactics because he closed the case by adjourning the hearing indefinitely and noting that the statute of limitations was due to expire on the following day.”Although he had been duly summoned to appear as a witness Topić failed to turn up in court and apparently did not even acknowledge the summons. His attorney claimed that his absence was due to “urgent business” which had prevented him from attending.
The judge seems to have finally lost patience with Topić’s time-wasting tactics because he closed the case by adjourning the hearing indefinitely and noting that the statute of limitations was due to expire on the following day.
For the moment, only the official minutes of the hearing are available but there may be a more detailed judgment issued later on. Sources in Zagreb have indicated that the final judgment of the Municipal Criminal Court may be published on the Internet.
A redacted copy of the minutes is available to us [PDF] with a translation in English below. █
REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
Municipal Criminal Court in Zagreb
Zagreb, Ilica-Selska, Ilica 207
File number: 7. K-586/15
MINUTES
of 21 November 2016
the discussion held at the Municipal Criminal Court in Zagreb
Present for the Court:
Marijan Bertalanić
Presiding Judge – Judge
Ankica Zorić
Registrar
Criminal case:
Private prosecutor: Ž. T.
DEFENDANT: V. S.
For the criminal offence pursuant to
Article 200/2 et alia of the Criminal Code
The President of the Council – the judge opens the session at 11.45 hours and announces the subject of the main debate.
The presence of the parties is established as follows:
1. For the private prosecutor – nobody, legal representative of the private prosecutor, *****
2. Injured party:
3. Defendant: V. S. legal representative of the defendant, attorney-at-law ******
4. Witnesses:
It is established that the witness Ž. T., for whom a summons to his address in Germany has not been acknowledged, failed to appear. His legal representative submits for the file a certificate from which it follows that the private prosecutor was unable to attend today’s hearing due to urgent business.
The Judge delivers the following
Decision
There will be a debate. Due to the passage of time the debate is re-opened anew.
The identity of the defendant is established.
Defendant V.S., personal data as in the minutes of 4th February 2013.
The debate begins with a reading of the private complaint.
The defendant states that she understands the charges and will be defended in the presence of her chosen defence counsel.
- 2 -
Invited to make a statement on the merits of the private complaint she states: I do not consider myself guilty of the offences with which I am charged.
The Judge calls on the parties to submit their evidence.
The legal representative of the private prosecutor proposes once again a direct examination of the private prosecutor Ž. T. at the hearing, also suggests that the minutes of the previous examination of the already heard witness be read at the hearing, and no further evidence.
The counsel for the defence states that she does not oppose the evidentiary proposals on behalf of the prosecution.
Since the parties were not in agreement following the reading of the minutes of the previous examination of the private prosecutor Ž. T. as a witness,
the Judge delivers the following
Decision
Today’s debate will be adjourned, and no further hearing will be scheduled since on 22nd November 2016 statute of limitations for a criminal prosecution takes effect.
Completed at 11.55 hours.
Judge
Clerk
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.25.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photo ops distract from the big story of the day (the protest)
Summary: A look at poor coverage (if any coverage) of the EPO protest that took place yesterday
THE previous post attempted to make a permanent visual record of yesterday’s EPO protest, which a high proportion of EPO staff attended in the cold weather. To EPO management, however, the day marked another ‘milestone’ (if holding a piece of paper counts for that).
As usual, the EPO ‘forgot’ to mention yesterday’s much bigger news (they even found time to promote trade deals on the face of it*). It said nothing about the massive staff protest and instead ‘manufactured’ some news that it even posted under the “news” section (warning: epo.org links can be tracked). As we’ve repeatedly noted here before, Benoît Battistelli seems to be able to agree only with tiny countries and/or corrupt countries these days. When did we last see Benoît Battistelli posing with a reputable political leader of a large state? Think about it. The EPO’s PR team is still living in an intoxicating fantasy world where staff on strike or in protest is not newsworthy but a Battistelli photo op (as above) is major news. It’s not a major country (a tiny tax haven) and patent searches are not a big deal. It’s almost like the whole ‘report’ was staged to distract.
Speaking of a fantasy world, check out this terrible new article from Dutch media. As Petra Kramer put it, “it’s a watered down, untruthful story. It claims that Van Dam made EPO negotiate with FNV.”
“I translated and commented on the sorry piece of yellow journalism,” she added and later she said “I do believe they need a burn. They claim to by Rijswijk, for Rijswijk but they’re clearly biased against SUEPO.”
Here is the story in English, with corrections by Petra Kramer (PK):
European Patent Office workers take action against director
On Square 1813 in The Hague, employees of the European Patent Office in Rijswijk campaigned against their director Benoît Battistelli. The man allegedly causes a bad atmosphere within the company.
In a previous protest two employees were fired ["not true, the protest was a response to dismissals, not the cause of it" -PK]. It didn’t stop some colleagues [“some colleagues means over 400 of them” -PK) to keep protesting against the “tyrant,” as the director of the EPA is called internally. According to trade union FNV there is a culture of fear within the company. Even though the director denies this. Martijn van Dam State, the Secretary of Economic Affairs in April ensured that the leadership of the EPO is to engage in talks with the FNV. ["Bullshit, FNV stands up in solidarity with SUEPO, FNV has no direct relation with EPO and Martijn van Dam did not convince Batistelli to recognize SUEPO as a union, SUEPO fought hard for that" -PK] Those talks were difficult.
Currently the EPA one is engaged in a reorganization and expansion/renovation of the entire building.
Who benefits from such an inaccurate story?
Speaking of inaccuracies, IP Kat comments are full of them this week. In an effort to filter out the noise (to retrieve information) and reading of responses to such noise we found not much of the information we looked for, as it’s also off topic. The EPO’s President “BB rather prefers to continue to use the Inquisition!” one person wrote. Here is that comment:
In the AC the British and Danish, Chairman and delegates may propose, and this based on their state religions, to house the Investigation Unit in a chapel with some confession boxes where they can hear the SR’s confessions and offer in silence forgiveness. BB rather prefers to continue to use the Inquisition! …the accused in the Inquisition was never allowed to see the face of his accuser, or of the witnesses against him, but every method is taken by threats and tortures, to oblige him to accuse himself, and by that means corroborate their evidence.
“In some complex fields, mine included, we now have less than 2 days per product,” another person noted, reinforcing what we already know about quality issues at the EPO under Battistelli. █
______
* Found via EPO recommendation in Twitter was this article about “trade liberalisation,” which has a section on “Using patents to measure innovation and country exposure”. What next from the EPO? TPP and CETA advocacy? In addition to UPC?
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Photos and report from the protest which took place 20 hours ago to send a strong message against the management of the EPO
THE EPO protest, which took place at midday yesterday, was attended by a high number of people (by standards of The Hague) and a reader sent us the following report accompanying the photos.
According to my guess, we were between 550 and 700 protesters, definitely many more than at the previous demo. We marched from “Plein 1813” to “Lange Vijverberg” and gathered in front of the office of Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. There, three Members of Parliament – Philip Cordery (FR), Sharon Gesthuizen (NL) and John Kerstens (NL) – made brief speeches which were straight to the point. They openly criticised, once more, Mr Battistelli for his management by fear tactics and the witch hunt on staff representatives. They hoped for a quick solution and promised continued support for EPO staff, if needed. They did not leave any doubt about which preferred solution they had in mind – the soon departure of Mr Battistelli. █
Justice at EPO
Protest march
STOP Union Bashing
Dutch MP Sharon Gesthuizen speaking
Dutch MP John Kerstens speaking
French MP Philip Cordery speaking
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.24.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
They believe that if they keep saying that it’s inevitable, then it will certainly happen
Reference: Self-fulfilling prophecy (a dirty tactic routinely exploited by businesses)
Summary: A quick look at some of the latest misinformation regarding the Unified Patent Court regime, which is essentially at a dead end after British people voted to leave the EU
THE EPO‘s management and Team UPC are in the same bed. They both strive to create more of a patent mess in Europe, as they don't care about Europe, they just care about how much money they can make in the short term. One might call them “Enemies of the People,” to reuse an infamous recent headline from the British press.
Suffice to say, UPC proponents want us to think that the UPC is doing fine because they would profit from it (if it ever becomes a reality at all). It’s a nasty strategy of wishful optimism, which involves even advertising job openings that do not exist!
The other day we noticed a headline that’s a quote from someone in Milan who stands to benefit from the UPC (if it ever becomes a reality). “Unitary Patent system is better off with UK, but worthwhile even without the UK,” said the headline. But not possible without the UK. To swap London for Milan would require going back to the drawing board, maybe even radically reshape and rename the UPC. Suffice to say again, the article came from Team UPC and here is a portion from it:
The best way forward for the Unitary Patent system after the Brexit vote of 23 June 2016 is to find a way to keep the UK inside the system. That is the opinion of Francesco Macchetta, director IP of the Bracco Group, a healthcare multinational with headquarters in Milan. But if the British don’t stay in, Macchetta thinks Milan would be a logical new location for the London branch of the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), he said in an interview with Kluwer IP Law.
Another common booster of the UPC, Laura Ercolim from Italy, wrote on November 3rd that:
The impact of the Brexit referendum on Unified Patent Court preparations is starting to be felt as the UK government fails to give clear signs of taking steps to leave the European Union; so is an immediate deposit of the instrument of ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement the best option for Italy?
Italy and Milan are not England and London. In fact, many professionals continue to stress that the skills in the area of patents are not equitable and a UPC without the UK in it would simply not be appealing. The “EU Competitiveness Council,” according to this tweet, apparently wants to ensure patent trolls come to Europe (that’s what the UPC would entail), making it less competitive. The UPC “is listed in the EU Competitiveness Council agenda for 28 November 2016″ (link [PDF]).
This has been known for a while. If these people have dignity, then they will lay aside this dead piece of text and accept that with Brexit in the making (or at least in discussion) there’s no point to it.
IAM, incidentally, has just advertised another UPC-centric event. Does this one too get money and support from the EPO (again)? Among the points listed by IAM:
The latest, post-Brexit developments concerning the Unified Patent Court regime
There’s no post-Brexit UPC because without the UK it’s no longer a “UPC”; it might become something else altogether. But, as usual, if one believes EPO liars like Margot Fröhlinger with her UPC advocacy [1, 2, 3, 4], then one can believe anything! According to this tweet from the IP Summit, “Margot Fröhlinger Principal Director for Unitary Patent European and International Legal Affairs EUR. #PATENT OFFICE will speak on Dec 1st…”
That’s just a few of days after the above and very shortly after ILO unleashes a potential bombshell (or two) on the EPO. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
One of the few singles I happen to have the CD of…
Summary: The decline in patent quality at the EPO is bad news not just for applicants but for all Europeans, and there’s no sign of it improving any time soon (under Battistelli to whom quality is an impediment)
THE EPO was a world-leading patent office for decades; it did not have many patents and this was actually a good thing because it meant that each single EP was of very high quality and there was certainty about it inside and outside the court (less risk, less litigation). Unlike the USPTO, the EPO did strive to maintain quality, which resulted in high fees. The EPO basically did what every patent office should do, but a lot of that changed when it got greedy and in defiance of Parliamentary instructions started granting software patents (covertly, using excuses and loopholes it had created) and patents on life, e.g. seeds, plants, animals. Patent maximalism further accelerated under Battistelli, a person so anti-scientific (crudely speaking, a chickenhawk politician) that he would never manage to come up with a valid patent of his own.
Nowadays, the EPO ignores the European Commission on everything including patent scope, so the rules don’t seem to matter to it. The notion of “rules” hardly even exists at the EPO; what exists can be described as Presidential decrees. Here is a new “international report” from Bart W Swinkels of NLO (European Union). It says the following:
European Commission notice against patentability of plants does not affect European plant patents
On November 3 2016 the European Commission issued a notice regarding the patentability of plants and animals obtained by means of essentially biological processes.
In the view of the commission, the EU legislature’s intention when adopting EU Directive 98/44/EC “was to exclude from patentability products (plants/animals and plant/animal parts) that are obtained by means of essentially biological processes”.
However, the commission’s notice is not legally binding; it is up to the courts and boards – not the commission – to interpret the law.
In other words, as usual, the EPO does whatever the Hell it wants, no matter if it makes it look arrogant, foolish, even corrupt. See this tweet posted today by the EPO. Very vague (but familiar to us) language is being used to masquerade/blur the inclusion of software patents in an upcoming event (yet again! Warning: epo.org link). Based on what EPO examiners say, they no longer have much time to properly search prior art and they actually grant patents on software. They are under too much pressure under their management to “produce” (where production usually gets measured in teams of “products”, not actual work). Watch what the EPO wrote today. It’s totally out of touch!
“In other words, as usual, the EPO does whatever the Hell it wants, no matter if it makes it look arrogant, foolish, even corrupt.”One of our remaining hopes is that the appeal boards will shake things up a bit. The supposedly independent judges need to remind the Office that it cannot just pursue greater quantity of patents by disregarding quality, thereby essentially spitting in the well (or muddying the water) of EPs’ value.
According to this new announcement, quality control is not entirely dead at the EPO. To quote a press releases about it, “BMO Capital analyst, Matthew Luchini, reiterated his Outperform rating on shares of Alder Biopharm (NASDAQ: ALDR) despite shares being under pressure following the European Patent Office’s (EPO) oral decision, which revoked Teva’s patent claims related to CGRP antagonist antibodies for the treatment of migraine but maintained and narrowed method of use claims.”
Here is another new bit of coverage that says “Aegis Capital affirms Alder Biopharmaceuticals (Nasdaq: ALDR) at Buy with a price target of $41 after the EPO maintained claims related to CGRP use in Migraines.
“The supposedly independent judges need to remind the Office that it cannot just pursue greater quantity of patents by disregarding quality, thereby essentially spitting in the well (or muddying the water) of EPs’ value.”“Analyst Difei Yang sees the recent pullback in ALDR shares as a buying opportunity. The analyst commented, “The EPO’s ruling is certainly a setback in the intellectual property legal proceedings of Alder and Eli Lilly, however it is also, in our view, a buying opportunity as the valuation impact to Alder is minimal; an approximate $2 per share decrease from our estimated price target. This reasoning stems from our opinion that there will be limited, if any, carry over to the US, where the large bulk of the future value of ALD-403 is based.””
Here, in this particular example, we’re dealing with patents on drugs, not software, but the principles of patent scope still apply. Consider this new “international report” published yesterday by IAM. It says “Yeda Research and Development Company owned a patent directed to a monoclonal antibody that selectively binds and purifies the human cytotoxin, tumor necrosis factor (TNF).”
“To Battistelli, patent quality control is just some nuisance that stands in the way of his terrible goal of “production” (as measured by the ‘SIPO yardstick’).”As we noted here before, restrictive patent scope is needed in the area of cancer as well, otherwise patients will be killed for the sake of corporate profits. Societal cost analysis suggests that patents should be few but solid. We are not at all against patents (never were!); we’re in favour of high quality patents whose grant can be justified by taking into account externalities like human life.
Battistelli, as this new tweet serves to remind us, is ensuring there’s not much left to preserve patent quality at the EPO (appeals are becoming too expensive, the boards understaffed, no independence). To Battistelli, patent quality control is just some nuisance that stands in the way of his terrible goal of “production” (as measured by the 'SIPO yardstick'). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Patents at 1:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
With a combined population greater than a third of the world’s population
Summary: India and China are moving in somewhat opposite directions when it comes to patents, as one realises their impact on people whereas the other chooses to repeat the mistake made by the United States (patent maximalism for corporate gains)
TECHRIGHTS spent over a decade writing about the USPTO and about as long writing about the EPO, especially when President Brimelow made mistakes “as such”. Patent scope is a crucial decision which impacts many sectors in a country; it’s simply misguided to believe or to think that more patents would translate into more innovation and commonwealth. It doesn’t work that way.
The latest IAM Weekly newspaper says in the “Editor’s round-up” that “we wondered whether one of India’s leading IT companies has all but abandoned software patents, looked at a patent-driven rapprochement between InterDigital and Huawei, and explained why Asian investors are sinking their money into IP management businesses.”
“Patent scope is a crucial decision which impacts many sectors in a country; it’s simply misguided to believe or to think that more patents would translate into more innovation and commonwealth.”We covered all of these (in recent days) and IAM has just published this “international report” about India, where software patents continue to be disallowed (excellent policy, which is routinely under fire from foreign multinationals, not domestic giants).
India got its balance right on patents (also when it comes to medicine, not just software), so why is China going the other way? This is already harming some of its own industry and attracts a great deal of trolls (making nothing and trying to extort everyone for money).
According to this new article from IAM, “IP analytics start-up PatSnap has closed its Series C funding with investments from Sequoia Capital’s China arm and Beijing’s Shunwei Capital Partners. The deal further underlines Asia-Pacific investors’ growing interest in IP management and strategy services.”
“Lack of quality control at SIPO leads to a false sense of growth, as is the case at the EPO under Battistelli where old files are pulled out and rubber-stamped for fake growth or illusion of growing demand, clout, etc.”This shows yet more of that obsession with patents, even in domains that require none of them. Companies that produce nothing want to make money and they are essentially a kind of trolling industry — like that which threatens to expand in Europe if the UPC ever becomes a reality.
Based on IP Kat‘s Tian Lu, there was some UPC propaganda in the EU-China IP Forum earlier this month [1, 2]. To quote a portion from the second part: “This panel on specialist IP courts also saw some optimism from Pierre Veron (member of the Drafting Committee of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court and now a member of the group of experts advising the Preparatory Committee of the UPC), who expressed the view that even without UK participation post-Brexit, the other participating Member States of the EU would press ahead with the UPC project in the long term and would seek to ensure that the UPC will be a success.”
We are going to deal with UPC in a separate post, but let’s just say that it’s troubling to see these overlaps between China and Europe and it’s not because of fear of China (Chinophobia) but because of SIPO.
“China is fast becoming a hotbed of litigation and it already ‘exports’ such litigation to other countries (many reports on that these days).”Lack of quality control at SIPO leads to a false sense of growth, as is the case at the EPO under Battistelli where old files are pulled out and rubber-stamped for fake growth or illusion of growing demand, clout, etc. The SIPO examiners, as many professionals out there will agree/can attest to, just grant a lot of patents composed in Mandarin right and left. There are two new reports, one from MIP and another from IP Watch, which amplify SIPO’s propaganda, citing a WIPO report. Some Chinese patents that are counted at the EPO are not even translated into a European language, let alone examined/validated for their quality, yet here we have another repetition of the misleading claim that China ‘leads’ by having a crappy patent office that accepts crap applications. If one was to judge the USPTO similarly (over 10 million patents and counting), the EPO would look rather bad.
If only China adopted a saner approach to patenting (like in India), the world’s high-tech industries would be better off. China is fast becoming a hotbed of litigation and it already ‘exports’ such litigation to other countries (many reports on that these days). This problem is likely to become more apparent in the coming years. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Audio/Video, Europe, Patents at 12:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photos:
Videos:
Summary: An outline and translations of press coverage regarding today’s protest, which ended four hours ago
As expected, people who work for the EPO marched in protest at midday. This action was, notably, supported by FNV. “Strong Solidarity Message From FNV,” SUEPO wrote today/yesterday, “The Biggest Dutch Union (1 million members!).”
“The FNV published on 23 November 2016 an article entitled “Medewerkers European Patent Office in actie tegen angstcultuur” [and] Translation is available in English” (local copy)
“Omroep West feedback about EPO demo 24-11-2016,” one reader told us about early coverage from today’s protest, as early as a few hours after it (there is certainly more on the way). Petra Kramer has translated this for us and noted that “[t]he video is the only newsworthy part imo [in my opinion], the rest is yesterday’s press statement again.” (regarding FNV, as posted here yesterday in English along with other coverage)
Here is Kramer’s translation:
Hundreds of European Patent Office workers take action against ‘tyranny’ director
THE HAGUE – More than four hundred employees of the European Patent Office (EPO) in Rijswijk demonstrated against their director Benoît Battistelli at Square 1813 in The Hague on Thursday. The reason for the demonstration is the poor relationship between the staff and the director.
According to the employees the have been suffering under “the yoke” of their director. ““Battistelli rules with an iron fist and tolerates no participation or contradiction. He dismisses people at will, demotes them, and unilaterally implements changes to working conditions and demotivates if the entire organization,” said union FNV.
The demonstration on Square 1813 call employees Secretary Martijn van Dam (Economic Affairs) to take action against Battistelli.
Source: Honderden werknemers Europees Octrooibureau in actie tegen ‘tirannie’ directeur
Video: Honderden werknemers Europees Octrooibureau in actie tegen ‘tirannie’ directeur
WIPR, which is based in the UK, wrote about this as well and it gave background as follows:
Staff members at the European Patent Office (EPO) are holding a demonstration today in the centre of The Hague in support of dismissed workers.
According to a statement from the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO), the demonstration is being held to show solidarity with “dismissed, downgraded and targeted staff representatives and SUEPO officials”.
A source close to SUEPO said that they would “truly prefer not to have to hit the streets again to publicly complain” about the EPO management.
Earlier this month, Laurent Prunier, elected member of the central staff committee and secretary of SUEPO in The Hague, was sacked.
No coverage from IAM (as usual) and only a mere tweet from MIP about it.
We intend to monitor press coverage about this. The Dutch Parliament too is increasingly interested in the subject, so there is an opportunity for reprieve. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA