10.28.17

Gemini version available ♊︎

Patent Scope in Europe Should Not be Decided by the Self-Serving Patent Law Firms, But They Totally Dominate the Media

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The screenshot below (taken moments ago) shows how Lexology and the likes of it (law firms lobbying and/or advertising themselves) totally dominate channels of information

Lexology EPO

Summary: Coverage regarding patents in Europe is still (nearly) monopolised by the patent microcosm, i.e. the ‘industry’ that profits when many patents are granted and a lot of lawsuits get filed

LAST month we wrote about Switzerland in relation to Patent Boxes (means for dodging tax). Yesterday, Philipp Groz and Teresa Rudolph from Schellenberg Wittmer wrote two ‘articles’ about patents in Switzerland, noting that “[c]omputer programs as such are not patentable.” (the term “as such” became infamous within the EPO and caused great controversy)

When we say “two articles” we use scare quotes because actually these are two identical self-promotional posts, possibly intended to help occupy more search results pages (SEO). One is titled “Patents in Switzerland” and the other “An overview of patentability in Switzerland”. It’s all the same. Here is the part we’re interested in:

To what extent can inventions covering software be patented?

Computer programs as such are not patentable. However, computer-implemented inventions are patentable (eg, inventions involving the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, where one or more features are realised by means of a computer program).

To what extent can inventions covering business methods be patented?

Business methods as such are not patentable. However, business methods may be patentable if they are combined with technical features.

Yesterday we wrote about a similar self-promotional piece from Keltie LLP (UK) and this morning a pseudonym which seems to be associated with the firm confronted us over it. They promote loopholes by which to mislead examiners and when people criticise them for it they just walk away, as usual…

Also published yesterday was this article from Potter Clarkson LLP (Richard Wells and David Carling to be specific).

It speaks about “inventive step”/”technical effect” at the European Patent Office (EPO) and bemoans the appeal boards “[r]aising the plausibility bar,” which is the very thing these boards exist to ensure. To quote:

In T 0488/16, the board reiterated that it is not essential that the application contains experimental data or results, provided the nature of the invention is such that it relies on a technical effect which is either self-evident or predictable or based on a conclusive theoretical concept.

Nevertheless, it is clear that it is not sufficient merely to assert that the technical problem the application purports to solve is solved. Some form of verifiable evidence is required in the application as filed.

When drafting new European patent applications, applicants should minimise the extent to which they may need to rely on post-published evidence during pre- and post-grant proceedings, bearing in mind that reliance on what is made plausible from the common general knowledge opens up questions of obviousness.

In the absence of adequate experimental results, additional effort should be put into the construction of a strong technical explanation for the purported effect which overcomes the plausibility threshold, thereby enabling the applicant later to rely on post-published evidence.

It is clear from T 0488/16 that it will not always be possible to address this issue even by severely narrowing the scope of the claims.

Great care should, therefore, be taken when considering withholding experimental evidence simply to maintain a commercial advantage.

This decision may also provide useful ammunition for opponents during oppositions. In most cases, the threat of the plausibility issue may result in the delaying of filing new applications until sufficient data become available.

As the EPO’s recent decision brings its approach closer in line with that adopted by other patent offices, most notably those in China and Japan, these choices will be familiar to practitioners handling worldwide patent portfolios.

The authors ought to know that the boards have already been marginalised and oppositions made more difficult (for various reasons). It’s all intended to ensure quick grants and many low-quality patents, which Battistelli is perpetually prepared to lie about (his greatest power is that he’s willing to lie without qualm or guilt).

One last article of interest is this one from Kevin Kabler and Andrew Whitehead. They both work for patent maximalists and software patents lobbyists, Fenwick & West LLP, who can’t help pushing towards patents on life just like they push hard for patents on abstract ideas. Here they are lobbying alongside the EPO (Georg Wimmer) and USPTO (Marjorie Moran):

At the September 21, 2017 symposium, Fenwick’s Kevin Kabler moderated the panel. Sharing insights* into patent eligibility and obviousness considerations in the U.S. were speakers Marjorie Moran (USPTO) and Andrew Whitehead (Fenwick). On the European side, our guests were Georg Wimmer (EPO) and Frances Salisbury (Partner, Mewburn Ellis, UK).

[...]

A: In Europe, make sure you’ve got some intermediates in the application and make sure your technical case is clearly stated. In the U.S., talk to your examiners. At the USPTO, you’ll find that going back and forth in writing, especially with the constantly changing landscape of patent eligibility, causes more confusion sometimes than it solves; so if your case has been picked up for examination, call your examiner at any point in time, it will help shorten your prosecution path considerably in the vast majority of cases.

Yes, the EPO has long advised people not to submit anything without a middle(wo)man which can cost up to $500 per hour. Such is the inane state of affairs and the reason people have reported abuse/sent complaints (some of which we covered here before).

Suffice to say, any financial gain for patent law firms happens at the expense of actual scientists/technologists (like patent examiners).

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 27/05/2022: Many More Microsoft Security Failures (and Spin/Lies)

    Links for the day



  2. Links 26/05/2022: KStars 3.5.9 and Chrome 103 Beta

    Links for the day



  3. Links 26/05/2022: AlmaLinux OS 9.0, MooseX::Extended for Perl Introduced

    Links for the day



  4. Links 26/05/2022: Kernel Events and Systemd-Free GNU/Linux Distributions

    Links for the day



  5. Links 26/05/2022: DuckDuckGo Increasingly Exposed as Microsoft Proxy

    Links for the day



  6. EPO Celebrates Software Patents Again, Dubbing Them 'Hey Hi' (AI) and '4IR'

    The ludicrous state of the EPO is demonstrated by yesterday’s puff piece about “four million” (merely requests for monopoly in Europe; most come from outside Europe) and L’Oréal, which claims to have “invented” something that was already done in the 1990s if not the 1980s



  7. [Meme] EPO's Monkey Business: Lowering the Patent Examination Bar

    As we shall show in a moment, EPO President António Campinos has lowered the quality of patents and applications; sooner or later he might outsource the job to ‘livestock’



  8. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, May 25, 2022

    IRC logs for Wednesday, May 25, 2022



  9. Heads of Patent Offices Are Immune to Coronavirus

    The overconfident chiefs of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and EPO might love speaking about COVID-19 (in relation to patents), but they do not take it seriously themselves



  10. Links 26/05/2022: Plex Finally on GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  11. The General Consultative Committee of the EPO Exposes a Disaster and a Lack of Genuine Dialogue

    The General Consultative Committee (GCC) at the EPO deals with unlawful proposals from António Campinos (he’s happy to violate laws, constitutions, protocols, conventions, just like Benoît Battistelli did) and once again the abuses by managers is covered up; it’s as if the Office is run by unaccountable gangsters who arrogantly curse at everyone whilst insisting they’re the nicest people ever



  12. The Latest Letter to Josef Kratochvìl and the Heads of Delegation of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation

    A week-old letter from the Central Staff Committee (CSC) to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation highlights the nature of a crisis; there's no genuine dialogue and staff of the EPO (i.e. the scientists who do all the actual work) is constantly under attack



  13. [Meme] The Recordings Must Have Accidentally Been Lost While Breaking the Rules

    The EPO‘s “nicest” chief, Monopoly Tony, won’t even mention the recordings…



  14. Links 25/05/2022: ‘V Rising’ on GNU/Linux and Pearl Linux OS 11

    Links for the day



  15. Links 25/05/2022: Librem Tries Another Approach

    Links for the day



  16. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, May 24, 2022

    IRC logs for Tuesday, May 24, 2022



  17. Links 24/05/2022: nginx-1.22.0 and WordPress 6.0

    Links for the day



  18. [Meme] Divine Protection

    You won’t find Monopoly Tony (António Campinos) wearing a mask at the EPO because the rules of the Office do not apply to him



  19. António Campinos and the Alicante Clique (EPO Management, Appointed Based on Nepotism Despite Lack of Qualifications) Nowadays Exploiting Kids for PR Charades

    The sick old habit of exploiting kids for Public Relations (PR) and marketing purposes is all too common at the EPO (they’re constantly exploiting “the children” to associate criticism of the EPO with demeaning the young and innocent), but the management — which enjoys nepotism and immunity rather than relevant skills — carries on today and it’s being called “inaugural”



  20. [Meme] Snake on a Plane

    The EPO‘s President ‘Monopoly Tony’ (António Campinos), whom you never see wearing a mask (none of the photo ops; he does not even socially distance himself from peers, he wears sneakers instead of masks) during the height of a pandemic, is the "f***ing president"; don’t tell him to wear one…



  21. Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part XX — Entering Phase II

    We're about to resume the long-running series about the sick clique which ran GitHub until the assault on women became too much of a liability (among other wrongdoings and PR blunders)



  22. Links 24/05/2022: Fedora 37 Test Days and Tor Browser 11.0.13

    Links for the day



  23. Microsoft Vidal, as USPTO Director, Already Plays 'Political Cards' to Disguise and Deflect Away From the Corporate Agenda

    Microsoft Vidal, another corporate pawn in charge of the world’s most dangerous patent system, is using soft-spoken defle



  24. Links 24/05/2022: WAL-G 2.0

    Links for the day



  25. IRC Proceedings: Monday, May 23, 2022

    IRC logs for Monday, May 23, 2022



  26. Unethical Advertising, Published as So-called 'Articles', in CNX Software

    As we noted earlier this year, the CNX team is looking for money in the wrong places



  27. Links 23/05/2022: Broadcom to Buy VMware?

    Links for the day



  28. LibreOffice Conference 2022, As Before, Puts the Keynotes on Sale (the Rich Buy Influence, the Price Doubles)

    Discrimination against the community; talks and mentions are based on money, not merit ($2000 has become $4000 in just one year)



  29. Links 23/05/2022: Kdenlive 22.04.1 and New Alpine Linux Released

    Links for the day



  30. António Campinos Promotes Software Patents Using Buzzwords and Sketchy Loopholes With Dubious Legal Basis

    ‘Monopoly Tony’ (António Campinos) is shamelessly manipulating EPO processes at both ends (sender and receiver) to facilitate the illegal granting of invalid European software patents; we’re meant to think this former EU official and imposter (banker) is some guru in the sciences because he reads a lousy speech crafted for him with lots of meaningless buzzwords peppered all over it (he’s not good at reading it, either)


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