12.20.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Driving away the senior staff and bringing in temporary staff to just rubberstamp applications? Good for lawyers, no doubt…
Reference: Loose Patent Scope Becoming a Publicity Nightmare for the EPO and Battistelli Does a China Outreach (Worst/Most Notorious on Patent Quality)
Summary: The EPO is quickly turning from the world’s leading patent office (on quality criteria) into one of the worst (as European patent lawyers too gradually dare admit)
WHEN this Web site was founded (2006) the EPO had already accepted that software was not patentable (before loopholes “as such”). The EPO was the least of our concerns! We were actually proud to say that software patents were no longer (much of) a problem in Europe.
Battistelli ruined the EPO in so many ways, including patent scope. He treats patent-granting (or examination) processes like a production line, where the goal is to produce as much as possible as quickly as possible (patents were never like this!) and this is what he calls “success”.
What can a President do when staff realises that examination is no longer being done improperly because of unrealistic “production” expectations? A reasonable President would listen to the staff and correct/rectify the error. But Battistelli is no President but a King and a ruthless tyrant. He’ll never ever admit an error. He’s crazy!
“Thinking of applying to Praktika Intern? Applications close on 31 January 2017,” the EPO wrote today, promoting that same trend of picking interns rather than experienced full-time employees (who are walking away or find themselves illegally dismissed based on trumped-up/made-up charges, or simply fail to reach impossible-to-fulfill quotas).
Make no mistake about it. The EPO grants A LOT of patents IN ERROR. Insiders told us so. They know so. They’re embarrassed to say so, but they feel compelled by ethics.
Last week the EPO pulled off a publicity stunt ahead of the meeting which was supposed to bring up the subject of patent quality. It’s about patents on plants. Here is a new article about it (shallow because it’s composed by the patent microcosm):
The European Commission Disagrees with the European Patent Office on the Patentability of Plants and Plant Parts Produced by Essentially Biological Processes
Following last year’s decisions by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) on referrals G 2/12 and G2/13 (“Tomatoes II” and “Broccoli II”), the European Commission (“Commission”) issued an interpretative Notice on certain articles of the Directive 98/44/EC—known as the Biotechnology Directive—stating their view that when adopting Directive 98/44/EC, the EU legislator’s intention was to exclude from patentability products (plants/animals and plant/animal parts) that are obtained by means of essentially biological processes.
[...]
The European Commission Disagrees with the European Patent Office on the Patentability of Plants and Plant Parts Produced by Essentially Biological Processes
Following last year’s decisions by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) on referrals G 2/12 and G2/13 (“Tomatoes II” and “Broccoli II”), the European Commission (“Commission”) issued an interpretative Notice on certain articles of the Directive 98/44/EC—known as the Biotechnology Directive—stating their view that when adopting Directive 98/44/EC, the EU legislator’s intention was to exclude from patentability products (plants/animals and plant/animal parts) that are obtained by means of essentially biological processes.
Andrew Sharples, head of practice group EIP Life (patent microcosm), wrote for IP Kat about this a short whole ago and said:
The EPO announced on 12 December that it has stayed all examination and opposition proceedings relating to plants and animals obtained by an essentially biological process. This is because of a notice of the European Commission questioning the availability of patents in these fields.
Following the Broccoli and Tomato cases (G2/12 Tomatoes II and G3/12 Broccoli II, discussed on the IPKat here), the Enlarged Board of the EPO ruled that even where an essentially biological process for the production of a plant or animal is not patentable, the resultant animal or plant may itself be patentable. This was on the basis that, effectively, the exclusion under Art. 54(3) EPC was an exclusion of a process, and there was no basis for giving this Article a broader interpretation.
This decision did not go unnoticed by the powers of the EU, and in December 2015, the European Parliament adopted a resolution asking the European Commission to look into the patentability of products of essentially biological processes. This resulted, on 3 November, in the Commission adopting a Notice on certain articles of the Biotech Directive (2016/C 411/03), in which the Commission took a different view from that of the Enlarged Board.
Well, the Enlarged Board of the EPO may not last much longer. Battistelli is in the process of squashing it because, based on a growing mountain of evidence, it doesn’t blindly accept Battistelli’s views and to make matter worse it’s actually granted — GASP — independence from the Office. That is absolutely not acceptable in Battistelli’s view, which is why he insisted that the chinchillas of the Council should send those people to exile (as they finally did a few days ago).
Battistelli has totally dismantled the EPO even on technical grounds. Battistelli is far from a technical person, so he can probably lie to himself about it with ease. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It must be almost the tenth time Benoît Battistelli pulls this trick in order to paint himself as sympathetic, concerned, and victimised
Summary: An incredible little essay signed by Benoît Battistelli, whom some colleagues hold accountable for the premature deaths of (up to) more than half a dozen EPO staff
THE EPO boasts the biggest liar in the world. Sepp Blatter is a Saint and an angel compared to him. The USPTO has some issues, but nobody ever dares compare it to anything like the EPO, where some executives would probably be in prison if they were not above the law. In some people’s views or minds, Battistelli employs terror tactics for ultimate control and he breaks national laws in the process. Yes, even Dutch politicians openly call it that and defend the characterisation with terms like “Gestapo” and “Reign of terror”. It’s almost an objective interpretation.
“Such are the symptoms of psychopathy; Battistelli’s mental state seem to have made him incapable of admitting any errors; instead he attacks anyone who dares tell him the truth, even delegates over whom he has no authority.”Benoît Battistelli is a master of institutionally violent autocracy, yet he pretends to be a victim of violence. He is a master of hypocrisy, lies, etc. while he accuses others of falsehoods. Such are the symptoms of psychopathy; Battistelli’s mental state seem to have made him incapable of admitting any errors; instead he attacks anyone who dares tell him the truth, even delegates over whom he has no authority. May the European authorities do to him what they did to Sepp Blatter, but they probably lack the authority to do so. They cannot even enter EPO facilities without prior permission (e.g. to independently investigate suicides).
And now, as we predicted last night, the EPO’s President shamelessly exploits the Berlin attack (warning: epo.org link). How about victims (fatalities) of the EPO's legal bullying and Battistelli's reign of terror? Did Battistelli fail to spot the hypocrisy? Is he senile or something?
“European Patent Office condemns blind hatred,” he wrote, yet anything Battistelli does seems to be driven by vengeance and hatred. Spot the hypocrisy from this man who turned the EPO into a “reign of terror”. He complains about terrorism now.
Benoît Battistelli speaks of “inclusive society based on fundamental principles of freedom, equality and justice.” Seriously? Signed by Battistelli?
“Says the man who keeps breaking German law and insists it’s OK because he’s enjoying immunity and impunity.”He says “sympathy goes to the victims, their families, relatives and friends.” Except those whose family and relatives Battistelli rebuked after his “Gestapo” drove loved ones to suicide?
“As a symbol of our solidarity with Germany and the German people,” Benoît Battistelli continued…
Says the man who keeps breaking German law and insists it’s OK because he’s enjoying immunity and impunity.
Benoît Battistelli says the “attack will never be able to destroy these principles, nor our values of cultural diversity…”
What principles? Benoît Battistelli must be a sick, demented person if he wrote all the above himself and didn’t merely sign it. He speaks of “tolerance and mutual respect.” That’s like Stalin or Pol Pot speaking of tolerance and mutual respect.
Another new low for the EPO… pass the vomit bag. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Google, Patents at 10:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Just like Microsoft’s modus operandi, being a malicious company whose phone business simply became “tax the Hell out of Android/Linux”
Summary: Large companies, once their importance and leadership fade away, turn into nothing but a pile of patent lawsuits, as BlackBerry serves to show
THE USPTO or the US patent system as a whole (including courts) is quickly becoming more hostile towards patent trolls, but even a company as large as BlackBerry acts like a patent troll now, having just filed lawsuits once again in Texas (BlackBerry is Canadian). The company now doubles down on this misguided strategy. It should alienate a lot of BlackBerry loyalists.
Today, what the troll’s mouthpiece (IAM) calls “monetising its patents” (euphemism for shakedown and litigation; like Mafia “monetising” its firearms) is actually bad news for all. BlackBerry recently said it would stop making phones (just license the brand instead; see our daily links for press coverage about it) and it is now officially a patent troll (once the sales come to an end). Here is the spin from IAM:
BlackBerry has effectively completed its transition to a technology services and licensing-focused business model after signing a global brand and software deal with TCL. At the same time, BlackBerry patents are at the centre of a new litigation campaign that is kicking off in the United States.
Under the terms of an agreement announced last week, Canada’s BlackBerry will license its wireless device-relevant “security software and service suite, as well as related brand assets” to Huizhou-based TCL, which will “design, manufacture, sell and provide customer support for BlackBerry-branded mobile devices”.
The Finnish phones guru put it like this: “The Smartphone Bloodbath still continues its consolidation. Blackberry has just ended its run as a handset maker. They’ve signed their hardware rights to TCL of China. It covers all countries except India and a few neighbors like Bangladesh, where Blackberry had already sold those rights to local suppliers. And TCL, we know the brand as ‘Alcatel’ but the company is TCL and a couple of years ago they became the proud latest owner of Palm via HP.”
BlackBerry loves patents and also wants to participate in Android (while attacking it), much like Sony did. It is going after leading companies that sell Android, not just directly but also indirectly. “2 New patent cases filed in EDTX [Eastern District of Texas],” IP Hawk writes. “$BBRY BlackBerry patents. TnT IP looks like the entity asserting patents. Defendants are Huawei & LG…”
Huawei is the world’s largest Android OEM now, at least by some criteria. Not too long aso IP Hawk called BlackBerry "patent troll". And that’s coming from somewhat of a patents maximalist…
Benjamin Henrion told me about BlackBerry that “ironically, they were one of the first to be attacked with NTP back in 2006 […] and not even a mention of the term “troll” in the IAM article, no surprise here.” Well, they almost never say "troll" (except in scare quotes).
We actually foresaw this lethal strategy from BlackBerry several years back and wrote almost a dozen articles about it. The end result or the outcome for ordinary people would be more expensive phones everywhere and slightly richer patent lawyers in Texas. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.19.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Total surveillance and stop-and-frisk-like regime, even extending to visitors
Summary: EPO becomes another North Korea and depression rates soar to the point where people take their own lives
With potential culpability for deaths of employees, Benoît Battistelli is in hot legal water, but there is nobody to actually enforce the law against him at Eponia. Recognising the agonising working conditions at the EPO, CERN recently weighed in on numerous occasions. These are world-leading scientists who blasted Battistelli and SUEPO has just published yet another letter (this time in French) from CERN.
Will CERN’s concern be enough to compel Battistelli to resign before the next death? His regime has already cost many people (and families) their lives and it cannot go on like this. Well, technically it can because Battistelli feels elated and above the law. In fact, judging by this tweet (linking to this “news” item at epo.org), the EPO is now becoming more like North Korea, with Battistelli as its “Dear Leader”. Congratulations to Battistelli for turning Europe’s finest institution into Europe’s shame and the subject of scorn from all across the world. He has killed EPO’s reputation, which took almost half a century to earn. Soon there won’t be applicants and renewals either. The EPO and its staff now live in borrowed time, exploiting what’s left of the inertia and the backlog. Mass layoffs are already a growing concern, hence job insecurity (it’s hard for former EPO staff to find a job in their discipline after a long EPO career).
“A range of measures are now being implemented to help ensure our safety,” the EPO said the other night. “Additional security measures are now in place for all visitors.”
Well, will they add safety (suicide) nets maybe? Just like in China? Would they help mask the issue?
“The safeguarding of staff, visitors and business is of paramount importance to the EPO,” the EPO wrote. Is that why EPO management drove people to suicide, having legally bullied them and did them extreme injustice? Words cannot express how disgusting that “news” item from the EPO truly is. What next? Will they build something like a Berlin wall around the Isar facilities, in order to prevent people from getting out?
Remember that the EPO does not obey the law; it doesn’t feel like it needs to, especially under Battistelli the arrogant bully with inferiority complex. Here is something which Florian Müller published yesterday, recalling his days as an activist against software patents:
In 2002, the EC proposed a “directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.” It claimed back then and throughout the years of the legislative process (which ended when the bill got thrown out by the European Parliament in 2005, which is exactly what I had been campaigning for) that patents on “computer-implemented inventions” weren’t software patents. The examples that the supporters of the proposal gave all the time were about computer-controlled washing machines, automated braking systems, and airplanes. They said that the whole plan was only to ensure that innovations in those fields could be patented but software patents? No, they said that our movement was totally wrong since software “as such” was going to be excluded.
It was nothing but a damn lie. A damn lie propagated by the Commission, by the equally-mendacious national governments of the EU member states, large corporations (also including their industry bodies, of course), the European Patent Office (with respect to its credibility, let me just refer you to Dr. Roy Schestowitz’s great work concerning what is going on there), and patent attorneys in private practice.
What frustrated us the most was not even that those who directly or indirectly stood to gain from software patents were dishonest. That was very bad for sure, but the worst part was that news agencies and the general press kept propagating those lies–not merely in the form of quotes but in ways that portrayed the Commission position as the truth and our position as an opposing view by “open source” people. And when we talked to them, they often just referred us to what the European Commission was saying–no matter how much of a lie it was.
[...]
Unitary patent propaganda: first published, then taken down
Last year, the IPKat blog dismantled the Commission’s ridiculous propaganda for its unitary patent package (including the Unified Patent Court). Then the Commission pulled its statement, almost certainly due to the IPKat’s competent criticism.
The FFII’s Benjamin Henrion asked, “was it the FAQ of The EP saying unipat [UPC] is not about swpat […] https://media.ffii.org/Fosdem2016/ffii-fosdem2016-unitary-software-patents.pdf … slide 9.”
“I believe the IPKat article was about a different document but not sure,” Müller responded.
We wrote a great deal about the EPO lying regarding the UPC and also doing things that are legally dubious in order to advance the UPC. That’s part of the expected behaviour when one deals with a North Korea-inspired regime. Expect a lot of brainwash, lies, and retribution against anyone who dares even politely questioning these lies (as some SUEPO representatives occasionally did). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A roundup of takes on the latest situation at the EPO, which is disintegrating before people’s eyes because the Administrative Council cares more about “carrots” (money) from Battistelli than about justice, integrity and the long-term sustainability of the European Patent Organisation
THE EPO is a total catastrophe that only keeps getting worse over time. Somehow the German media continues to ignore all the scandals and instead just covers talking points of the EPO’s management. We could use an English translation of this article by the way, especially parts of it that add new information (if any)…
Skipping the hogwash and the nonsense that Battistelli paid for dearly (not from his own pocket but the EPO’s), let’s look at what insiders and outsiders (like attorneys around Munich) say about the latest terrible exodus, which impacts a lot of people, not just a handful.
“After all,” one person wrote in relation to a comment about Haar being unsuitable for appellants or workers with wheelchairs, “the Isartor S-Bahn station does not have a lift either!”
The original commenter (mentioned here previously) responded with “not if you want to leave the exit on the northern side, only steps there.”
“An ever so slight amount of googling,” another person wrote, “will reveal that there IS a lift at the Haar S-Bahn station. Never let truth get in the way of a good rumor/story… Anybody remember Neuperlach and oral proceedings there…? Big fuss for nothing…”
As if the main question is whether or not the Boards of Appeal will have a lift (elevator) at the building and the nearby public transportation station. What a distraction from the bigger problem.
“True gentlemen are not so easily bought,” noted one person, alluding to delegates whom Battistelli is unable to ‘buy’ (he typically targets corruptible nations whose votes are cheaper to 'buy').
Here is the full comment:
That was a “gentlemen’s agreement”.
But for such an agreement you need to have gentlemen and they seem to be in short supply in the current ranks of the AC.
True gentlemen are not so easily bought.
Here is another:
As I already posted in a comment which hasn’t appeared, that was a “gentlemen’s agreement”.
For a gentlemen’s agreement you need to have gentlemen and they now seem to be in short supply.
True gentlemen are guided by principles not expediency.
Because the 'Mafioso' in chief (or Don), Battistelli, wants nobody but himself left with any power or independence, it seems clear that there’s no room for “gentlemen” anymore. Not even an Irish judge. “We are offering a limited number of one‑month internships with our boards of appeal,” the EPO wrote today. And no full-time jobs? After years of the boards being seriously understaffed? We wrote about this before.
Therein lie the truly alarming developments. The crushing of the boards is an ongoing process and the relocation (exile) to Haar is just one among several methods, such as price hikes that discourage appeals. Battistelli’s ‘bulldog’ used similar tactics in Croatia, in order to render people whom he feared redundant and shut them out.
“Now they are complicit too,” wrote a person about nations that let Battistelli trash the boards, sending them out of Munich to unfamiliar territory and all sorts of other issues:
If the big ones complain about being outvoted by the small countries, why did neither UK, FR,… request a weighted vote?
This has a financial impact, so they have a right to request it…
Now they are complicit too. Referring to “we voted no and lost” is not sufficient anymore!
A plethora of other comments continues to appear in a month-old two-part series from Merpel, who has not mentioned the EPO since.
“Possibly they discussed it behind closed doors,” wrote another person about the suspended judge (on “house ban”). To quote:
…as far as I know, the case of the suspended BoA member was not put on the agenda (which is proposed by the President of the Office). Possibly they discussed it behind closed doors, but I assume not.
Poor guy, I’ll be very interested to see what ILO-AT has to say about this case, once it gets there….
When are decisions about Battistelli’s abuses to be made? When will they discuss him grossly defying orders? Is that off the chapters/script now? All they have accomplished is growing uncertainty for the boards.
Despicable! Since a vacuum is now (at least temporarily) left in administration of the boards we suppose Battistelli can step in and make more of a mess of them, having recently lowered (reportedly halved) the salary of the judge whom he had illegally suspended more than 2 years ago.
What about Prunier (LP), whom Battistelli fired in defiance of clear, direct orders from the Council? Battistelli gets away with everything:
to be clear : IL and LP both NEED to be funded over a long period of time since they are both affected (eg their health condition suffered and they cannot seek for work in their situation) plus they have to organise their defense which will last for years whilst keeping them busy with the EPO, before to perhaps (or not) see their dismissal revoqued and get back at their EPO desk.
According to my information they both welcome small (one-off or monthly) donations which secure their future needs and give them also what they lost : a feeling of stability and material security.
Never mind the fact that ILO recently confirmed that legal proceedings at the EPO are mock trials and have been so for years?
Kieren McCarthy, a British journalist who is becoming ever more immersed in EPO matters, wrote this morning that “States seek to limit Napoleon-like tendencies of Benoit Battistelli” (near byline) and to quote bits from his article:
In response, EPO staff again asked the Administrative Council – which is the only body that can limit the president’s powers – to take action against Battistelli. It, again, failed to do so. Not only but that it also approved the latest proposal put forward by Battistelli to move the EPO’s Boards of Appeal (BoA) away from the EPO headquarters in Munich to a new building in the outskirts of the city, and it handed Battistelli effective control of the appeals committee until June next year.
There is some consternation over the BoA move, which some see as just the latest effort by Battistelli to undermine and downplay the independent body. Regardless, the decision to move the BoA to Haar passed by 21 votes to seven, with another seven countries abstaining. Commentators have noted that the nations that voted in favor are the same ones that repeatedly block efforts to admonish or fire Battistelli. Most represent Europe’s smaller economies.
[...]
While Battistelli has the votes to continue to pass reforms that put him into a more powerful position, his self-aggrandizement and the public criticism leveled at him for waging an internal campaign against those that resist his reforms has not gone unnoticed.
In a sign that a number of powerful European states have decided that confinement of the president is the best remaining option, a key lieutenant of Battistelli, Willy Minnoye, announced after the meeting that he would be leaving his post early for “personal reasons.”
As vice president of the EPO’s general operations arm, Minnoye has repeatedly defended the disciplinary proceedings taken against five staff union members and, staff say, is representative of the bullying culture that has taken over the organization. Minnoye most famously said that the EPO would simply ignore a decision against it by the Dutch Supreme Court on whether the EPO was violating its employees’ fundamental rights in how it was conducting internal investigations.
As well as losing Minnoye, Battistelli was dealt a second political blow when Swede was elected as president of the Boards of Appeal.
[...]
Despite these small challenges to Battistelli’s authority however, it is clear despite the very public criticisms of his behavior and repeated staff protests and strikes that the EPO Administrative Council will not be taking any direct action against him.
It’s good and reassuring to see yet another confirmation that Minnoye is leaving, having infamously bragged about being above the law. This Vice-President will be remembered as a “greedy manager and a mad hatter when it comes to justice,” said the following new comment:
The VP1 is leaving the EPO in June 2017 following the New Main topping-out ceremony, no surprise at all as a site manager he knows that his production figures will be down at the moment the staff removals start. His legacy will be that of a greedy manager and a mad hatter when it comes to justice, he should leave the EPO with his head down in shame.
Looking at some comments in The Register, one person wrote: “Surely the best way to “limit the tendencies” of an unmitigated thug like Battistelli would be to sack him.
“Or do such remedial measures only apply to we peasants?”
“He [Battistelli] should be in prison,” another person replied. Well, people have been sent to prison by the millions for much lesser offences, some of which if not the majority of which victimless.
“Italy knows how to deal with Dictators,” said a third person.
“Benoit Battistelli is French hence the Napoleon reference in the article,” said a fourth person, so “we’re talking snails and frogs legs here, not pizza and spaghetti.”
A fifth person asked: “Perhaps Britain could suggest the relocation of the office of the President of the EPO to St. Helena?”
We already heard some suggestions that Britain should demand relocation of the boards to Britain, where staff’s rights might be better guarded and Britain’s participation in the EPO can grow (recruitment of Brits by the EPO is down 80%).
“This seems a bit like Sepp Blatter remaining President of Fifa,” said another person, with a mention of alleged bribes included:
This raises further questions
“the decision to move the BoA to Haar passed by 21 votes to seven, with another seven countries abstaining. Commentators have noted that the nations that voted in favor are the same ones that repeatedly block efforts to admonish or fire Battistelli. Most represent Europe’s smaller economies.”
I feel there is some comment missing in this story -
Is there any reason for smaller economies to protect Battistelli?
This seems a bit like Sepp Blatter remaining President of Fifa for so long because the smaller Fifa nations didn’t want to oust him. In that case it was because Blatter kept the gravy flowing to them.
What I can’t work out is what motivation small European economies have to keep Battistelli, this is just a Patent Office – does he provide smaller nations with something that they are worried will be stopped if he is removed?
That last question would be a rhetorical one for EPO insiders. More than once we saw how Battistelli uses EPO/EU budget as “carrots”.
One person noted that “the majority of the European countries are small countries.” The problem is that they have an equal vote; they don’t have many patents and therefore not much at stake at the EPO. Why isn’t that factor accounted for at the Council? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 6:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Short roundup of news regarding patents in the United States and the process of handling them, with few comparisons to the EPO
LITIGATION with USPTO patents is down. It is down pretty sharply and this gives ample room for hope. But it does not, however, mean we should take our eyes off the ball.
Patently-O, writing in another recent post, said that “Medgraph’s claims are directed to a set of methods “for improving and facilitating diagnosis and treatment of patients.” See U.S. Patent 5,974,124 and U.S. Patent 6,122,351. The problem is that the claims require actions by both the computer system and also a patient/doctor. This claim structure directly runs headlong into traditional requirement for direct infringement of a patent – that all steps of the claim be performed-by or attributable-to a single entity.”
What’s noteworthy here is the presence of a computer system. We previously wrote about a similar case at the EPO appeal boards (computer conjoined with “medical” and “device” so as to make it look/sound non-abstract and novel). Right now in Europe it’s said to be easier to get (and defend) software patents than it is in the post-Alice US. The judge in the above case, P. Corcoran, thankfully rejected the application. No wonder Battistelli hates the appeal boards so much and strives to destroy them (while still maintaining the appearance or perception he complies with the EPC).
In other news from around the Web, there are formal/procedural changes emanating from CAFC decisions. “A recent decision from the Federal Circuit recognises a privilege between non-attorneys patent-agents and their clients under certain conditions,” says MIP. “Philippe Signore reviews the limits of this patent agent privilege, as well as those of the attorney-client privilege, within the context of the discovery phase of a US litigation,” continues the summary, but the article is behind a paywall.
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 has,” according to this from Patently-O, “since it first allowed for service by electronic means [legal papers served by E-mail, as the EPO attempted to do to me], treated it like other means of service, adding 3 days to the deadline to respond (under some circumstances). It’s now been deleted from the types of service that give the extra there days.”
Writing about a CAFC case, Patently-O also mentioned that “Patent Nos. 6,107,851 and 6,249,876 were not anticipated and were directly and indirectly infringed by Fairchild and that Fairchild’s Patent No. 7,259,972 was not obvious and was infringed by Power Integrations under the doctrine of equivalents (but was not literally infringed or indirectly infringed by Power Integrations). The jury also found Power Integrations’ Patent No. 7,834,605 neither anticipated nor obvious. Following trial, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law that Fairchild directly infringed this patent. The district court granted a permanent injunction against Fairchild and declined to grant an inunction against Power Integrations.”
The term injunction is just a nicer word for embargo and when companies start banning/blocking each other’s products it’s clear who’s not winning: the public. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 6:18 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Source: 2013 interview
Summary: In spite of repeated rejections of software patents by high courts in the United States, those who profit from such patents carry on as if nothing happened and even pay the former Director of the USPTO (David Kappos, pictured above) for lobbying
NOW THAT it’s publicly being stated that the EPO is more software patents-friendly than the USPTO (in spite of the ban; not that Battistelli minds any laws whatsoever) we thought it would be a good time to bring up this new press release that says “Samesurf [...] announces the issuance by the USPTO of five patents relating to co-browsing and synchronized browsing of online content: (1) US Patent No. 8,527,591; (2) US Patent No. 9,171,087; (3) US Patent No. 9,185,145; (4) US Patent No. 9,483,448; and (5) US Patent No. 9,489,353.”
These are of course software patents, so one has to wonder if the USPTO dealt with old applications as though the new rules (Section 101 and whatnot) don’t apply. Of course not, but something is rotten here and it’s very improbable that a high court would accept these patents upon closer examination. After Alice it barely matters if the USPTO puts some stamp on this stuff; courts and appeal boards would likely undo the stamp (it asked/petitioned to do so). So what is Samesurf bragging about really?
Suffice to say, the USPTO still wants to just grant a whole lot of nonsense. It makes the USPTO look “productive” and they probably just label it all “innovation”. Recall the latest echo chamber of the USPTO (not the first of its kind) that promotes software patents and excludes actual software developers. The patent microcosm, which opposes Alice (obviously!), publishes this new article, soon thereafter to be predictably promoted by proponents of software patents including IBM’s patent chief. To quote the key parts:
Section 101 patentability challenges of the 1970’s, in Benson and Flook, culminated in the Diamond v. Diehr decision of 1981, and the roughly contemporaneous Chakrabarty decision of 1980, set out an admirably broad ambit for patentability on the advent of the digital and biotechnological revolutions that have transformed our world these last 35 years. Coming as they did at the foundation of the Federal Circuit, these decisions reinforced a view that the US patent system was capable of broadly encompassing “anything under the sun that is made by man,” the Chakrabarty Court quoting the Senate Committee report on the 1952 Patent Act.
[...]
To address this situation through legislation, I suggest something along the lines of adding a straightforward sentence at the end of Section 101:
101. Inventions patentable. Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. For purposes of this section, it is irrelevant whether the invention or any of its claimed elements, is otherwise unpatentable under sections 102, 103 or 112.
I believe something this simple, or its equivalent, accompanied by clear legislative history, could help undo so much of the new troubling jurisprudence that imports these other conditions of patentability at the outset, and restore 101 to the minimal, simple threshold for inventions of the useful arts to which it was always intended.
The patent microcosm is trying to change the law and even the former Director of the USPTO was recruited for this task. They just want more and more patents on everything and lower quality control, obviously.
Don’t lose sight of these people. Their malicious agenda is a detriment to software development. They don’t even develop any software. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 5:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
A ‘master’ troll, Boris Teksler
Credit: Japanese media
Summary: Leadership shuffled in ever-changing (morphing) patent satellites that typically prey on Linux/Android
EARLIER THIS MONTH we wrote about patent trolls of Microsoft and Ericsson “trying to tax everything, especially Linux devices.”
Watch who’s in the news again after a rename, which is a common practice among notorious patent trolls that are a front for someone else (usually a large company). It’s Ericsson’s patent troll that already operates in Europe (London) as well, thanks to the EPO which repeats the USPTO‘s errors.
IAM is writing about this patent troll that paid IAM (without disclosure in the article). This is the second time in about a month (without disclosure) and the latest blog post says that “former boss of Unwired Planet, Boris Teksler, has been appointed the new CEO of Conversant, in a move that sees the Candian NPE’s current head John Lindgren step down after more than nine years in charge.”
Conversant is the new name of MOSAID, which Microsoft passed many of Nokia‘s patents to. We also wrote a great deal about Unwired Planet, back when it was known as Openwave. “Openwave has changed its name to Unwired Planet,” as Wikipedia puts it.
Speaking of Linux-hostile trolls, IAM writes about more of them today. To quote one relevant part:
Whether it’s Microsoft’s link-up with Xiaomi or Huawei’s surprising partnership with InterDigital, licensing deals with value-added components were the major theme of 2016.
InterDigital is an anti-Android troll (we have many articles about that) and Xiaomi did not have a “link-up” with Microsoft. It was more like patent extortion, as we explained at the time.
The shell game of patent trolls is extremely important to keep abreast of. Names keep changing; the same goes for Microsoft front groups that lobby on patent law, e.g. Association for Competitive Technology, which goes (and went) by several other names (ATL or stuff with “App” and “FRAND” in it). █
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