09.25.16
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 10:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It’s not alleged infringers who resort to foul play but those who game the system to classify everyone and everything “infringer” (so as to tax everyone and everything)
Photo from Reuters
Summary: The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government
“The district court found all of Sprint’s asserted claims invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.”
This is one among various new stories which speak of the tightening of patent scope in the USPTO or outside of it, i.e. the kind of stories that patent law firms don’t want the public to see. It’s not good for lawyers’ business. The stories patent lawyers refuse to cover are notably stories where CAFC smashes software patents to pieces with Alice (or §101) as the basis (it happens almost all the time). How can they overlook so many cases which involve either PTAB or the courts? Are they that biased and dishonest? Yes, apparently they are. Here is another case covered this past week by Patently-O. It says that CAFC “affirms that Affinity’s challenged claims invalid as directed to an abstract idea. when “stripped of excess claim verbiage”, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,970,379 “is directed to a broadcast system in which a cellular telephone located outside the range of a regional broadcaster (1) requests and receives network-based content from the broadcaster via a streaming signal, (2) is configured to wirelessly download an application for performing those functions, and (3) contains a display that allows the user to select particular content.” Slip opinion.”
“Even today, on a weekend, McRO still pops up in news feeds.”A few articles that we mentioned before, e.g. [1, 2], continue to resurface in news feeds along with others (new ones [1, 2, 3, 4]), serving to distract from cases like the above. The patent microcosm in the US is still trying to resurrect software patents and misleading or selective coverage seems to have become the means, as was the case earlier this year with Enfish. The cherry-picking involves even two patent lawyers at Watchtroll — a site which blasts the UN for what it calls an “Attack on Patents”, dubbing the UN’s report “fundamentally flawed” because it’s not good for maximalists. We’re not sure whether to laugh or cry because in the eyes of these people patent scope is just a nuisance or a travesty, rather than the thing which serves to legitimise the patent system and sometimes even protect investment in research (not the case when it comes to particular domains). At the middle of the month we said that software patenting proponents can go on for weeks milking McRO [1, 2] and this is exactly what is still happening (for nearly a fortnight now). Even today, on a weekend, McRO still pops up in news feeds. Why just McRO and why not the many other CAFC cases which deemed software patents invalid? That’s part of their propaganda tactics. It’s sad and we challenge anyone out there to prove that it’s untrue.
“Just more wishful thinking from patent maximalists looking for the right moment to stack statistics and issue some self-serving, deceiving statements.”A patent attorney who promotes software patents (and confronted yours truly on the subject before hiding behind a block) relies on small sample set of just 4 (yes, four!) to lie about the status quo. The other day he wrote: “Over the past 2 weeks, District Courts have denied motions to dismiss patent infringement cases based on 101/Alice 3X and granted 1X.”
Based on that tiny sample set he said: “We may be seeing the beginning of the end of the patent slaughter by Alice. It will take awhile for the USPTO to catch up.”
Are these patents (on software) coming back? Not by a long shot. Just more wishful thinking from patent maximalists looking for the right moment to stack statistics and issue some self-serving, deceiving statements. Same as Team UPC (see proponents of the UPC having a go again this weekend, e.g. in the IP Kat‘s comments [1, 2, 3], copying in their Google Plus posts into IP Kat while repeating the old tired talking points).
“They hope to attract more business, i.e. patent applications, litigation, etc.”The patent microcosm (both in the EU and the US) continues to lobby for its own interests and lies about all sorts of things. This leads us to the assumption that patent lawyers can be dishonest to the extreme and that their assessments of the status quo are more like shameless self-promotion, not objective advice. They pretend not to see what they prefer not to see. They are not helping clients, they are misleading them. They hope to attract more business, i.e. patent applications, litigation, etc.
The McRO hype one sees in the media this month is in vain; it was the same with Enfish. It barely changed anything at all. Even proponents of software patents (for many years now) — those who do not necessarily gain financially from them (as they just write about the topic) — go with the headline “Despite the CAFC’s recent 101 decisions don’t expect a deal frenzy or rapid rises in patent values”. To quote this article from the end of last week:
Over the summer, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued three decisions in software patent cases which, collectively have resolved some of the questions hanging over just what is eligible for patent protection. The most recent decision, McRO (dba Planet) v Bandai Namco Games America which was issued last week, has made arguably the biggest impression on the patent-owning community. Microsoft’s IP head Erich Andersen declared in a blog post that the decision “strengthened the law related to software patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act”.
Now bear in mind that’s what IAM says. It is typically amplifying Microsoft and their former ‘IP’ people (heck, their entire online system is heavily/purely Microsoft-based, which is rather unusual in this area of computing). Even IAM does not believe that McRO is going to change much. Regarding the person they cite, we have mentioned the above from Erich Andersen at least thrice since the McRO decision, noting that it proves just how much Microsoft pushes for software patents (even paying a lobbyist, David Kappos, for this purpose). Has David Kappos already registered as a corporate lobbyist? If not, he should. It would embarrass the USPTO for sure, but disclosure requirements for public officials are imperative. Is the USPTO’s pension plan so appalling that former officials need to turn into lobbyists for money (corrupting influence)?
“Even IAM does not believe that McRO is going to change much.”Speaking of corrupting influence, Randall Rader, the corrupt CAFC judge (we wrote about it before), joins the industry after he left (or was ejected) in disgrace. Systemic corruption doesn’t get any worse than this…
Here is what IAM wrote about the subject:
It’s all happening at China’s latest high-tech darling LeEco – one of the country’s fastest growing brands. Recently, it has pulled off a series of apparent coups as it continues to shore up its IP credentials ahead of expansion at home and abroad. But it also seems that one high-profile name has left the company after a matter of months.
Randall Rader, former chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and one of the world’s most renowned IP jurists, signed a “strategic cooperative agreement” with LeEco while visiting the company’s headquarters in Beijing, according to a report yesterday from Beijing-based IP agents firm Sanyou.
Speaking to IAM, a spokesperson for LeEco’s IP department confirmed that Rader will be formally collaborating with the firm, but could not give further details; so, we’ll have to wait for more information on his role. When Rader quit the CAFC back in June 2014, China, and the Asia-Pacific region more broadly, featured significantly in his post-retirement plans. What exactly he will bring to the company isn’t clear. Perhaps his participation points to a belief on the part of LeEco management that they could potentially be involved in a lot of litigation once they enter the US market in earnest. Alternatively (or additionally), Rader is well-known as an IP teacher, so could be working with LeEco IP personnel to bring them up to speed with key international issues and doing in-depth training.
Recall articles of ours like "The Corrupt Judge Rader (of CAFC) Still Pursuing Bad (More Aggressive) Patent System in the US" and "Judge Randall Rader Redefines “Patent Troll”". Expect to hear more about this scandalous figure in years to come, this time due to his capacity inside the private sector (like revolving doors). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.24.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
On the same night as this, maybe for similar reasons:
Summary: The longstanding propaganda campaign (framing staff as happy or framing unhappy staff as a disgruntled minority) is out and the timing of the release is suspicious to say the least
THE ABOVE SCREENSHOTS, taken from the first phase of a propaganda campaign (to culminate with a so-called 'conference' intended to influence the Administrative Council), would not be exactly shocking to EPO staff. It’s part of an effort by Battistelli to dismiss and discredit any claims that he abuses staff, strategically at a point when the Administrative Council brings up the subject. It is an infamous politician’s trick (see what the US government did on the very same day as the debut of the film “Snowden” and simultaneous calls for Presidential pardon).
“The quick summary: Blame the staff for all the problems.”Lots of EPO coverage is planned for this weekend and we decided to begin by getting this propaganda out of the way. It wasn’t — as far as we are aware — expected to come out last night, which makes one wonder. If this propaganda about the social climate was released prematurely late on a Friday, then maybe they try to bury or distract from something. Are they trying to suppress discussion about it? Has Team Battistelli lost its mind again? Why did the social study appear on the intranet at such strategic timing (when few would even notice the release)? Why has nobody covered it yet? Journalists are obviously away for the weekend (see what the FBI has just done, as Wikileaks pointed out 19 hours ago). It’s a big document, no doubt, and staff might be taking it home for the weekend. The Financial Study and Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment have appeared also.
The quick summary: Blame the staff for all the problems. Expect us to say more about it in the near future. The above is just somewhat of a preview. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.23.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
How ‘professional’… media repurposed as a shadow EPO platform
Summary: Another look at convergence between media and the EPO, which is spending virtually millions of Euros literally buying the media and ensuring that the EPO’s abuses are scarcely covered (if ever mentioned at all)
THE previous post about the EPO bemoaned poor press coverage that merely propagated lies of the EPO. Stakeholders were not at all contacted as part of fact-checking. That’s churnalism, not journalism.
“As rebutting/debunking the lies requires some basic knowledge of this system and also no professional loyalty to it, Techrights is often alone in responding to such misinformation.”In this second part we plan to tackle some more of the same things and bring to light unexplored issues pertaining to the EPO under Benoît Battistelli.
AIPPI World Congress
James Nurton (aforementioned EPO ‘stenographer’ of sorts) attended the AIPPI World Congress and wrote a bunch of articles. As we don’t think these relate directly to the UPC we won’t dig into each one of these, but MIP (Managing IP, Nurton’s employer) omitted disbelief that the UPC will become a reality from its reports, as we already noted the other day. Agenda by omission? Nokia, based on this new report from WIPR, shares this view on UPC disbelief. To quote:
The UK’s ratification of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement is politically “very unlikely” at the moment, according to Nokia’s head of European litigation Clemens Heusch.
He was speaking in a session yesterday, September 20, at the 2016 AIPPI World Congress in Milan about the implications of Brexit on the UPC.
Heusch said that instead, negotiations were likely to play out over two years once article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty has been invoked.
Commenting on the negotiations, Heusch said it was essential for the UK to stay in the common market or some form of free trade agreement, so the talks will be a great chance to include the UPC.
Sadly though, on UPC among other topics, the IAM and MIP staff are just megaphones amplifying the EPO’s liars like Margot Fröhlinger [1, 2, 3]. See IAM’s “The UK risks losing current UPC goodwill if it dithers on ratification for much longer, warns Froehlinger”. We already wrote about these appalling lies from Battistelli (alarmists for UPC), but it doesn’t bother those who have an agenda to sell or drive. It would be rather saddening if people had actually read these sites and believed everything they say. As rebutting/debunking the lies requires some basic knowledge of this system and also no professional loyalty to it, Techrights is often alone in responding to such misinformation.
Puff Pieces Become the Norm
Going back to MIP, “Meet AIPPI’s first Chinese President” was published and an interesting discussion developed around this tweet. “Here’s EPO and Managing IP in the same bed,” I said. “Soon, another Battistelli puff piece (lies) [is going to come] from them (re “social”),” I added, knowing what Nurton said in part 1 of a so-called Battistelli ‘interview’. “I hope you’ll consider fact-checking before publishing a piece which claims (outright lies) EPO staff is happy,” I told them. “A lot of EPO staff are on the verge of suicide and deem it a nightmare to work there; many quit, life over money.”
As one person put it, “”communications duets” are old-PR-style stuff – don’t hv to declare ad interests on soc med.”
One person (maybe an insider) said s/he was “waiting for the explosive amba interview.”
“We are still waiting for a response from AMBA,” MIP replied, so there has been no progress.
“Sadly though, on UPC among other topics, the IAM and MIP staff are just megaphones amplifying the EPO’s liars like Margot Fröhlinger.”“I would not be AT ALL surprised,” I told them, “if they fear even replying (for fear or retribution); the contrary would shock me; You do a sterling job covering some issues, but please don’t become another Battistelli ammo against EPO staff; you would not only be on the wrong side of history but also, to some degree, potential contributor to future suicides; in case you ever wonder why you made yourself ‘the’ story, it’s because you picked a side, and it’s the wrong side of history; Yes, journalism requires hearing the other side, even if not independent and still under fear from Battistelli.”
So certainly it seems like MIP will continue to be Battistelli’s platform, unless they change their mind after public criticism [1, 2, 3, 4]. Don’t they know that AMBA is afraid? Therein lies the core of the story they should write.
Hardly Even Trying to Look Separable Anymore
“Thanks @ManagingIP,” the EPO wrote, “for the highlights from the #AIPPI2016. See what the EPO President pointed out: http://www.managingip.com/Article/3586954/Read-the-highlights-from-the-AIPPI-World-Congress.html …”
It’s like MIP is now cooperating with the EPO and watch the article the EPO cites, with an image of Battistelli (accompanied by his lies) on the right-hand side. We previously highlighted similar signs of cooperation/coordination between those two (part 1 of the interview).
“So certainly it seems like MIP will continue to be Battistelli’s platform, unless they change their mind after public criticism.”In the mean time, the EPO itself has just promoted (in Twitter) Battistelli’s self-congratulatory puff piece (warning: this is a link to the EPO’s site which they can use for tracking/harvesting IP addresses). The “EPO’s Early Certainty initiative” that Battistelli speaks of is basically a way of ensuring lowered patent quality, i.e. the very opposite of what the EPO needs.
Repeating anything Battistelli says, Annsley Merelle Ward from Bristows is still pushing/promoting the UPC for her employer, as usual [1, 2]. Here are the relevant parts of from what she published this morning: “The core theme running through EPO President Benoit Battistelli’s address was the importance of quality and efficiency at the EPO in the face of an increasing quantity and complexity of applications. [...] Alongside these efforts, M. Battistelli described the “Early Certainty from Search (ECfS)” scheme which requires that all incoming searches are issued with written opinions within 6 months and for which the backlog of searches was cleared in mid 2016. Importantly, as of 1 July 2016, the Early Certainty scheme was expanded to cover examination and opposition as well. The aim is for timelines by 2020 of 6 months for a search and its opinion; 12 months on average for examination; and 15 months for a standard opposition.”
Absolutely terrible. We shall say more about it some time soon (with accompanying documents). it’s a rat race, or a race to the bottom.
“A lot of the IP-centric media — rather than help expose the abuses of the EPO (Merpel is hardly active anymore) — chose to play along with Team Battistelli.”“Finally,” she added, “M. Battistelli touched on the Unitary Patent (UP) and stressed his view that despite Brexit the UP will happen – it was just a question of when. If the UK ratifies (which he believes is legally and politically possible), the EPO expects to grant the first UP next year; otherwise it will be delayed several years as it will not be possible to launch the UP until after the UK has left the EU. In the Q&A session, in response to a question about his vision for 2025, he said (with only a touch of irony) that he hoped the UP would finally be a reality by then!”
Yes, that says 2025! Battistelli might be nearly 80 by then (and maybe deceased).
But anyway, never let a good opportunity to “build relationships” with the EPO, right? A lot of the IP-centric media — rather than help expose the abuses of the EPO (Merpel is hardly active anymore) — chose to play along with Team Battistelli. That’s where the big money is. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:14 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Battistelli’s Ministry of Truth is no reliable source of information
Summary: A survey/review (or an overview) of recent articles about the EPO and why they’re wrong (mostly because they parrot the official lies from Battistelli’s department)
THE Battistelli campaign (or coup d’état) recently entered a new phase. A year ago we noted that the EPO had begun deliberately lying both to journalists and to staff. It’s inexcusable and it causes irreparable damage to the EPO both as a service and as an employer (or prospective employer). Battistelli appears to have become a man without accountability; he’s liable to nobody, except Sarkozy perhaps. What a joke the EPO has become under this man’s so-called ‘leadership’. Even IP-centric circles lost respect for him, but they have to keep pretending that he’s President even when the staff pretty much disowned him and Board 28 views him as a liability. How this man managed to maintain his position might one day become the subject of some incredible book! Eponia is an autocrat’s fantasy land.
Today we would like to counter or respond to several reports we saw. Some of them are so shallow that one starts to wonder if the EPO directly paid for them (we already know that the EPO pays publications to print out puff pieces).
Façade of Independence
A couple of months ago we wrote about how Battistelli (in part) would be appointing another one of his cronies, in order for this crony to be framed as "independence" for the appeal boards. Earlier this week we found this article titled “EPO seeks to allay independence fears with new appointment”; problem is, they don’t mention who makes this appointment and why it’s merely an illusion of independence, as explicitly pointed out by AMBA. To quote this report:
The European Patent Office is seeking to appoint a president of its boards of appeal, a newly created post aimed at addressing longstanding independence concerns.
In a notice published on its website, the EPO said the appointment would ‘foster autonomy and efficiency’ at the appeal boards, which are responsible for hearing appeals against examination decisions.
Under the European Patent Convention, the framework that instituted the European Patent Office, the 28 boards of appeal are supposed to be independent from the rest of the office and only answer to the EPO’s supervisory body the Administrative Council.
But in 2014, their autonomy was thrown into doubt when EPO president Benoit Battistelli (pictured) placed a ‘house ban’ on the then head of the enlarged board of appeal.
Those who have paid close enough attention know that by various means Battistelli is crushing these boards while merely maintaining the illusion that he is not doing so (maybe because of the EPC).
Repeating EPO sound bites like “foster autonomy and efficiency” is a disservice to truth. It’s the repetition of lies. We’re not sure why the Law Gazette decided to issue such a shallow piece while neglecting to highlight the other side of the story — the side which is not merely lying to save face.
Façade of Patent Quality
Patent quality will certainly be a big topic in the Administrative Council’s next meeting which is only a month away (based on document we saw), so Battistelli and his cronies have begun lying about it and planting puff pieces in the media (whether by collusion or by finding ‘useful idiots’ who would play along for free we are not sure).
This new article, like many others, compared EPO to the USPTO, quite frankly as usual. It’s not as though the USPTO has high patent quality. “This is part of what the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and European Patent Office (EPO) have to consider in order to determine” who will sink to the bottom of the barrel and accept widely-rejected patent applications. We heard theories about how Battistelli was trying to attract really bad applications by lowering the acceptance bar. That would be a terrible mistake which drains or squeezes out everything that’s left of the EPO’s 40+-year reputation.
James Nurton, the favourite poodle of Battistelli (doing so-called ‘interviews’ to prepare puff pieces with him), repeats the EPO’s lies this week. It’s not journalism but churnalism and it does nothing to highlight the terrible patent quality we have been hearing about and writing about. Low patent quality might be fine for attorneys in the short term (more business), but what happens to society as a whole?
Yesterday we found this new article about the “English approach to obviousness” of patents and the comments were revealing. To quote both of them:
For some time it has seemed to me that the UK courts’ approach to obviousness makes little overall commercial sense. Obviousness is a difficult, fairly subjective question, based on a number of legal fictions. The UK court approach leads to massive expense in terms of gathering evidence to try to definitively demonstrate points that are not real but are wrapped up in the legal fictions.
So is the current UK approach in fact causing massive expense to arrive at a fairly artificial, one might say arbitrary result?
It seems that the current approach leaves little certainty and it is hard to advise (especially without all the evidence that the current approach seems to demand) – as this case/blog suggests.
To me adopting, say (or whisper..) an EPO style approach might make more sense. Yes justice might be rougher. But it would be much easier to know the likely outcome, and the cost of litigation could be massively reduced.
Wouldn’t better certainty, reasonable cost and a likelihood of a reasonable result (most of the time) be attractive to business?
Hear him, hear him. well said Herr Faulkner.
Given that, for determination of obviousness objectively, the addressee is the hypothetical skilled person, it is well to set up his or her hypothetical task to match. The EPO PSA rubric does that. The skilled person is given the objective technical problem (OTP), and required to scroll through the state of the art for a hint or suggestion how to crack it. Isn’t that what real researchers do, in real life?
As to the OTP, that is determined by Applicant. Full faith and credit for what the application as filed states to be the technical field and the technical problem solved by the invention. Nothing fairer, than that, or simpler to explain to the patent litigation community.
When granting a patent an office (or examiners) doesn’t need to consider business needs of the applicant and his/her lawyer but rather the inventiveness. Battistelli, being a business type rather than a scientist, is turning the Office into a production line. Examiners don’t benefit from it, specialist patent judges (like those at the boards) certainly don’t benefit from it, and the whole spirit/principles that made the EPO a world leader become just history.
It’s truly a problem that Battistelli and his loyalists now frequently resort to lying (to the public and staff) about what they do. It’s costly in the long run because trust is eroded and applicants will sooner or later find out that the EPO is just an expensive (overpriced) rubberstamping exercise/operation. Battistelli will soon find out that his chronic lying needs to stop. Even when he and his cronies say the truth people won’t believe the EPO anymore.
“They don’t care about costs,” one insider told us. “Obviously Battistelli is ready to reach his goals by any means necessary. SUEPO dismissal=collateral damage [...] Someone should tell IAM that there are also dodgy social studies initiated by the EPO to mislead the press and politicians ;)” (comment regarding the upcoming ‘Social Conference’).
“We shall see if IAM has the integrity to engage in journalism when the EPO lies about the social climate,” I told them, after IAM slagged off Professor Bessen, saying: “Someone should tell Mr Bessen there are academics who’ll take cash to produce dodgy studies for corporates seeking to change patent laws ;-)” (says the site that takes money from the EPO's PR agency that receives over a million Euros per year from the EPO).
“For what it’s worth,” the insider added, “they don’t have the guts to object King Battistelli and his thugs. Fear of repercussions?”
He or she later explained: “Distraction form actual problems and distortion of the truth and the facts is Battistelli’s footprint and tactics in this dirty game!”
“As a former EPO examiner, and current practicing attorney, I had to bite my tongue not to scream a nasty expletive when I read that.”
–AnonymousBattistelli is trying to appeal to US businesses by rubberstamping almost everything while his friends at IAM propagate his talking points, namely: “Battistelli told the audience that this was “a clear sign that there is a growing interest from you in the EPO and the European innovation market”. To help manage that growing interest the EPO has appointed its first attaché to the US, hiring Albert Keyack who previously served as the USPTO’s attaché for South America.”
We wrote about Keyack before [1, 2] and explained why it’s rather alarming. Quality control before Battistelli was reasonably OK, but EPO insiders tell us they’re mortified at how sharp a decline they’re seeing. We shall cover this in depth another day. Battistelli basically exploits the image created or defended by his predecessors while shifting policy in the opposite direction.
“The European Patent Office (EPO) has argued that Berkeley’s initial, provisional application does not adequately describe the invention because it fails to mention the importance of certain DNA sequences, called PAM sequences,” according to this new article from Nature. It’s an article about patents on life and the outline/outset says:
Geneticist George Church has pioneered methods for sequencing and altering genomes. He has been called a founding father of synthetic biology, and is probably the world’s leading authority on efforts to resurrect the extinct woolly mammoth.
Now, a battle over who owns the patent rights to a revolutionary gene-editing technique could hinge, in part, on whether Church’s scientific skill could be considered ‘ordinary’.
Such are the arcane and often bizarre issues the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) must consider in the fight over CRISPR–Cas9 gene editing. But the proceedings, which could drag out for years, have taken an ugly turn from scientific minutiae to accusations of impropriety. “There seem to be a number of allegations of bad actors and bad faith,” says Jacob Sherkow, a legal scholar at New York Law School in New York City. “It’s aggressive.”
Once upon a time it was really hard to be granted an EPO patent, but now it’s somewhat of a joke (even to insiders who are patent examiners). They’re rightly concerned because a shoddy (rushed) job would cost them their job in the long run.
“Well, the UPC Preparatory Committee is the very core of Team UPC and it’s basically a bunch of self-serving propagandists and lobbyists.”“As a former EPO examiner,” wrote this one person the other say, “and current practicing attorney, I had to bite my tongue not to scream” (at EPO lies).
The specific part which angered this person was: “Alfred Spigarelli, European Patent Office (EPO), disagreed with the trade-off premise, and stated that at the EPO, a focus on quality results in productivity.”
Complete nonsense. A symptom of what the EPO has become under Battistelli.
Façade of UPC as Inevitable
Based on this tweet from yesterday, CIPA and the EPO will soon converge in London (we’re guessing to push and lobby some more for the UPC after Brexit, among other things). We previously explained the role of CIPA in all this, including the push for the UPC.
Here come some alarmists from Team UPC. Cohen & Gresser LLP say “Brain Drain? How Brexit may affect intellectual property rights in Europe” (hardly a problem as long as the UK has its own office, UK-IPO).
Another new article asks (in the headline), “Where Next For Patents In Europe?”
It’s actually UPC promotion by proxy (embedded in the article), as for patents in Europe the British people can still use the EPO, albeit the EPO hardly hired any Brits anymore (maybe they don’t even bother applying, as we showed last month). Here is what the article says:
An experienced patent lawyer, commenting on the basis of anonymity, believes the UK patent landscape has changed decisively post Brexit: “The Unified Patent Court [in the UK] and Unitary Patent [in the UK] will almost certainly now not go ahead. There is some talk of them still happening, with various permutations being suggested, but I think it is unlikely as it would be politically odd to sign up to a European court with such wide powers so soon after the vote”.
Alexander Ramsay, Chairman of the UPC Preparatory Committee is slightly more optimistic “For the time being the United Kingdom remains a Member State of the European Union and a Signatory State of the Unified Patent Court Agreement and an integral player in its preparation”. However he concedes, the referendum result raises questions “…in particular as regards its possible impact on the UK participation and on the UK ratification of the Agreement”.
“They built their portfolio or career on the premise that the UPC would become a reality, so they’re pushing for it by all means possible, even if everyone but Team UPC antagonises the UPC (most people know nothing about it, but they would be harmed by it).”Well, the UPC Preparatory Committee is the very core of Team UPC and it’s basically a bunch of self-serving propagandists and lobbyists. They built their portfolio or career on the premise that the UPC would become a reality, so they’re pushing for it by all means possible, even if everyone but Team UPC antagonises the UPC (most people know nothing about it, but they would be harmed by it).
The “consequences of Brexit on the UPC amongst many in the patent community (especially by the EPO) is naïve at best,” says the following new comment, which also notes that any “attempt [to] proceed with UPC also ignores a critical voice which is that of the user”. Here is the comment in full:
I agree with the previous post. Unfortunately the reaction to the consequences of Brexit on the UPC amongst many in the patent community (especially by the EPO) is naïve at best and wilfully blind at worse. To be clear UK participation in the UPC is dead, and the UPC itself is seriously wounded -perhaps fatally so. UPC will not happen any time soon. I appreciate this is frustrating given it came so close. But it does not serve the interests of UK based applicants or those who desire UK patents to pretend otherwise and to do so is in danger of making a bad situation much worse.
I comment as a passionate European and patent attorney who has worked in house for many multi-national patentees. I have spent many years living in the EU as a UK ex Pat. After recently returning to live in the UK, I was bitterly disappointed by Brexit, which I believe will be a disaster. However UK ratifying the UPC notwithstanding the June result (even if possible) would simply play into the hands of those who voted to leave as it would be an illustration of elitist arrogance which rather makes their point for them.
UPC won’t happen with the UK as the political obstacles to UK participation in UPC are insurmountable. The patent community just doesn’t have the political clout to persuade the UK government to take the political risks and use up their limited political capital in Europe by doing so.
For the UK to attempt proceed with UPC also ignores a critical voice which is that of the user. The UPC was always a solution looking for a problem. Even before Brexit, despite the EPO propaganda, I did not sense a large push for industry to use the UPC, who were largely ambivalent at best. Indeed the risk of pan EU injunctions was as much a potential huge downside for EU industry from UPC as it was an opportunity.
The present post grant arrangements have largely worked well for 40 years. As a very low proportion of EU patents are ever litigated, I always felt UPC was a post grant tail wagging a pre-grant dog. The UPC has always been a political not economic project based on questionable assumptions and statistics from EPO, and did not properly reflect what industry or most users wanted.
The critical risk from Brexit (and for that matter the UPC) is prolonged uncertainty. For the UK to ratify UPC now will merely heap yet more legal uncertainty on top of a massive post Brexit legal black hole. Who is to say that any fudge that allows UK to join UPC, however cleverly thought through, would be confirmed by the CJEU, given their intense suspicion of the whole endeavour? Why would any applicant take the risk of obtaining UPC patents, if their UK patent rights may be at risk at some unknown point in the future?
For UK to ratify UPC now could drive applicants who desire UK protection away from the EPO to file direct at the UKIPO. It may even put at risk EU patents outside the UK thus making the UPC even less attractive for all users. Worse case it might deter all applicants from using the EPO at all, if they are forced into a system based on legally shaky foundations.
The only sensible option is to pause, wait until the UK leaves the EU and then introduce a revised UPC to cover the remaining EU states who still wish it. Of course a UPC without the UK is less attractive to applicants and a disaster for the UK patent profession. It means no UK based court. But that is one of the very many unfortunate consequences of a poor decision to leave the EU. Revision of the UPC agreement may indeed open up debate that will question the merits of the UPC at all – no bad thing given the rushed and poor quality debate in the EU parliament. However the UK is on our way out, that is no longer our concern and we can have no say on this. Again this is the harsh reality of what leaving the EU means, a lack of influence of UK stakeholders in EU affairs.
But to follow the UPC to the bitter end without pause could seriously weaken a supranational patent granting system in Europe that has worked effectively and served applicants well for many years.
Dr Ingve Björn Stjerna, a longtime antagonist of the UPC, has a new paper about the UPC in light (or shadow) of Brexit. His summary says: “The majority vote of the British electorate in favor of leaving the European Union has delivered a serious blow to the European patent reform. The usual protagonists nonetheless immediately started advocating for an instant ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (“UPCA”) by the UK, now even deeming possible the participation of a non-EU member which so far, due to CJEU opinion 1/09, was held to be excluded by the same people. When looking at the situation from a less biased perspective, a UPCA with the UK may only be possible after a structural revision of the Agreement.”
In our next post we shall tackle some more of the EPO’s lies. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.22.16
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 5:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Ignoring the bulk of cases or inter partes reviews in order to advance their agenda
Summary: Amid the gradual collapse of software patents in the United States there are disingenuous efforts to bring them back or maintain a perception that these patents are still potent
FOLLOWING the CAFC-level McRO case we have seen a new wave of software patents lobbying. We last wrote about it in yesterday's sole article and prior to it we showed how McRO got exploited for software patents agenda by the patent microcosm [1, 2, 3]. We estimated that we would probably see it lasting for weeks in the media and indeed, even a week later we still see new examples. Fenwick & West LLP of Bilki Blog is promoting software patents using this decision and watch this sensationalist and misleading headline from Paul Hastings LLP (a truly gross generalisation). They are intentionally extrapolating/generalising while ignoring all the court outcomes that they don’t like (because it disproves their claims/marketing).
Judging by the article “Alice Ruling Limits Patentability of Business Processes”, David Kappos is still at it. He is a software patents lobbyist (he used to be an official, namely USPTO Director, but he is taking money from Microsoft and IBM these days). He bemoans Alice at every turn and here’s the latest talking point from him:
David Kappos, a former director of the patent office, is quoted by Bloomberg Businessweek saying that invalidation of patents is “out of control” and has “definitely gone too far. Important software innovations that are highly technical are being deemed unpatentable. You can get software patents allowed in both China and Europe that aren’t allowable in the U.S. anymore.”
Other proponents of software patents, sites like IAM for instance, cherry-pick data (in this case focusing on “most frequent filers”) to make PTAB progress look like it’s stalling, even when figures from MIP suggest otherwise. Fun with statistics; they’re being shaped based on one’s desired conclusion.
The loudest proponent of software patents, Gene Quinn, wrote many articles bashing PTAB and insulting PTAB. He also published quite a few article celebrating McRO and now he helps the coordinated effort to [cref 95347 belittle abuse (even fraud) by the USPTO. Such is the modus operandi of people with such an agenda. If only more Web sites bothered pointing this out… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.20.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Thank you for smoking! It’s good for your health. Honest.
Summary: Benoît Battistelli and Team UPC continue to meddle in politics and mislead the public (through the press) about patent quality as well the UPC, which is now in effect sunk inside the ashtray of history
PATENT law firms from Europe and abroad are conspiring against democracy using echo chambers that discuss the UPC. They set up private events, they pressure politicians behind closed doors, and they’re stuffing panels so as to ensure no dissent is publicly visible. This mirrors a lot of what we find in CETA, TISA, TTIP, TPP and so on. Watch what EPO and Battistelli have been doing regarding the UPC as of late. It’s the same thing European politicians now do for so-called trade deals. It’s truly appalling and it has got to be stopped. It makes EPO management look as crooked as can be. It harms the image of the Office and tarnishes the reputation it so heavily relies on. Battistelli is truly destructive and delusional (by his own choice); insiders know it and it’s hardly shocking that he has a 0% approval rating among staff.
At the EPO, particularly under Battistelli, open tenders are a joke. We wrote several articles which help illustrate it. According to this tweet (we don’t wish to link directly to the EPO’s Web site as it can facilitate spying/tracking), “[c]ivil maintenance suppliers interested in bidding for tenders on the new EPO building should join us for this event” (as if they will get a fair tender under Battistelli!).
“Battistelli is truly destructive and delusional (by his own choice); insiders know it and it’s hardly shocking that he has a 0% approval rating among staff.”Meanwhile, judging by what we see from Andrew Chung (who offered a platform for the liar last week), Battistelli continues to meddle in everything. He thinks he’s the God of Europe, which helps explain the vanity with which he responds to European politicians who inquire about his abuses. “Q&A: Benoît Battistelli, top European patent official, on patent eligibility and Brexit” is the title of the latest piece from Chung and as one can expect, no fact-checking or plurality of views is permitted. The liar just keeps lying about everything.
Expect the EPO to have already sunk to USPTO levels of patent ‘quality’ (we have new material on the way with which to demonstrate this) and expect Brexit to have already killed UPC. It’s the consensus, unless one asks Team UPC, which is another bunch of chronic liars. They lie for a reason as they still have some hope and projecting this hope, they believe, can hand them a miracle. Watch this new press release about integration of USPTO and EPO data. Is this the future? “Wellspring,” it says about itself, “the global leader in software solutions for tech transfer, intellectual property, and tech scouting, today launched the Advanced Patent Utility (APU) for Wellspring’s software products. The APU feature brings together several automated features for updating intellectual property data, including new functionality to synchronize patent records with critical information and changes in status in patent offices’ databases.”
“It seems evident that Battistelli is meddling in Italian politics for the UPC, which is a dead project (don’t believe the hype).”One does not require such a service because the data is already available online (or up for sale in bulk) from the patent offices. Regardless, the EPO no longer has quality control, so many of the registered patents are questionable, especially recent ones (from the Battistelli era of hasty rubberstamping). It has gotten so bad, say insiders, that sooner or later there might be no examination at all. So don’t believe the hype/myth spread yesterday by the EPO; they try to maintain the illusion of quality because they know it’s a problem, which means that the lie needs to be repeated again, and again, and again[citation needed]…
The liar spoke the other day at a public event, AIPPI. The EPO posted a photograph of the naked emperor and said: “President Battistelli spoke @ #AIPPI2016 on how EPO is keeping quality high while speeding up the process for users” (total nonsense, except the speed, which obviously compromised quality).
According to several insiders (like this one) and also alerts we have received, the media in Italy helped Battistelli lie about the UPC and also about Brexit (we expect to have English translations soon). It seems evident that Battistelli is meddling in Italian politics for the UPC, which is a dead project (don’t believe the hype). What a bunch of chronic liars the media is quoting, probably without even realising it (because it sounds flattering to Italy’s theoretical role).
The UPC has “prerequisites that represent the final nail in the coffin for the UK’s participation,” wrote even what we believe to be a patent attorney/practitioner. To quote a new comment in full:
I find the legal opinion mentioned by Meldrew to be very interesting indeed.
The legal arguments are certainly well considered, as are the various points that the authors of the opinion believe are essential prerequisites to the UK’s participation in the UPC. However, in my view, it is the nature and number of those prerequisites that represent the final nail in the coffin for the UK’s participation.
Not only would multiple (national and international) new legal instruments be necessary, but the EU would need to agree to various amendments to the legislation governing the jurisdiction of the CJEU. If that were not a tall enough task on its own, then the final pieces of the puzzle make the task virtually impossible.
Firstly, the UK would (with regard to cases before the UPC) need to submit to the supremacy of Union law in its entirety. It is very difficult indeed to see how this could be done when the UK is not an EU Member State, particularly as cases involving IP rights before the UPC could touch upon issues covered by a wide range of different EU laws (eg competition law, the Biotech Directive, other EU legislation containing provisions affecting patents or SPCs, and general principles of EU law). Is it really possible that the UK government would accept being bound, post-Brexit, by such a range of EU laws (including potential future EU legislation) just to ensure that the UPC goes ahead?
Secondly, the UPCA would need to be amended. Whilst that is clearly possible, there is the question of when the relevant amendments would be made. Whilst those amendments could be made in anticipation of all of the other conditions for the UK’s participation being met at a later stage, are the other Contracting Member States to the Agreement really going to agree to this instead of pursuing alternative amendments that would eliminate the need to rely upon the UK’s participation? Perhaps this will happen, but the evidence suggests otherwise (particularly the various attempts that have already been made to argue for new homes for the divisions of the UPC allocated to the UK).
Perhaps it is time to stop flogging this particular horse and instead focus efforts upon finding an alternative way of reaching the desired destination.
“The UK’s continued participation would require it to submit to EU law regarding proceedings before the Court,” said elements of Team UPC, such as CIPA (see the latest). For those who don’t know, CIPA is a parasite that merely advocates for the profit of the patent microcosm. We wrote about it in the past. As for the UPC, it is totally antidemocratic, it is an injustice, and it is thankfully dead by now.
“…in my view, it is the nature and number of those prerequisites that represent the final nail in the coffin for the UK’s [UPC] participation.”
–AnonymousMathieu Klos from Juve wrote that “CIPA has a strong preference for UK to participate, if a solid legal basis can be agreed http://www.cipa.org.uk” (obviously CIPA wants it, but it should hardly be a dot org, it’s just a front group of the patent microcosm).
Here is what WIPR, a London-based site, wrote about it [1, 2]. AIPPI is the second UPC propaganda event in less than a month (the first one was set up by the London-based Managing IP (MIP) [1, 2, 3, 4]). Team UPC’s lobbying is now on overdrive, several months after Brexit and about a year away from the end of Battistelli. “At the Managing IP European Patent Forum in Munich on September 6,” one attendee told us, “a senior partner from Marks & Clerk, after [the EPO's] Margot Fröhlinger’s talk, asked the audience how many people thought that the UK would ratify the UPC. Not one single person raised their hand. That never made it into the MIP write up!”
“…a senior partner from Marks & Clerk, after [the EPO's] Margot Fröhlinger’s talk, asked the audience how many people thought that the UK would ratify the UPC. Not one single person raised their hand. That never made it into the MIP write up!”
–AnonymousWonderful, isn’t it? Agenda masqueraded as reporting. We advise readers — whether they’re connected to the EPO or not — to ignore all the UPC noise in ‘IP’ media. A lot of it is paid-for nonsense. There’s a lot of PR money coming out of Battistelli's palm at the expense of the EPO and it is just the EPO and Team UPC (and their large clients) who are trying to bamboozle us again. Self-fulfilling prophecy tactics would have us believe that UPC isn’t dead even when it is.
“I’d like to see politicians working to shoot down the UPC,” I told this person today (Walter van Holst speaking about the secretive CETA), “but the patent cartel hides it from them, then misleads them and pleading for ratification.”
Not only European firms are doing this. Here is Fish & Richardson PC from the US sticking its nose with “Legal Alert: A Path to the UPC” (alarming and misleading headline).
“Unless Milan renames itself “London” the UPC in its present form is dead and buried.”To quote their conclusion: “In other UPC and UP news, the lower house of Italy’s parliament approved legislation this past week, which would permit Italy’s ratification of the UPC Agreement. Milan is a leading candidate to replace London as the site of the UPC central division that will deal with life sciences patent litigation, if the UK no longer participates in the UPC.”
This will never work. Unless Milan renames itself “London” the UPC in its present form is dead and buried. “A UPC post-Brexit will take years to build and not just because of the UK,” one person remarked, “keep an eye on Germany too.”
“At best,” said IAM’s editor (typically one of the most vocal proponents of the UPC), “UPC likely to be significantly delayed by Brexit. At worst? Well, current system suits Germany fine :-)”
“Why would anyone listen to these people whose track record when it comes to truth is so poor?”One might think that this sobering take from IAM would be enough to quiet down/silence Team UPC, but firms like Bristows invested so much in the UPC that they’ll cling onto anything within reach. Bristows are, as expected, at it again with UPC promotion, showing their utter disregard for democracy both in the UK and in the EU. Judging by this report from IAM (mentioned here with sneaky remarks ensuing), Bristows still leads the charge. To quote a written account from AIPPI: “Testament to the interest – and concern – of the IP community in what the future holds for the UPC and unitary patent was that the first of two sessions on the subject was packed out despite being held at 8:30 on a Sunday morning. The second session will be held tomorrow morning and is split into two parts. The first will look specifically at what Brexit means for the UPC, while the second will be a UPC mock trial. I caught up with the moderator of the trial, Alan Johnson, partner at London based law firm Bristows and chair of the AIPPI’s unitary patent/UPC committee, to discuss where we go from here.”
Kluwer UPC ‘News’, another prominent element of Team UPC, also pressed the UK to ratify two days ago [via Bastian Best]. This nonsense from Team UPC would have us believe that UPC can become a reality without the UK (to begin with). It cannot. Look at how it’s written.
“Team UPC actually advertised UPC jobs that did not exist and probably will never exist.”“Team UPC is inherently antidemocratic, as it has repeatedly proven,” I told Benjamin Henrion after he had called it “the sign of an undemocratic system.” It is so similar to what is happening when it comes to trade deals, as Henrion noted separately.
Why would anyone listen to these people whose track record when it comes to truth is so poor? Team UPC actually advertised UPC jobs that did not exist and probably will never exist. They allocated and set up a court in London before there was even ratification. What a nerve they have. Is there a penalty for bogus job advertisements? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.15.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Patent quality? That’s the old EPO. Now it’s all about quantity!
The Leader of the Luddites, engraving of 1812
Summary: Battistelli, who tries to automate and streamline everything so as to maximise patent grants rather than examine applications properly, is making incredible claims that will almost certainly backfire on him
AMID EPO crisis, which undoubtedly continues to deepen, more and more people start to compare it to the USPTO, where patent quality has been rather notorious for quite some time (they almost just rubberstamp applications, with a 92% acceptance rate).
For weeks now (if not a whole month and a half!) the EPO has been 'spamming' universities in Europe on a daily basis, in order to help Battistelli's lobbying campaign (today was no exception [1, 2]). Both time and money may be running out. Talented workers are already leaving, causing brain drain that’s unprecedented in the EPO’s history. What will perhaps be left is just the job skill of using a rubber stamp, causing a copious lump of patents to come through with no quality assessment/control. That’s a nightmare scenario for the EPO’s reputation, on which has been based for decades. For the third time in one week the EPO does the unthinkable by inviting software patents. “At the EPO,” it wrote today, computer-implemented inventions must fulfil special patentability criteria. Learn more here!”
This is the third time in just a few days that the EPO tacitly promotes software patents in Europe. Remember that these are not legal in Europe (political decisions were made on patent scope more than a decade ago), but then again, under Battistelli the EPO is above the law anyway. Or so it claims. It just ignores court decisions against it, flaunting immunity. Is there any credibility left to lose? Is the EPO’s Twitter account signaling that the EPO will likely rubberstamp just about anything, including software patents (provided they’re written in some misleading fashion, as per the EPO’s advice)? This could become a threat to the very existence of the EPO. People won’t pay to receive (or renew) patents. The demand may go down. Prices (fees) likewise. What might be the impact on salaries?
“You should see the new issue of the Gazette,” one person told us, “a piece of Pravda-type propaganda…. interview with Battistelli, Lisbon with Battistelli… what is also interesting is that they have employed two more “investigators”…” (a subject we shall expand on another day).
So the EPO is apparently the embodiment of just one person, Battistelli, examiners that are treated like machine operators in an assembly line, and daily propaganda to keep those operators chugging along. No wonder a lot of smart people have decided to leave or retire early. They see the writings on the wall. Battistelli is just a liquidator, not a leader.
A new article by Andrew Chung, who wrote a highly misleading headline (unless his editor types the headlines, as is quite common) that we noted last night using a screenshot, is repeating Battistelli’s latest propaganda in a new puff piece (published 24 hours ago). It’s again misleading and we can’t help but wonder what Chung has been drinking (maybe more of that aforementioned Kool-Aid). Basically, Battistelli is riding the coattails of older patents. He ruins EP (European Patent) quality while hiding it using the accomplishment of his predecessors. This guy is so clueless about patents (his workers know far more than he will ever know), but Chung acts like some kind of Battistelli stenographer (reposted in other news sites) and the editor went with the headline “Europe issues better patents than U.S. – Europe patent boss” (as if the US is a good yardstick these days).
As realised by EPO insiders, Battistelli is demolishing the EPO as they once know it and he now lies to everyone, much to the pleasure of those who lie for him (here he is propped up by CIPA and other interest groups or publishers that are in bed with the EPO [1, 2, 3, 4]).
The article itself will probably help Battistelli’s lobbying (he likes to cite his paid “media partners” for support of his claims) and here is what it says:
Amid growing concerns by some U.S. lawmakers that federal officials may be granting patents that fuel abusive litigation, the head of the European Patent Office says his agency is producing better-quality patents than its American counterpart.
EPO President Benoît Battistelli said his office scrutinizes patent applications more closely than the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which he said results in patents that are more legally sound going out the door.
[...]
Battistelli, a French national who has led the EPO since 2010, said his agency has developed databases and search engines that allow it to perform the most comprehensive research on prior inventions that could lead to a rejection of a patent.
Unlike in the United States, he added, all patent applications are scrutinized by three officials, known as patent examiners, rather than just one.
This leads to a lower rate of granted patents, he said, but they are legally solid.
On the other hand, it costs roughly twice as much to obtain a patent in Europe, around 5,000 euros ($5,625), than in the United States.
Fact-checking Battistelli’s claims? Not needed. Just write down what a chronic liar says and call yourself a “Reuters journalist”.
This article was sent to us by several EPO insiders although we actually noticed it an hour after it had been published (we have an alerting system for all things EPO). Here is what a patent attorney wrote in response to a related discussion today:
On how to trade off quality and productivity, the USPTO and the EPO cannot meaningfully be compared. That’s because the EPO is master of its own house and the USPTO is not. Who makes the law of patent validity in Europe? The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal. Who in the USA? The Supreme Court of the USA and it makes law that i) frustrates any USPTO drive towards productivity and quality and ii) encourages Applicants and their lawyers to obfuscate and work diligently away from clarity in the claims.
So of course Mr Spigarelli sees it all as very simple. Pure self-interest drives Applicants at the EPO to draft clearly. EPO separation of search and examination, and strict enforcement of EPC Rules by DG1, makes it imperative that i) from the outset, Applicant presents an exhaustive set of dependent claims and ii) DG1 searches them all, at the outset, exhaustively. That way lies both quality and productivity. Simples. But not yet at the USPTO.
Now that the USA is on a First to File system however, Applicant self-interest in that country will kick in, gradually to improve drafting in the USA and, in its wake, will come better quality and productivity. How so? Because the US will now find it has to ratchet up its “written description” requirement to somewhere near the EPO’s exacting Gold Standard for disclosure, in order fairly to judge issues of novelty, priority and added matter.
In response to this, one person wrote:
Improving patent quality flows both ways, with the quality of the drafted claims submitted for examination being an equally important aspect in the equation. The article mentioned situations where the examiners don’t understand the invention – that’s a clear indictment of the patent attorney who drafted the claims, isn’t it? A strategy of drafting overly broad claims and seeing what sticks is not helpful for anyone (other than the attorney charging fees to his client).
The examiners in the USPTO need more time, better IT support and investment to help improve the quality of their work. They are working hard in less than perfect circumstances and we should all support them. Sharing lessons learned with the EPO is a good start, but attorneys need to do their part too, IMHO.
Also in response to the above:
“The U.S. speakers mostly assumed a trade-off between the two goals of productivity and quality…snip…Alfred Spigarelli, European Patent Office (EPO), disagreed with the trade-off premise, and stated that at the EPO, a focus on quality results in productivity. He argued the ultimate goal is always quality, from which productivity flows.”
At the EPO, “Early Certainty” equals quality with timeliness. And timeliness increases productivity, since examiners are given targets on that. The trade-off is merely hidden and fully loaded onto the individual examiners’ shoulders.
“Professors Melissa Wasserman and Michael D. Frakes discussed their study which indicates that promoted USPTO examiners may generally grant more patents because of less examination time as they are promoted.”
At the the EPO, promoted and non-promoted examiners have the same examination time, but promoted examiners likely grant more.
Same here, same there, same everywhere …
Looking at another thread, this one new comment on “Early Certainty” reveals how insiders feel about the patent quality and overcapacity:
- Overrecruitment is discussed in internal FAQ’s on Early Certainty, but not in the external one, of course.
- Production demands for newcomers have always been inflating, as they doe for all other examiners on a yearly basis.
- Contracts for examiners: the numbers are in the Social Report published by the EPO.
We shall expand on that another day, possibly this weekend, due to lack of time. The above comments (the first three) were posted in response to coverage from an event that was mentioned here a few days ago. David Kappos, as we expected, used it to lobby for software patents again (he’d paid for that lobbying). Being like a corrupt official-turned-lobbyist, here is what he did: “Finally, David Kappos, former head of USPTO and current partner at Cravath, Swain and Moore, reviewed how the USPTO has historically worked on patent quality. He pointed out that the USPTO has been applying the changing standards and rules set by the courts. He stated that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice test is not a helpful flexible rule, but arbitrary and vague. He believes that the courts and USPTO are placed in a position of having to apply an impossible standard and should not be blamed for their application of said standard.”
This utter nonsense from Kappos, calling for decline in patent quality (like it was under his reign), comes at an interesting/strategic time when software patents are pretty much dead. There are few exceptions to that, as we mentioned here before, but in the vast majority of cases software patents drop like flies, even in bulk. Last night we mentioned articles like this one (cherry-picking of cases by the patent microcosm) and here we have a Microsoft advocacy site, citing Microsoft’s lobbying site, showing that Microsoft props up illusions of software patents resurgence, pretending they’re fine (they’re not). Remember that Microsoft is among the companies that pay Kappos to lobby along those lines. Here is what Microsoft has to say: “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit yesterday issued an important decision strengthening the law related to software patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act. This ruling gives us useful guidance for determining which software innovations qualify for protection and helping provide greater stability to the U.S. patent system, a foundation for our digital economy. Erich Andersen, vice president and deputy general counsel of Microsoft’s IP (Intellectual Property) Group wrote a blog post expressing his views on this ruling.”
Well, as expected right from the start, patent law firms yank out their misleading jubilations because of McRO (one single patent!) [1, 2] and Gene Quinn generalises at Watchtroll, having ignored pretty much all the recent decisions which invalidated software patents (the cherry-picking or selective coverage tactic).
“What we see in the US is a dodgy system wherein the patent office is inclined to just grant everything, courts reject a lot of patents, and if Battistelli gets his way the EPO will be the same, inviting a lot of patent trolls, software patents that hamper innovation, and a lot more money for the patent microcosm.”In other news regarding patent scope in the US, “patented software” became the subject of an antitrust lawsuit, a drug patent of Teva got invalidated by PTAB [1, 2, 3], and USPTO examiners awarded another software patent (which courts would likely invalidate if ever scrutinised properly).
What we see in the US is a dodgy system wherein the patent office is inclined to just grant everything, courts reject a lot of patents, and if Battistelli gets his way the EPO will be the same, inviting a lot of patent trolls, software patents that hamper innovation, and a lot more money for the patent microcosm. So, are EPO patents better than US patents? Well, the old ones probably are, but Battistelli is going to change that. As a Conservative Neo-liberal he’s likely to just abuse science, just like his 'master' Sarkozy, who is now publicly denying climate science. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The crazy theory or baseless belief that somehow, somewhere, by some truly miraculous means, UPC will suddenly become a reality, damaging the whole of Europe for the sake of patent law firms
IT IS TRULY SAD to see that Team UPC and the EPO‘s President are still living in a delusional world, surrounding themselves only with equally delusional people (echo chamber/choir). They want us too to live in a fantasy, and maybe even believe that the UPC still has a chance. We refuted/debunked this fairy tale many times in July (after Brexit) and to quote a comment we’ve received this week, “Germany will not ratify the UPC treaty. Thus the project is dead.” It seems rather obvious, but when one has an agenda, reality has a distortion field. Unlike Team UPC, yours truly has no financial stake when it comes to the UPC. It’s just that the UPC is unjust, it is undemocratic, and it would render many patent examiners (i.e. scientists) redundant. The UPC is very harmful to Europe, even though it will never happen anyway. It’s just a lot of effort and resources down the drain.
Madman in chief Battistelli is still lobbying for the UPC. He never gets tired of this, having done so since before he was even a President at the EPO. “European Patent Chief Wants Post-Brexit UK In Unified Court” is the headline of a new article from Law 360 and some people are distorting this headline to suit their agenda (“EPO wants UK to ratify Unified Patent Court agreement despite Brexit” is not what the original said), equating the “EPO” with Battistelli as if it’s a one-person organisation (Battistelli has 0% approval rating at the EPO, so clearly his own workers strongly disagree with him). To quote Law 360: “The European Patent Office is urging the U.K. to ratify an agreement to create a Unified Patent Court system for the European Union, even though voters in the country passed a referendum to leave the bloc, EPO President Benoît Battistelli said Tuesday.”
Team UPC is desperately trying to float this dead project (Germany won’t ratify it) and Italian elements of this team speak up amid new reports like this one (“Changing places: why Milan should host a UPC central division court”). We have heard it before (about Milan as a theoretical substitute for London), but it’s not so suitable a substitute and it requires a massive overhaul of the UPC and what it stands for (not even renaming Milan “London” would shift all the skilled people to Milan). Found via Twitter was this firm of “Intellectual Property Consultants” (their own description) trying to convince us that the UPC is somehow coming because, in their own words:
Italian Parliament’s lower house passes ratification of Unified Patent Court Agreement
The lower house of the Italian Parliament has approved a bill on ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement, a passage through the upper house is necessary for final approval.
Yesterday the Italian Parliament’s lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, approved the draft law on ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPC Agreement), with 302 votes in favour, 108 against and 25 abstentions.
The Unified Patent Court is the supranational tribunal that will eventually have exclusive jurisdiction on both European and unitary patents.
[...]
The Committee for EU Policy asked the government to consider the opportunity, within the United Kingdom’s Brexit process, of requesting that Italy forward its candidacy for the seat of the Unified Patent Court’s central division originally assigned London.
The bill must pass through the Italian Senate before final approval.
Several other Italian patents-centric firms want the UPC and spoke about it today. Why? Because it would pass Europe’s wealth into their pockets while retarding science, technology, medicine, etc. The Unified Patent Court is not about Europe but about some European lawyers. Not even all of them…
For reasons we laid out before, the UPC is almost certainly dead and unlike some others who deny it here’s one firm which at least acknowledges the role of Brexit in burying the UPC, probably in the whole of Europe if not just in the UK. “Netherlands ratifies #UPC agreement with press release noting uncertainty over Brexit,” says this tweet, linking to a Dutch article. Watch what Bristows (probably the most vocal among Team UPC) wrote about it a short while ago. Certainly, especially in the UK, the UPC is a dead (Trojan) horse and Bristows speaks of a “Great programme from BBC radio4 on Brexit’s impact on the #law including the #upc”
All this UPC lobbying is intended for Team UPC “to get what they want – the UPC in operation asap,” said a new comment today. This rightly speaks of “delusions of grandeur”:
I fear that delusions of grandeur abound. Much of the analysis (but not all) is based on how to get what they want – the UPC in operation asap. That seems to require the UK to sign up quickly, while the UK government is dealing with a Brexit scenario! There seems to be a lot of yes, yes but we are more important so the UK will act against its citizens’ mandate as that’s in our best interest. They may be surprised to hear that the UK government, irrespective of its personal opinion, is facing a new reality and may have reasons not to help them on this matter.
It astounds me that there is such a lack of appreciation for the changed framework. All those pushing for change and acceptance of change appear to be the least able to accept change when it involves them.
No matter what self-serving patent law firms are saying, the UPC (or the unitary patent) is basically dead in the water. They try to mislead the public and confuse politicians. They tried this on David Davis here in the UK (Bristows). It’s rude if not just pathetic. “UPC will not replace EPO patent opposition procedure,” one person wrote, “further view from pharma industry” in the Managing IP UPC advocacy events in France and Germany last week [1, 2, 3, 4]. These lobbying events with the EPO inside were filled to the rim with Team UPC. To quote one person: “Thanks @ManagingIP for an excellent #patent forum http://bit.ly/2bUxYpI including key updates from @EPOorg on #UPC + industry perspective” (lawyers are not an industry but a meta-industry).
These patent law firms are trying to perturb patent law to increase their profits (more damages, more lawsuits) and one such firm published Unitary Patent, Unified Patent Court, and “Brexit”, having noted (from the lobbying events) that “British EP patent attorneys probably in better position to represent at #upc than English solicitors!”
We expect the conspirators behind the UPC to rename and restructure it, maybe start from scratch or try to patch the whole thing in vain. They won’t know the impact/outcome of Brexit for years to come, so this is tremedously premature and they don’t even know whether to include the UK or not. It’s almost a non-starter.
Remember. Mark our words. The UPC will never happen, not under this name and not in this current form. It’s just reality distortion. █
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