10.31.19
Gemini version available ♊︎Today’s EPO is an Illegal Institution Promoting and Granting Illegal Patents
The EPC is violated every time, rendering it meaningless or irrelevant
Summary: With patent courts or tribunals or boards (panels) that enjoy as much ‘independence’ as patent examiners — i.e. none at all — the EPO continues to grant and then authorise patents in direct and clear violation of the EPC, never mind public interest, directions from public representatives, external (to the EPO) courts and so on
“I am just wondering, the UK is bent to leave the EU, why not the European Patent Office. We both know that it is no EU institution but… probably there are better reasons to leave the EPO than the EU…”
So said a reader of ours, who is actually a high-profile person who opposes software patents in Europe. It has become pretty clear that EPO tyranny didn’t end with Battistelli‘s departure because António Campinos is even worse in certain aspects. This is why EPO staff protested last week.
“I am just wondering, the UK is bent to leave the EU, why not the European Patent Office. We both know that it is no EU institution but… probably there are better reasons to leave the EPO than the EU…”
–AnonymousLooking at the official words of the EPO itself, those have nothing whatsoever to do with staff’s positions. It’s clear that press releases and tweets are composed by people highly loyal to high-level managers (or else they would not endure in these positions).
“Looking at the official words of the EPO itself, those have nothing whatsoever to do with staff’s positions. It’s clear that press releases and tweets are composed by people highly loyal to high-level managers (or else they would not endue in these positions.”Here are some examples from yesterday.
The EPO is clearly hiding the collapse in patent quality while focusing on other things instead (“level of satisfaction related to the European Patent Register & future needs”). This is what it did this week in EPOPIC, which we wrote about yesterday. The following day (not the opening day) they had fewer high-profile speakers, but the nonsense kept on coming. Take this bunch of “tweets” for example [1, 2, 3]: “A new IPC subclass “G16Y” for IoT-related technologies will enter into force in January 2020 #EPOPIC cc @JPO_JPN [..]. ZIT is the world’s first #classification for #IoT-related technologies #EPOPIC cc @JPO_JPN [...] Opening the next session at #EPOPIC on classification, Toshiki Yamaguchi at @JPO_JPN is going to give us the latest information on new J-PlatPat & #IoT-related classifications.”
So in EPOPIC too they misuse these words; Many bogus, invalid, bunk software patents have been ‘dressed up’ as “IoT” — a rather meaningless or at least vague marketing buzzword. Here’s more: “Automatic Classification: There is likely a data deficiency challenge ahead – we need human investment! One of the take-aways from Alexander Klenner-Bajaja’s insights into #AI & #patentclassification #EPOPIC”
“Hey hi” is pure magic. You just say out loud those two letters, A and I, and the audience will be wowed. Are software patent not valid? A I! Hakuna matata.
“It means no worries
“For the rest of your days
“It’s our problem-free philosophy”
Just grant, grant, grant. Do it for Grant Philpott. The poor sod will only get promoted if he artificially inflates the number of grants by consciously violating the EPC, compelling examiners below him to break the law for him.
The EPO’s propaganda partner IAM has meanwhile published “AI technology – the pitfalls of protecting inventions” and promoted that in Lexology.
Aled Richards-Jones (Carpmaels & Ransford LLP) is admitting these so-called “AI” patents are just software patents, almost right from the outset: “The current situation in the United States presents uncertainties when it comes to patenting AI-related technology, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp v CLS Bank, while the law covering other aspects of AI is equally complex. In the United Kingdom, protecting AI-related technology involves a range of considerations, from EPO case law relating to computer-implemented inventions, to UK domestic laws involving other forms of protection such as copyright and trade secrets. With innovation currently outpacing the law, where does this leave innovators? This article uses a hypothetical example to shed some light on the landscape.”
So what? They grant anyway. Let the courts deal with the resultant mess.
This is as much of a problem in the US as it is in Europe and HTIA has just mentioned it in relation to this article from Dave Jones. We’ll put it again in Daily Links as it’s not about Europe. “David W. Jones is a former IP Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and currently executive director of the High Tech Inventors Alliance,” says the bio and his employer quotes him as saying: “The solution to poor quality isn’t to lower the bar. We need to address quality head on by making it less likely invalid patents are granted and by strengthening the ability to challenge them when they do.”
The same is true in Europe. “How to fix the patent quality crisis” is his headline and he wishes to raise patent quality, not lower it. The EPO has been constantly lowering the patent bar in recent years and that became very visible — to the point where EPO management panicked and sought to silence the messengers.
The problem isn’t limited to software. Big Pharma blogger Rose Hughes (litigation industry for monopolies) has just published “BREAKING: Board of Appeal provides some initial thoughts on the Broad Institute’s CRISPR appeal (T0844/18)” (we covered this case many times before).
Well, the EPO is not allowed to grant patents on life. So on the surface this whole appeal may seem like a waste of time (or non-starter). It’s not legal. That much should be obvious, but the EPO is so inherently corrupt and the law does not matter to it. Judges aren’t rewarded for enforcing the law (EPC) but for doing the Office President’s biddings. Watch that comment from an attorney:
Looking forward to the appearance of the summarized TBA Communication on the EPO public file. Meanwhile, thanks to the IPKat for sharing this news that is “breaking” in more senses than one.
Reading through the Board’s summary of the pro’s and con’s of stepping back from the current established practice, two thoughts occur.
First, getting more into line with “the intention” of the Paris Convention strikes me as outweighing most, if not all, other considerations.
Second, can anybody here recall a case of many years ago, in which a UK patent attorney firm (U&L) was caught in the middle of an ownership dispute, between rival parties, that went to litigation during the Paris year. The facts of the case were quite mundane really. Such ownership disputes can arise quite easily. The two sides were giving that patent attorney firm (which had filed the priority application) opposite and irreconcilable PCT filing instructions. Thus it was, that U&L entered the litigation as an “interpleader”. I should like to re-read any published case report in the context of the present dispute before the TBA. Can anybody supply the case report reference?
We already know, based on prior cases such as G 2/19 (Enlarged Board of Appeal), that these rulings aren’t compliant with the EPC — so much so that the EPO aggressively lobbied to not even deal with a query about it (deeming it inadmissible). The EPO is an outlaw institution where the concept of lawfulness ceased to exist some years ago. Something must be done. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA