09.27.16
Gemini version available ♊︎The EPO’s Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC
Quality control is just a theoretical concept in Battistelli’s EPO, where the goose is being slaughtered for a golden egg
Summary: A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral
THE scandals at the EPO are an endless saga and a bottomless pit. Board 28 needs to act fast because the Administrative Council sure behaves like it does not care or like it’s trying to save face for Battistelli.
“Patent scope (limitation) seems to be viewed as a nuisance at the upper echelon/top floors of the EPO’s building in Munich.”“According to the minutes of the last meeting of Board 28,” one person wrote, “the president provided “new elements of information [...] on the disciplinary case of a Council appointee. Following an exchange of views, [the Board] indicated that it would reflect on the information, pending receipt of a legal note from the President.”” the thing about the Board is, it previously said Battistelli's regime had caused an EPO "crisis". We are planning to revisit this subject pretty soon. Has the Board said anything about the decline in quality and loss of stakeholders' interest which is very apparent? Therein lies a crisis as big as the social crisis. The EPO cannot survive without a reputation. It won’t attract applicants or even highly-qualified staff.
Watch this new tweet from the EPO, which links to the EPO’s own site and says: “From today, you can register for the Indo-European conference on Industry 4.0 and patents” (Industry 4.0 is just a meaningless buzzword).
Not too shockingly, software patents (in Europe) have been interjected into it (the fourth time we see it this month alone!). To quote the page (emphasis ours): “The consequences for the patent system are potentially tremendous, and they challenge some of the fundamental concepts of the system, such as the definition of “industry” and “inventor”. There will be a greater overlap and interplay between the types of rights, and as software pervades through all technologies a greater debate on the patentability of software.”
Patent scope (limitation) seems to be viewed as a nuisance at the upper echelon/top floors of the EPO’s building in Munich. These guys are nuts; they’re neither scientists nor good managers. They’re mostly old buddies of Battistelli, loyal to him and telling him mostly what he wants to hear. They attack everything which voices criticism as though it’s an enemy, including the independent (in principle) boards of appeal.
“We understand from correspondence with the EPO that this change in practice has been made following investigations by the Legal Division resulting in an acknowledgement that the current procedures for recording an assignment are not consistent with Article 72 EPC.”
–Lexology“The EPO to bring opposition proceedings in standard cases down from 25,8 months to 15 months,” Nordic Patent (Kongstad-connected) says, citing “Heli Philajamaa from EPO” (the EPO has just retweeted this).
Here is a simple translation for those who believe the lie that the appeals are still taken seriously (rather than gradually crushed): The EPO does not want oppositions. It wants to make them harder, more expensive, etc. It suppresses them. Heck, it does not even want patent quality anymore.
The EPO’s “current procedures for recording an assignment are not consistent with Article 72 EPC,” says this new report, but it’s not as though the EPC ever bothered Battistelli. He ignores it at every turn and corner, as we noted earlier this year. The thugs at Eponia basically declared a state of emergency and are now just doing whatever they please, even when that’s against national and international laws. Here is what contributors to Lexology said:
However, we have been made aware that, with immediate effect, the EPO will only record an assignment if it is signed by all parties to the agreement. An assignment signed by the assignor(s) only will be considered to be deficient. We understand from correspondence with the EPO that this change in practice has been made following investigations by the Legal Division resulting in an acknowledgement that the current procedures for recording an assignment are not consistent with Article 72 EPC.
This change in practice has not yet been publicly announced by the EPO. However we are aware from practical experience that the new practice is already in effect and have been informed that the Guidelines for Examination will be updated shortly. There is no indication that the EPO plans to revisit assignments already recorded under the previous practice.
At this stage it seems almost as though it’s too late to save the EPO. It’s too hard to save something whose top management does not want it to be saved (they just try to save their own career, not the Office, or simply save face). █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA