09.14.19
Gemini version available ♊︎EPO President Along With Bristows, Managing IP and Other Team UPC Boosters Are Lobbying for Software Patents in Clear and Direct Violation of the EPC
They now rely on EBA to ‘endorse’ such patents (again)
Summary: A calm interpretation of the latest wave of lobbying from litigation professionals, i.e. people who profit when there are lots of patent disputes and even expensive lawsuits which may be totally frivolous (for example, based upon fake patents that aren’t EPC-compliant)
IT OUGHT to come as no surprise that António Campinos — like his ‘handler’ — pushes hard for software patents to be granted by the European Patent Office (EPO). The law does not matter to these people; neither do constitutions. Today’s EPO is totally in the pockets of patent maximalists (just look at all the tweets from Friday; they're in cahoots).
Rather than moan and groan about this sad reality let’s take stock of the latest observations, which merit a rebuttal or two. We hope that by exposing facts we can at least enlighten some examiners; perhaps people in positions of authority can respond accordingly.
Just before the weekend Bristows’ Alan Johnson turned the Kool-Aid nozzle again (link for those curious enough to see it). When Bristows says “Poll indicates businesses’ support for UPC without UK” it refers to propaganda from a UPC think tank; it’s Managing IP's UPC propaganda machine — one that its staff pinged me about in Twitter (as if to impress me with their so-called ‘study’). Suffice to say, it’s a poll that only speaks to and for litigation firms. Bristows is a band of liars, so they spin that as “businesses’ support”; it’s not an independent poll (push polling likely) and it blindly follows that ludicrous idea that a corrupt institution that breaks the law internally would act better outwards. We’ve already written a great deal about the firm behind it; on Friday it spoke — in its very latest article — of “Rising Star Awards”. Paid-for, fake and corrupt awards. The lawyers’ ‘industry’ has been manufacturing these fake ‘endorsements’ for themselves. IAM does this for a living, so why not Managing IP as well? Under the guise of “IP STARS”…
“We hope that by exposing facts we can at least enlighten some examiners; perhaps people in positions of authority can respond accordingly.”It’s that same old business model of lying and calling people/sponsors “STARS”. It’s a common scam/fraud in other domains too; a firm comes with an offer of an award, in exchange for some payment of course; contrariwise, it can blackmail businesses with threat of negative publicity. From Managing IP: “The best rising stars lawyers from across the continent congregated at The Pierre Hotel last night to celebrate Euromoney Legal Media Group’s second annual Americas Rising Stars awards.”
So they booked some expensive hotel in which to give their bogus awards. In the same way they promote the UPC with bogus ‘polls’, after the EPO cooperates with them on UPC propaganda events. IAM does that too. They’re all connected and they fool nobody but themselves. They hope to mislead politicians however. Why?
Look no further than Friday’s post from Kluwer Patent Blog (in which Team UPC admits: “Czech Republic will not ratify UPCA any time soon”… or ever!).
So now they admit they’ve lied about remaining barriers. The opening paragraph states “it may violate the Czech Constitution.”
“So they booked some expensive hotel in which to give their bogus awards.”Not just the Czech Constitution; there are similar issues in Hungary and elsewhere (even the courts ruled accordingly).
Norice that Team UPC is nowadays writing anonymously, e.g. "Kluwer Patent blogger", in order to dodge accountability for lying. “Kluwer Patent blogger” is always or usually Bristows. It’s probably Alan Johnson. Here they go: “The Czech Republic will not ratify the Unified Patent Agreement in the near future, even if the Unitary Patent system takes the hurdles of the Brexit and the German constitutional complaint. According to a Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) report on the impact of the patent package, which was commissioned by the national IP office, the Unitary Patent system could have negative financial consequences for Czech SMEs; moreover it may violate the Czech Constitution. Kluwer IP Law interviewed Karel Sindelka, partner and IP expert of the Czech law firm Sindelka Lachmannova, about the PwC report.”
This is the same PwC which was paid by Battistelli a few years ago to lie about EPO staff.
Pressing on, however, who would actually want the UPC? Litigation firms for sure. It’s also pretty clear that UPC would usher in software patents — something that EPO management is still pushing for. It’s lobbying very hard for illegal software while attacking its own judges into approving that. Based on this new blog post: “It appears that the President is broadly in favour of the patentability of computer-implemented simulations…”
“Pressing on, however, who would actually want the UPC? Litigation firms for sure.”Of course!
IP Kat’s blogger adds: “Running a simulation on a computer in order to determine a technical parameter, the President argued, is also not equivalent to a mental act.”
Well, he never wrote a computer program! His sole skill is drinking wine with the ‘right’ people.
The blogger concludes with: “The EBA is independent of the President and is therefore not obliged to follow his opinion.”
“His sole skill is drinking wine with the ‘right’ people.”Lies from Rose Hughes? Probably not. Maybe she’s simply unaware of recent developments. Consider EBA's recent handling of the 'Haar question'. In this newer one, Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) referral G 1/19, the same issues arise. These are serious issues which we’ve mentioned here many times before, as did IP Kat (albeit it’s run by patent maximalists these days). It sometimes spreads lies for EPO management (and censors comments critical of it), so we shall assume good faith and strive to remain polite. Not an easy task when their latest roundup is full of patent maximalism — same as last week! Annsley Ward (Bristows) is dominant in this blog; she’s promoting patent trolls such as InterDigital (again) and also spent a long time promoting software patents in the past. Yes, in IP Kat! It’s also not easy to overlook the professional affiliation of the author of this article; it’s the litigation department of a pharmaceutical giant/monopoly (Rose Hughes works for one) and she constantly comments on the subject of her business. She has just done that again. So the blog lacks independence and it speaks for lawyers, not even scientists inside companies with patents. This wasn’t always the case!
Here’s what she wrote about G 1/19:
One of the more early awaiting referrals before the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA), is G 1/19, relating to the patentability of computer-simulated methods (IPKat post here). The referral has already attracted a large number of amicus curiae from interested parties, including CIPA, EPI and AIPPI. IPKat will review these observations shortly (once this Kat has had the chance to read them all). In the meantime, the EPO has recently announced that the EPO President himself, António Campinos, has taken the unusual move of submitting his own comments on the referral.
The President’s comments can be read in full here. It appears that the President is broadly in favour of the patentability of computer-implemented simulations (in contrast to his view on the patentability of products produced by essentially biological processes…IPKat post here). In summary, the President argues that the case law of the Boards of Appeal already provides that computer-implemented simulations, claimed as such, may be based on technical considerations. Furthermore, these technical considerations may confer inventiveness on the claim. Computer-simulated inventions may therefore be inventive, and thereby patentable.
[...]
Will the EBA agree with the President? The EBA is independent of the President and is therefore not obliged to follow his opinion. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there have already been a large number of observations from third parties submitted to the EBA, some in favour and some against the patentability of computer-simulated inventions (Article 10 RPEBA). Individuals with strong views on this issue [Merpel: such as certain hyperbolic bloggers...], are encouraged to submit their own!
That last remark might be a vague reference to us; I already submitted letters to the EBA a long time ago. That barely had an effect. It would be even less likely to have an effect now that these judges lack independence.
“Many of these patents are fake. Everyone knows it, even the examiners (or SUEPO which represents them), but there’s pressure to grant anyway and it’s expensive to challenge these in courts or even in formal appeals.”Will the judges feel comfortable going against the wishes of Campinos and guard the EPC instead? That’s a risky career choice. Many of these patents are fake. Everyone knows it, even the examiners (or SUEPO which represents them), but there’s pressure to grant anyway and it’s expensive to challenge these in courts or even in formal appeals. 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the US is proving that the USPTO granted far too many such bogus patents as well; Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) aren’t so cheap, however, so most patents will reach their expiration date without proper scrutiny. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA