07.14.17

Gemini version available ♊︎

“EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Has Brought an Unprecedented Level of Certainty to the Law,” But Benoît Battistelli Crushes It

Posted in Europe, Law at 2:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A shocked Battistelli
Context: The Boards of Appeal Openly Complain (in the EPO’s Web Site) About Battistelli, But Don’t Tell Battistelli About It…

Summary: The systematic erosion of patent quality at the EPO, including attacks on the appeal boards, means less patent justice in the rest of Europe, even in the Supreme Court of Britain

YESTERDAY, only a few days after shaming strikers, the EPO released a pile of lies (warning: epo.org link) that we already debunked in many articles several months ago. These were paid-for lies — a hallmark of the Battistelli regime. They try to pretend that everything is OK and that things are improving. The reality is, many people are leaving (management also) and patent quality declined so fast that even applications the USPTO would reject are being accepted by the EPO.

“They try to pretend that everything is OK and that things are improving. The reality is, many people are leaving (management also) and patent quality declined so fast that even applications the USPTO would reject are being accepted by the EPO.”Yesterday morning we used the term “Gold Standard” and someone later used it as well, essentially by asking, “where is the EPO’s Gold Standard now?” As Mr. Battistelli basically turned the EPO into rubbish (in many respects, ranging from working conditions to patent quality), calling the EPO “gold” anything would make no sense, except maybe the gold diggers that Team Battistelli became.

We’ve gone though the comments thread at IP Kat and highlighted the relevant bits below:

I too am worried about the Art 54(3) point. If a claim defining “sodium” now encompasses in its scope “potassium”, how should an applicant formulate his claim to be clear of Art 54(3) art disclosing potassium, but not sodium? Or now does the test of “disclosure” have now to encompass that which is directly and unambiguously disclosed and also Improver equivalents thereto? Or, put another way, where is the EPO’s Gold Standard now?

How do the Germans sort this out, with their DoE?

MaxDrei?

I would agree with LordBeefBurger and the GuestKat that this judgement is quite surprising.

When considering that the original disclosure only relates to disodium, stating that dipotassium also falls under the scope of the claims, would mean that actually in such a situation the applicant/proprietor could amend its specification after filing in order to envisage any other salts which were not specifically disclosed in the original application.

Even if one would not adopt the strict approach of the BA of the EPO, there is no doubt that such an amendment would plainly offend Art 123(2) EPC.

When one looks at the contribution to the art, the proprietor has only disclosed the association of permetrexed disodium with vitamin B12 or a pharmaceutical derivative thereof, and nothing else. There is well a general statement in § [0005] and [0022] of the patent referring to antifolates as a class associated with a methylmalonic acid lowering agent as vitamin B12. But that’s it.

All further statements in the patent refer exclusively to permetrexed disodium. See for example § [0010], [0011], [0016], [0034], [0039], [0045] or [0047] of the patent specification. The judgement refers to some of those §, but then takes a different route.

The limitation to permetrexed disodium is thus a clear choice of the proprietor. Why the proprietor should then be allowed to obtain protection for something he has not invented? I fully agree with LordBeefBurger “that “disodium” is not a term amenable to variation in practice”. It cannot be compared with “vertical” in Catnic.

The problem with Art 2 of the Protocol on Art 69 in EPC 2000 is that, although it mentions equivalents, the diplomatic conference was not able to reach an agreement on the definition of what is an equivalent. The EPO had made proposals to this effect, but no agreement could be reached. Taking pretext of this new article in the Protocol to go as far as here is quite daring and certainly not enhancing certainty in UK.

One gets the feeling that the mistake done in the Epilady case had to be corrected and a more lenient stance adopted. And for this it was convenient to rely on Art 2 of the Protocol.

The judgement might look interesting, but it should remain a one-off, as in my opinion it totally disregards the actual contribution to art by the proprietor.

I think that now we are Brexiting we can return to formulating our own unique case law and making our purposive construction doctrine broader, without needing to worry about the way Europe or the EPO look at claim language.

The EPO have increasingly viewed the ‘invention’ as the literal claim scope since getting rid of the Snackfood test (https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t880073ep1.html)

At least the UK can now go back to reconsidering claims and inventions based on essential and non-essential features, and not let limitations relating to non-essential features get in the way of catching infringers using the same the invention.

Still not had time to read through the decision but let that not stop me indulging myself with a rant.

Through the second half of my long career as a patent agent/attorney, I have defended “purposive construction” against the notion of “infringement by equivalent”. The notion that the claim means the same, whether for validity or infringement, is precious to me. You know, the notion that “What comes after, and infringes, if coming before, anticipates”. You know, the notion that the Act provides only one sort of infringement and there is no justification to debate whether any given act of infringement is “direct” infringement or infringement “by equivalent”.

I remember at a Seminar about 20 years ago, when discussing not Improver but HILTI, speaker Nick Pumfrey cautioned me that such a notion might seem to me unassailable while being simultaneously given no houseroom at all, on The Continent.

What chance does the UK SC have, of getting to the right result, when both sides are represented by professional litigators for whom, the more legal uncertainty there is, the more money they can make? Who is there to point out to the judges the perils and unwisdom of overturning a century of established patent law? One would like to think that the wisdom of the vastly experienced patent judges in the High Court and Court of Appeal would carry more weight. But no, weight is instead given to the jurisprudence of non-specialist, indeed generalist, judges in the civil law jurisdictions of Continental Europe, for whom Binding Precedent is what you find on a Different Planet, but not on grounded Earth.

There are ways and means, in civil law jurisdictions, to live with legal uncertainty. See how the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal has brought an unprecedented level of certainty to the law of novelty, obviousness, clarity, added matter, sufficiency, Convention priority. Poisoning an English law jurisdiction with a near fatal dose of it though and what do you get? Litigate like in America? Do you know over there how to construe a claim, or what is or is not definite, enabled, enjoys sufficient written description, entitled to priority, old or obvious?

Somebody asked me about Germany. I’m not qualified to advise. But here is a thought to play with, nevertheless. Take the claim, construe it (purposively, if you will) assess validity, assess if there is “direct” infringement. You are nearly done.

Just one more thing, equivalence. Is it “fair” to go outside the claim scope, to nail the infringer? Would it do un”reasonable” damage to “legal certainty” so to nail the infringer? If not, nail him.

But what if he has a Gillette Defence, that his act, whether or not it touches validity of the claim as you have construed it, is nevertheless no more than an obvious variant of the prior art. In Germany, it works. They call it their “Formstein” defence.

HILTI by the way was the case in which a Swiss patentee litigated its patent all over EPC-land. It lost in every jurisdiction bar one. But the reasons were different in each jurisdiction. Which was the one jurisdiction in which it prevailed. Go on, you can probably guess: their home jurisdiction CH.

There is a lot wrong with Europe. We should harmonise. I suppose that’s what the SC in this case has in mind. but was the sacrifice worth it?

BTW, does any reader remember the Chef America case about the bread-making oven. The claim recited heating the dough “to” 400°F when they meant baking it “at” 400°F, that is, an oven temperature of 400°F. How to construe that claim then, to be “fair” to its owner. With purposive construction, no problem. But how does one apply a “Doctrine of Equivalents” to such a claim element? I for one lament the sacrifice of purposive construction on the international altar of the appalling DoE.

It needs to be remembered that one purpose of Supreme Court decisions in all jurisdictions is for basic principles of case law to be invented or substantially changed, and then the lower courts and patent offices need to deal with the fallout on individual future cases. The take home message here is that it is time to reconsider how we are going to deal with equivalents.

As the previous comments have pointed out the present decision will cause issues in validity, and the next 10 years will be a sort of experiment as to how the patent system deals with that. Perhaps validity does need to get stricter in some way, and if that leads to narrower (literal) claim scope on granted patents that might benefit the system in the long run.

This means that the scope of protection for infringement goes beyond the meaning of the claim, but the test for novelty uses only the meaning of the claim without the extra scope provided for infringement. So a granted patent covers more than what it had to overcome in order to be granted.

It’s not the judgement’s fault – the problem is with paragraph 2 of the Protocol to Art 69 which sets up this situation. The judge has simply applied what it says rather than trying to come up with a way to ignore it (as in Kirin Amgen).

I would argue that “a fair protection for the patent proprietor with a reasonable degree of legal certainty for third parties” (from paragraph 1 of the Protocol) can only be achieved by NOT having a doctrine of equivalents, as having a different scope of protection for infringement than for interpretation of novelty is not fair. But that makes the “due account” to be taken of equivalents from paragraph 2 of the Protocol be “no account” of equivalents! That interpretation is clearly unreasonable so we must take some account of equivalents when considering infringement and must therefore allow patents to cover more than what the claims state.

It’s a sad place to be but that’s the law our country has signed up to with EPC 2000.

The Protocol only relates to the scope of protection conferred by the claims, and it does not apply to the issue of validity. The law therefore accepts that a patent claim may encompass what has gone before. It is valid, but infringed.

Had the Lilly case been an example of such a situation (i.e. the prior art disclosed the potassium salt) the judges may have been more aware of the implications of their poor judgement, and may have tread more wearily. In the present case, a claim literally covering the potassium salt (i.e. the claim used the word ‘potassium’ in big bold letters with flashing lights and dancing nubile naked dancers pointing at it) would have been valid on the grounds of novelty and inventive step and sufficiency, but such a claim would have been rejected for added matter.

When watching sections of the Supreme Court hearing, I got the impression that most of the judges had no grasp of the issues or understanding of patent law. A couple of judges, including Neuberger, fared better, but still they showed a dangerous ignorance in many of their questions.

Re Snackfood’s comment: Brexit doesn’t come into it. You sound like one of the Supreme Court judges.

I am, myself, looking forward to some more original insight from the Beefburger. Copy and Paste, M’Lud? Can you advise us to follow the US attorney strategy in future? “Draft narrow, claim broad”? Is ‘Observer’ correct that the judgement should remain a one-off? Or would my Learned Friend advise that a decision of the Supreme Court is no such thing? Pray tell!

I am going to go against the grain of the earlier comments and say that this decision seems to make sense. There has long been a disconnect between Article 69 and UK law. This decision seems to address it, without going through the intellectual hooplah of Kirin-Amgen. While Kirin-Amgen is superficially beautifully simple as Lord Neuberger says here, it does not answer the question of equivalents which fall outside any reasonable interpretation of the claim.

As for “file wrapper estoppel” (note, it isn’t even called that) the judgement is clear: it can only be useful when it is useful.

We expect a lot more to be said about this decision in the coming days. We wrote about it yesterday and not so many people have read the decision yet.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. Links 17/10/2021: GhostBSD 21.10.16 and Mattermost 6.0

    Links for the day



  2. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, October 16, 2021

    IRC logs for Saturday, October 16, 2021



  3. [Meme] First Illegally Banning Strikes, Then Illegally Taking Over Courts

    The vision of Team Battistelli/Campinos is a hostile takeover of the entire patent system, not just patent offices like the EPO; they’d stop at nothing to get there



  4. Portuguese Network of Enablers

    Instead of serving Portuguese people or serving thousands of EPO workers (including many who are Portuguese) the delegation from Portugal served the network of Campinos



  5. In Picture: After Billions Spent on Marketing, With Vista 11 Hype and Vapourware, No Real Gains for Windows

    The very latest figures from Web usage show that it’s hardly even a blip on the radar; Windows continues bleeding to death, not only in servers



  6. [Meme] [Teaser] Double-Dipping Friedrich Rödler

    As we shall see tomorrow night, the EPO regime was supported by a fair share of corrupt officials inside the Administrative Council



  7. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XIV: Battistelli's Iberian Facilitators - Portugal

    How illegal “Strike Regulations” and regressive ‘reforms’ at the EPO, empowering Benoît Battistelli to the detriment of the Rule of Law, were ushered in by António Campinos and by Portugal 5 years before Campinos took Battistelli’s seat (and power he had given himself)



  8. Links 16/10/2021: SparkyLinux Turns 10 and Sculpt OS 21.10

    Links for the day



  9. “Facebook Whistleblowers” Aside, It Has Been a Dying Platform for Years, and It's Mentally Perverting the Older Generation

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  10. [Meme] Microsoft Has Always Been About Control Over Others

    Hosting by Microsoft means subjugation or a slavery-like relationship; contrary to the current media narrative, Microsoft has long been censoring LinkedIn for China’s autocratic regime; and over at GitHub, as we shall show for months to come, there’s a war on information, a war on women, and gross violations of the law



  11. EFF Pushes for Users to Install DuckDuckGo Software After Being Paid to Kill HTTPS Everywhere

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  12. The Reign in Spain

    Discussion about the role of Spain in the EPO‘s autocratic regime which violates the rights of EPO staff, including Spanish workers



  13. [Meme] Spanish Inquisition

    Let it be widely known that Spain played a role in crushing the basic rights of all EPO workers, including hundreds of Spaniards



  14. Why You Shouldn’t Use SteamOS, a Really Incompetent GNU/Linux Distribution With Security Pitfalls (Lutris is a Great Alternative)

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  15. IRC Proceedings: Friday, October 15, 2021

    IRC logs for Friday, October 15, 2021



  16. Links 16/10/2021: Xubuntu 21.10 and DearPyGui 1.0.0

    Links for the day



  17. DuckDuckGo’s HQ is Smaller Than My Apartment

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  18. Post About Whether Vivaldi is a GPL violation Was Quietly Knifed by the Mods of /r/uBlockOrigin in Reddit

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  19. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XIII: Battistelli's Iberian Facilitators - Spain

    The EPO‘s António Campinos is an ‘Academy’ of overt nepotism; what Benoît Battistelli did mostly in France Campinos does in Spain and Portugal, severely harming the international image of these countries



  20. From Competitive (Top-Level, High-Calibre, Well-Paid) Jobs to 2,000 Euros a Month -- How the EPO is Becoming a Sweatshop by Patent Examiners' Standards

    A longish video about the dreadful situation at the EPO, where staff is being ‘robbed’ and EPO funds get funnelled into some dodgy stock market investments (a clear violation of the institution’s charter)



  21. [Meme] Protecting European Patent Courts From EPO 'Mafia'

    With flagrant disregard for court rulings (or workarounds to dodge actual compliance) it seems clear that today's EPO management is allergic to justice and to judges; European Patents perish at unprecedented levels in national European courts and it should be kept that way



  22. Links 15/10/2021: Pine64's New PinePhone Pro and Ubuntu 22.04 LTS Codename

    Links for the day



  23. [Meme] GitHub Isn't Free Hosting, It's All About Control by Microsoft

    Deleting GitHub isn’t a political statement but a pragmatic decision, seeing how Microsoft routinely misuses its control over GitHub to manipulate the market



  24. With EPO 'Strike Regulations' Belatedly Ruled Unlawful, EPO Management May be Lowering the Salary Even Further by Introducing Outside 'Temps' or Casual Workers

    Institutional capture by an 'IP' (litigation) Mafia is nearly complete; with illegal so-called (anti) 'Strike Regulations' out the door, they're quickly moving on to another plan, or so it seems on the surface



  25. Links 15/10/2021: 95% of Ransomware Targets Windows

    Links for the day



  26. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, October 14, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, October 14, 2021



  27. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XII: The French Connection

    The EPO‘s presidency (led by Frenchmen for nearly 15 years out of the past 18 years; Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos are both French despite their somewhat misleading surnames) is extremely unlikely to even be mildly scrutinised by the French delegates because of a web of nepotism and protectionism



  28. [Meme] Another Maladministration Meeting Comes to an End

    Did the EPO‘s overseeing body properly tackle Benoît Battistelli‘s illegal acts, authorised by that very same overseeing body? Don’t hold your breath as António Campinos continues to crack down on staff (maybe ILOAT will rule on it in 2030)



  29. Links 14/10/2021: LibreOffice 7.2.2, Happy Birthday to Jolla, Ubuntu 21.10, Devuan GNU+Linux 4.0, OpenBSD 7.0

    Links for the day



  30. [Teaser] What Miguel de Icaza Really Thinks of the CEO of Microsoft GitHub

    Following the opening of a new series about Microsoft GitHub we drop a little teaser today; we expect dozens of parts to be released in the coming weeks/months as facts are being validated and organised


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts