05.05.18
The European Patent Organisation (EPO) Stopped Working and It’s Also the Fault of Jesper Kongstad, Not Just Benoît Battistelli
Earlier this year: EPC Foresaw the Administrative Council Overseeing the Patent Office, Jesper Kongstad Made It “Working Together”
Summary: Jesper Kongstad, an enabler of Benoît Battistelli who along with Nicolas Sárközy supported Battistelli’s candidacy, recalled in light of new information
TODAY was supposed to be all about the USPTO, but readers are contacting us with new information; late last night (around midnight) we brought up Nicolas Sárközy again. We’re also (re)examining the patent granted to Remmal, who got the EPO/European Inventor Award last year. We’re planning to show that his European Patent (EP) probably should not have been granted at all.
Kongstad’s successor actively denies the decline in patent quality. Yes, Herr Ernst (Herrnst?) is very much like his predecessor and he too has been protecting Battistelli (so far no dissent, unlike Kongstad towards the end). Kongstad ended up joining the private sector (the patent microcosm). It happened as soon as his EPO career was finished (only days). He has since then been completely and totally off the radar although his wife and he probably still slaughter chinchillas (just more discreetly). Managing IP said at the time: “Former director of the Danish Patent and Trademark Office Jesper Kongstad has joined Zacco as an industrial advisor and investor. He will be advising on IP strategy and business growth.”
Several hours ago Managing IP published this new article by occasional site contributor Inspicos A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark, home of Kongstad, a.k.a. “Battistelli’s protector”). This firm seemed rather worried about being in any way associated with Kongstad, judging by the comment it had left on its own article. There appears to be no connection except adjacent sessions in this event from about a decade ago. See Debattørerne – Karen Krarup [PDF] and here’s a quick screenshot/section from it:
The new article from Inspicos A/S focuses on proof of “plausibility before the EPO” — something on which it says “the EPO has been more relaxed than the USPTO or SIPO” (!!!). Well, lenience at the EPO is the new normal and later today we’ll show the negative impact it is having on real, productive companies. In fact, the EPO increasingly gets it wrong on patent grants as part of a policy to lower patent quality (while constantly lying about it, for obvious reasons) and help patent trolls and their law firms. Here’s what Inspicos A/S said:
A common dilemma for inventors and applicants before the European Patent Office is whether an invention is sufficiently mature for a patent application to be filed. Although a proof-of-concept is often established at the date of filing, an inventor does not always have the opportunity to investigate every aspect of their invention before a patent is filed.
Typically, the EPO has been more relaxed than the USPTO or SIPO regarding this issue, and if an applicant at the EPO encounters an objection that a particular aspect of a claimed invention is not sufficiently disclosed, such an objection can typically be overcome by providing experimental evidence to the EPO that the aspect in question actually works as proposed. Experimental evidence of this nature can be post-published, i.e. the patent application can be supported by experiments carried out after the filing date.
EPO case law requires in principle that a patent claim should be examined for compliance with the requirements of sufficient disclosure (Article 83 EPC) on the basis of the application documents as originally filed. In practice, however, this requirement has not been strictly applied, and patents and patent applications often survive objections of lack of sufficiency, especially if post-published data can be provided.
Some recent decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal in the pharmaceutical field have developed the existing case law around how plausible the technical effect of an invention must be at the filing date of the patent application.
Well, the EPO Boards of Appeal have not been functional, partly ‘thanks’ to Mr. Kongstad, who on behalf of his ‘boss’ Battistelli repeatedly attacked Judge Corcoron and pressured for his firing/resignation. Kongstad played a key part in terrorising the Boards of Appeal; they no longer felt safe from the wrath of Battistelli/Kongstad (a duo) and thus they lost their impartiality.
Never forget the role Kongstad played in the demise of the EPO. Kongstad may be gone by now, but his toxic legacy as well as his role in empowering Battistelli (see the document below) must not be forgotten. █
Original: English [PDF]
Content is available under CC-BY-SA