07.09.19
Gemini version available ♊︎EPO ‘Tackles’ Patent Quality Concerns by Issuing New Report With “Quality” in the Title
Extrajudicial agenda, intelligence mocked
Summary: The EPO strives to grant as many patents as possible while constantly lying to the public about the effect on patent quality (or validity, as determined by the underlying laws and judged by courts peripheral to the EPO)
35 U.S.C. § 101 went a long way in improving US patent quality — to the point where even USPTO examiners started to deny many software patent applications. We mostly covered this in past years because this year we focus on the sordid mess at the European Patent Office (EPO), led by Battistelli‘s double who openly supports software patents in Europe.
“All this while lowering patent validity and quality even further (great for blackmail, not so good for litigation).”Patent quality hasn’t only collapsed; it’s continuing to collapse all the time due to rising targets and brain drain (assuring decline in quality of training, too). Law firms, desperate for clients who rely on false promises, are cross-posting their self-promotional pieces which pretend everything is alright (“Revised Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal”). One went as far as promoting the further speed-up or acceleration of examination (as if it wasn’t already bad enough). Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick’s Dr Jon Wright wrote this today:
Following a successful three-year trial, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) have agreed to extend… [PPH]
All this while lowering patent validity and quality even further (great for blackmail, not so good for litigation). Cohausz & Florack’s Arwed Burrichter and Natalie Kirchhofer have meanwhile published “EPO Administrative Council adopts new Rules of Procedure for the Boards of Appeal,” neglecting (as usual) to mention the chaotic state and abrupt departure from the EPC. Today’s EPO is not even trying to pretend (not anymore) that it adheres to the EPC or that cares about the autonomy of judges; these judges are unable to enforce the EPC, i.e. the law, without risking severe punishment (like Patrick Corcoran’s).
“Today’s EPO is not even trying to pretend (not anymore) that it adheres to the EPC or that cares about the autonomy of judges…”The EPO has meanwhile tweeted: “The EPO’s 2018 Quality Report is out! For insights into the checks & safeguards of the patenting process, as well as feedback from users & future initiatives, have a look here: http://bit.ly/EPOqualityreport …”
In order to ‘googlebomb’ the word “quality” the EPO has just published a “report” (warning: epo.org link) with the word “quality” in the headline/title, prefaced by:
The EPO today published its third Quality Report since 2016. The 2018 edition delves deeper into the patent grant process, describing the checks and safeguards that are in place at each phase of the procedure at the Office. It offers extensive data analyses at EPO sectors’ level, looks at quality improvement measures taken by the Office, cites feedback provided by users and discusses the initiatives that are planned for the future.
While confirming users’ growing appreciation of the quality of the products and services provided by the EPO, the report also acknowledges scope for improvement in certain areas.
“This report provides our users with a full picture of the way quality is evolving at the EPO and a common basis on which we can continue to move forwards”, said President António Campinos. “Quality is at the heart of our new Strategic Plan and by working with our users and cooperating with all our stakeholders, we now have an opportunity to raise our quality to another level altogether.”
What a liar. What lawyers…
They keep denying the problem, potentially only infuriating stakeholders by insulting them. Where’s the Council amid these lies?
“It’s hogwash and everybody knows it, including those involved in manufacturing such propaganda.”Well, as we explained last week, the EPO (Office) is is buying and securing votes to ensure that nothing changes or that nothing actually improves. It keeps bribing those who vote. Earlier today Schmitt & Orlov wrote that “Gabriel Pecquet, the European Patent Office (EPO) expert, visited the Moldovan State Agency on Intellectual Property (AGEPI)…”
The Moldovan vote is worth as much as Germany’s and Moldova is a lot easier (and cheaper) to ‘buy’. Team Campinos carries on with Battistelli’s tactics and there’s no stopping it. They make up all sorts of groups or panels called “Quality” something. Now there’s a “Quality” report. It’s hogwash and everybody knows it, including those involved in manufacturing such propaganda. They’re being paid to lie; what a waste of money… █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
casimir said,
July 12, 2019 at 4:12 pm
To my knowledge, Moldavia has no vote, as it is not one of the 38 Member States. I would agree though that Serbia´s vote is easier to buy than Germany´s vote with cooperation projects or management positions.