11.02.17
Posted in Deception, Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 12:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Toxic to academia, not just to media
Image source
Summary: An ongoing pattern of stacked panels, echo chambers, distorted (paid or threatened) media and endless lobbying for aggressors’ agenda even when they come from another continent and look to cause trouble
THE EPO‘s management — for those who forgot or simply don’t know — paid over a million euros to a US-based PR firm called FTI Consulting. We leaked the details a couple of years back. FTI Consulting had already earned notoriety for all sorts of reasons. Its clients are evil. It does reputation laundering for evil people.
This firm quickly thereafter helped set up a UPC lobbying event in the US, sponsored and supported by the EPO, with IAM getting all the money.
“This firm quickly thereafter helped set up a UPC lobbying event in the US, sponsored and supported by the EPO, with IAM getting all the money.”It’s like one big club and stakeholders are unwittingly paying for all the champagne. Battistelli takes them for fools and treats his staff like dunces.
An hour ago we became aware of this upcoming event in University College London (UCL), which I used to work with. The title of this event is “Patents in Telecoms and the Internet of Things,” but Dennis Crouch dubbed it “British Invasion in DC”. It’s actually quite the opposite as DC lobbyists ‘invade’ London to push US corporations’ agenda, maybe meet some public officials on the way in order to lie to them about UPC etc.
“It’s notably supported/sponsored by the EPO’s PR firm, FTI Consulting, and David Kappos with his employer.”So lobbyists are now coming from the US to London, with a software patents agenda, UPC, patent trolls, and just about all the toxic things. It’s all right there and they’re even disclosing this nefarious agenda. They also disclose who’s behind this. A key participant is Microsoft’s arsenal for patent trolls, Nokia. They will be speaking about “Update on The Unitary Patent Court” and “Injunctions – Europe and the rest of the world” (pretty much overlaps UPC). It’s all about multinational corporations banning small rivals, typically European SMEs. They even have lobbyists for software patents in there and Qualcomm, a FRAND [sic] abuser, is a key participant. They’re looking to gain something from it. Also participating are lawyers who represent a lot of patent trolls. We know their track record. It’s notably supported/sponsored by the EPO’s PR firm, FTI Consulting, and David Kappos with his employer. Yes, he’s attending. He is a lobbyist for software patents.
“Did they really expect nobody to notice what sort of cabal is attending and what agenda they’re pushing right here in England?”The list of topics is self-explanatory. They are promoting the agenda of “Patent Assertion Entities” (euphemism for trolls), “FRAND Disputes” (euphemism for patent thickets), and speak of “Who should decide FRAND terms when parties cannot agree?”
There’s also “Competition and Policy Towards Standard Setting”, “The Internet of Things I – Legal and Economic Licensing Issues” and “The Internet of Things II – Practical Licensing Issues” — a subject that we covered here recently in relation to the EPO. Did they really expect nobody to notice what sort of cabal is attending and what agenda they’re pushing right here in England? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 3:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
We shall soon find out where Gorsuch (top right) stands on patent issues
Latest official photo of the US Supreme Court
In yesterday’s news (regarding Gorsuch): The Supreme Court Has An Ethics Problem
Summary: Various public interest groups including the Internet Association and KEI add to the growing pile of documents in favour of AIA/PTAB/IPRs (the ability to review granted patents and revoke them)
THE USPTO ought to know that PTAB can help its legitimacy. How so? Well, by crossing out wrongly-granted patents it helps give an impression of better (and almost independent) quality control. It’s like the appeal boards at the EPO (what’s left of them anyway). Accordingly, people who invested in US patents should be happy. Unless their patents are bogus ones, their perceived value will increase. The reputation of US patents can improve. Everyone wins here, except patent trolls who possess bogus patents.
“The reputation of US patents can improve.”Yesterday we wrote about the EFF and CCIA speaking out in support of PTAB. They wrote long documents (still called “briefs” for historical reasons) to the US Supreme Court, which we expect to cement PTAB’s position a few months from now. Seeing the sorts of briefs that get filed, we are pretty certain and confident that the Supremes will do the right thing.
Yesterday, another reminder of the importance of PTAB got published:
This stupid patent was going to be used to sue hundreds of small businesses
The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s most recent “Stupid Patent of the Month” highlights the importance of IPRs—patent reviews that can knock out bad patents quickly and relatively cheaply.
US Patent No. 6,738,155 was originally filed in 1999 and assigned to the Banta Corporation, a provider of printing and supply chain management services. Banta was acquired by R.R. Donnelly in 2006, and R.R. Donnelly handed off the ’155 patent to a patent-holding company called CTP Innovations in 2013. More correctly, Donnelly tried to hand off the patent—more on that in a bit.
The patent claims to cover a “printing and publishing system” that uses “a communication network.” Amazing, right? But in 1999, it was very easy to get software patents.
PTAB is especially valuable in such scenarios. PTAB IPRs are generally affordable and they help stop serial abusers or trolls who target small businesses.
Belatedly, even Dennis Crouch writes about briefs in support for PTAB (which he himself attacked a lot, especially a couple of months back). He has taken stock again and posted a summary which includes:
The final group of amicus briefs were filed this past week in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy — This round supporting the Government’s position that Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings are consistent with the US Constitution.
As per usual, the briefs are largely divisible into two categories: (1) direct merits arguments focusing on congressional power to enact the IPR regime; and (2) policy briefs arguing that IPRs do important work. I’ll note here that the focus of the policy briefs is on efficient and timely adjudication. I have not seen any of the briefs so far that recognize the third reality – that the PTAB is invaliding patents that would have been upheld by a court. For some reason amicus consider it appropriate to identify court failures in efficiency but not to identify failures in the substantive decisionmaking. The closest on-point is likely Apple’s Brief which promotes the “well-informed and correct” outcomes of the PTAB. 16-712bsacAppleInc.
Overall, the collection of briefs here is quite strong. The most compelling brief in my view is that filed by the well-known team of Duffy and Dabney on behalf of several groups, including the Internet Association.
[...]
Following these policy arguments, the not-for-profit org KEI particularly explains how the top-side briefs incorrectly argue that the IPR system harms national innovation and wealth. KEI’s point is irrefutable – allowing enforcement of no-invention patents doesn’t help anyone.
This is good news. There are even compelling arguments there which apparently convinced Crouch, a PTAB critic/sceptic. Will the Justices too ‘get’ it? We certainly hope so.
“As we said last month, PTAB is now supported by large corporations, the US Congress, high (Federal) courts and is mostly opposed by patent trolls and their lobby (the litigation ‘industry’).”Yesterday we mentioned the article from Sunita Adluri of McDermott Will & Emery. She mentioned yet another example of PTAB protecting a relatively (relative to Cisco) small company and her article keeps spreading. Yesterday IAM also published this article of Warner Joseph Delaune from Baker Donelson. He wrote about a "scam" (or "sham" as a judge called it) against PTAB and took note of likely Congressional action in support of PTAB:
Some members of Congress are concerned that tribal sovereign immunity is being exploited, and a new bill has been introduced which prevents tribes from asserting sovereign immunity in inter partes reviews. In her statement to a pharmaceutical group, Senator Claire McCaskill said that “this is one of the most brazen and absurd loopholes I’ve ever seen, and it should be illegal”. McCaskill’s bill simply states that “notwithstanding any other provision of law, an Indian tribe may not assert sovereign immunity as a defense in a review that is conducted under chapter 31 of title 35, United States Code”.
We certainly hope that McCaskill will pursue this as far as possible. As we said last month, PTAB is now supported by small and large corporations, the US Congress, high (Federal) courts and is mostly opposed by patent trolls and their lobby (the litigation ‘industry’). Whose side will the Supremes take? It seems like an easy choice. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photo credit/source: Heise
Summary: A roundup of recent developments and scarce media coverage regarding the EPO, where several national holidays are being ‘stolen’ from staff and nobody outside the EPO seems to care
SEVERAL people told us about yesterday’s article from Stefan Krempl, who is familiar with EPO matters. He wrote about these for years. It’s a very interesting article from Heise and many thanks to Stefan Krempl, an excellent journalist who does cover real EPO issues (not many in the German media are doing this).
“…many thanks to Stefan Krempl, an excellent journalist who does cover real EPO issues…”SUEPO has not mentioned (or noticed) it yet, but SUEPO is likely to translate such a report, which also contains many links within it. Here is a purely automated translation. They don’t mince words:
European Patent Office: union calculates in 95 theses with the top authorities
The employee representation SUEPO has freely distributed a manifesto on social strife at the European Patent Office after Luther. The allegations against management range from deafness to the workforce to nepotism.
In keeping with the day of the Reformation, the International Trade Union in the European Patent Office SUEPO on Tuesday after Martin Luther ” struck” 95 theses at the headquarters of the authority in Munich. In the six-page paper, which is available online, the employee representation raises serious allegations against the management and especially against the incumbent boss Benoît Battistelli . This made the organization “deaf and blind to the worries” of the workforce and pursued their representatives disciplinary . Such a confrontation course is “doomed to fail”.
At the heart of the criticism is headed by Battistelli with an established appraisal system that focuses on productivity and “demands higher numbers every year” . Such an approach creates false incentives and “leads to excessive work pressure,” which in turn also causes superficiality and errors, thus hindering higher efficiency . Erroneously granted patents, in turn , unlawfully hindered competition and were a favorite food for trolls . Among them suffer the European economy as a whole and especially the middle class.
From servant to principal director
The core task of the European Patent Office ( EPO ) is, in accordance with the European Patent Convention ( EPC ), the “substantive and formal review” of applications, the union stresses. This should not be neglected to increase the productivity and income of the EPO and its contracting states. Aggravating added was nepotism: The closest confidants of the President have risen in a short time from ordinary administrative staff to chief directors. They would have approved themselves by changing the career system “significant salary increases” and professional freedoms. His own salary and the surcharges and reimbursements paid to him kept Battistelli secret.
Half of the directors “in the substantive examination” as well as “all managers in the patent administration” have been relieved of their function, it goes on. The president even curtailed the holidays by removing the freedom of work on Reformation Day 2017, as well as on All Saints’ Day and Corpus Christi of 2018. The fact that Battistelli praises a “package for the disparagement of its officials” under the slogan “Social Democracy” show indifference and a lack of respect for the employees.
SUEPO for fast deposition Battistelli
The EPO is not concerned with national or European labor law or data protection directives, nor with international conventions such as the human rights conventions, complain the authors. It believes the leadership enjoys almost total immunity from jurisdiction and law enforcement by national authorities. SUEPO therefore advocates dropping off Battistelli before the official end of his term in office next June and introducing comprehensive reforms. The Frenchman himself has long been misunderstood by a “mafia-like” trade union campaign and regularly rejects complaints. ( Stefan Krempl ) / ( axk )
What we are hoping to see, some time in the future, is an EPO that actually cares about patent quality. As it stands at the moment, it’s just a production line of bad patents. Examiners who don’t embrace this spiel will be fired, so they’re left with the option of doing shoddy work or becoming unemployed (‘stranded’ with their family in Munich). No wonder they’re so stressed. They lose either way.
“Examiners who don’t embrace this spiel will be fired, so they’re left with the option of doing shoddy work or becoming unemployed (‘stranded’ with their family in Munich).”As longtime readers may know, our only (and original) issue with the EPO was software patents. Árpád Petho, József K. Tálas and Eszter Szakács of Sár and Partners Attorneys at Law have just said that “[i]n Hungary, software may not be patented” (as is the case in every other European country). The EPO is trying to change that, especially by introducing the UPC. Here is the full analysis or the part about business methods and software (which mentions the EPO):
To what extent can inventions covering software be patented?
In Hungary, software may not be patented as such (Articles 1(2)(c) and (d) of the Patent Act). However, software may be protected by other types of intellectual property (eg, copyrights, know-how and business secrets), and may be brought to the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office as proof of ownership.
The Hungarian Intellectual Property Office and the European Patent Office (EPO) typically reject software due to a lack of technical character. The prevailing approach is to deny the possible technical character of any solution achieved by software; however, the EPO is slowly moving away from this rigid standpoint (as are IP offices in other EU member states, albeit at a slower pace).
Some applications based on software (ie, so-called ‘computer-implemented inventions’) may be patentable provided that they do not cover only an organisational issue or abstract question. In other words, if the claims are formulated in a way that demonstrates that the software is used to solve a technical issue (eg, comparing the strength of two electric signals and storing the result in the memory), the invention will be considered a technical solution and may be patentable. However, patent attorneys must be skilled and able to formulate the claims in a way that benefits from the evolving practice of the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office.
To what extent can inventions covering business methods be patented?
In accordance with Article 1(2)(c) of the Patent Act, business schemes, rules and methods may not be patentable as such. Nevertheless, they may be protected by know-how or brought before the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office, provided that the method is in writing.
However, when rules or methods are part of a system that consists of technical elements, the patentability of the entire system may be considered. In a similar way to software, patentability largely depends on the system or solution to be protected and the way in which the claims are formulated.
Readers are reminded that even in the United States, ‘home’ of these kinds of patents, such patents are no longer valid (can barely be enforced in court). So the EPO now goes further than the USPTO, enforcing or at least granting patents which the USPTO itself (or corresponding Supreme Court) decided were a bad idea.
“As longtime readers may know, our only (and original) issue with the EPO was software patents.”Speaking of the US, Watchtroll is now publishing press releases for the EPO. This happened 3 days ago. How much does it get paid for this? And who is paying, the EPO? Does it pay to disseminate this nonsense in the US too?
Watchtroll is a US proponent of patent trolls, software patents etc. so it obviously promotes the UPC too.
“Watchtroll is a US proponent of patent trolls, software patents etc. so it obviously promotes the UPC too.”A similar puff piece was posted yesterday by a site close to IAM. “The current executive director of the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), António Campinos, has been selected as the next president of the European Patent Office (EPO). He will serve a five-year term from July 1 2018, succeeding Benoît Battistelli,” it said (the rest behind a paywall).
This same site previously speculated that the Belgian former EPO worker might take over EU-IPO, spurring speculation about back room deals with Belgium. Now we know more about it and it does, in fact, seem like such an agreement existed. It’s despicable. It should be a massive scandal (if the media actually bothered covering EPO scandals). Why aren’t stakeholders complaining?
“It is hardly surprising the EPI is not making any protest,” one reader told us. To quote his/her explanation:
To understand the situation here it is worth having a look at Article 143a EPC:
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar134a.html
According to Article 143a(1)(a) the Administrative Council “shall be competent to adopt and amend provisions governing the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office…”.
The Administrative Council is also responsible for adopting and amending the provisions governing “the disciplinary power exercised by the Institute or the European Patent Office in respect of professional representatives” (Article 143a(1)(c).
It seems that the EPI enjoys very little real independence and is basically under the thumb of the EPO’s the Administrative Council. Patent attorneys who dare to voice criticism of the goings-on at the EPO risk disciplinary action in front of a Disciplinary Board which is very much if not completely under the influence of the EPO.
The media, with few exceptions like Heise every now and then, is complicit in silence about it. On EPO silence/media blackout, a comment said yesterday,
“of late, IPKat has been guilty of dereliction of duty in this regard.”
Here is the full explanation (IP Kat only approved this comment days late for some reason):
It’s not about what interests the contributors but their (professional) judgement on what should and should not be posted.
It cannot be the case that there are no individual amongst the IPKat contributors that are not “interested” in momentous developments at the EPO. It therefore becomes a matter of judgement of the contributors regarding which developments they comment upon, and how they comment upon them.
I therefore think that it is perfectly legitimate to call into question whether, collectively, the judgement of the contributors is wise or not. Unless there is some very significant non-public information to which the contributors are party, then my conclusion would be “not”. This is because I do not see why a blog dedicated to all matters (European) IP should avoid discussing a topic merely because it is controversial (or “political”).
Bad things can happen in the shadows, and so an extremely important duty of the “media” is to illuminate a situation. I cannot help but feel that, of late, IPKat has been guilty of dereliction of duty in this regard.
It’s pretty telling that EPO scandals don’t exist to IP Kat anymore. There’s nothing at all about in the summaries, not even in yesterday’s “Wednesday Whimsies” (that’s a roundup). Their recent roundups even ignore their own articles regarding the EPO.
“We remind readers that today’s IP Kat is not what it used to be.”Who are these bloggers kidding? They actually silence and actively suppress discussion about EPO scandals. They have become part of the problem.
As annoying it may be that everyone turns a blind eye to EPO abuses, in a sense it helps us because it means less “competition”. But at the same time, it would be nice if the issue received widespread coverage like FIFA scandals or Dieselgate.
We remind readers that today’s IP Kat is not what it used to be. We loved the old IP Kat, but now it’s more like a gatekeeper, shutting out debates about what happens at the EPO, instead focusing on purely technical matters like the doctrine of equivalents and BoA decisions. There’s a long discussion there (many comments), also covering the EPO. One person has asked: “Where would we end with the certainty presently found in the case law of the Boards being put aside?”
“Battistelli violated the EPC many times, essentially disrespecting the very document that gives the EPO authority to operate.”Well, the Boards are being kicked out (they’re already kicked out of Munich) — a fact that IP Kat incredibly enough failed to cover.
Another comment said: “The Protocol on interpretation applies to Article 69 only, not Article 54 EPC.”
Not that the EPC matters anymore. Battistelli violated the EPC many times, essentially disrespecting the very document that gives the EPO authority to operate. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Related: Bristows LLP Tries Hard to Maintain the Illusion That UPC is Alive, Using Media Placements and Paid Plugs
Summary: Bristows, a villainous firm with a truly bad record on truth, has managed to get WIPR to paint a rosy picture of the UPC, which is essentially going nowhere
TEAM UPC has a long track record of lies, half truths, complete fabrications, and spin. This is why we had to closely scrutinise this latest post from Bristows, which was proud to say was spreading (like a cancer). “Magazine #wipr quotes us in their article,” it said, “UK lawmakers selected to scrutinise UPC legislation…”
Translation: #wipr did a puff piece for us, to push the UPC agenda.
Looking for actual substance, they are quoting a lot of old stuff which predates the current deadlock. Is this nicely-constructed and covertly-contributed propaganda by Team UPC? To quote the article: “Along with the bill to be scrutinised by the committee, this Scottish SI will give effect to the PPI and allow the UK to ratify the protocol and also the UPC Agreement, according to a statement by law firm Bristows.”
So they are basing this on a firm with a history of fabrication and come up with a misleading headline which goes even further than the original blog post: “UK lawmakers selected to scrutinise UPC legislation”
There is a reminder there at the end which says: “The UK, alongside Germany and France, is one of three countries whose signature is mandatory for the UPC to take effect.”
That alone indicates (considering the complaint in German and Brexit) that UPC won’t happen.
We have become so accustomed to this kind of spin from Team UPC. They have totally lost legitimacy.
Meanwhile, according to the the latest EPO journal (epo.org link, just announced by EPO which said: “The Official Journal 10/2017 is now available online”), Tunisia validation is just a month away. To quote: “Validation of European patents in Tunisia (TN) with effect from 1 December 2017″
Several weeks ago we published documents related to this. It’s a dodgy project of Battistelli, which loves to do it in former French colonies. He also does this in former Portuguese colonies nowadays, including the Brazilian patent office. Yesterday there was this post about the PPH program and it said: “Following the implementation of PPH Pilot programs with the USPTO, the JPO and the PROSUR countries, the Brazilian PTO just announced a new pilot program for fast-track examination of patent applications with the European PTO.”
This is all about rushing examination some more. It’s as bad as PACE and UPC in some sense (maybe Early Certainty too). They put lawsuits ahead of patent quality, as if justice matters less than successful litigation.
As we noted a few days ago, in the EPO the patent quality has collapsed, so fees are being decreased (on decreasing demand) by Battistelli. In Russia, by contrast, the opposite is happening.
One should be truly worried that the EPO now views itself less like a patent office and more like a litigation centre (e.g. PPH) and a ramp for UPC. Thankfully, however, UPC is collapsing. Don’t believe the lies. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA