Bonum Certa Men Certa

Battistelli is Lying About Patent Quality While It Continues to Nosedive at the EPO as Part of His Neo-liberal 'Production' Strategy

Patent quality? That's the old EPO. Now it's all about quantity!

The Leader of the Luddites
The Leader of the Luddites, engraving of 1812



Summary: Battistelli, who tries to automate and streamline everything so as to maximise patent grants rather than examine applications properly, is making incredible claims that will almost certainly backfire on him

AMID EPO crisis, which undoubtedly continues to deepen, more and more people start to compare it to the USPTO, where patent quality has been rather notorious for quite some time (they almost just rubberstamp applications, with a 92% acceptance rate).



For weeks now (if not a whole month and a half!) the EPO has been 'spamming' universities in Europe on a daily basis, in order to help Battistelli's lobbying campaign (today was no exception [1, 2]). Both time and money may be running out. Talented workers are already leaving, causing brain drain that's unprecedented in the EPO's history. What will perhaps be left is just the job skill of using a rubber stamp, causing a copious lump of patents to come through with no quality assessment/control. That's a nightmare scenario for the EPO's reputation, on which has been based for decades. For the third time in one week the EPO does the unthinkable by inviting software patents. "At the EPO," it wrote today, computer-implemented inventions must fulfil special patentability criteria. Learn more here!"

This is the third time in just a few days that the EPO tacitly promotes software patents in Europe. Remember that these are not legal in Europe (political decisions were made on patent scope more than a decade ago), but then again, under Battistelli the EPO is above the law anyway. Or so it claims. It just ignores court decisions against it, flaunting immunity. Is there any credibility left to lose? Is the EPO's Twitter account signaling that the EPO will likely rubberstamp just about anything, including software patents (provided they're written in some misleading fashion, as per the EPO's advice)? This could become a threat to the very existence of the EPO. People won't pay to receive (or renew) patents. The demand may go down. Prices (fees) likewise. What might be the impact on salaries?

"You should see the new issue of the Gazette," one person told us, "a piece of Pravda-type propaganda.... interview with Battistelli, Lisbon with Battistelli... what is also interesting is that they have employed two more "investigators"..." (a subject we shall expand on another day).

So the EPO is apparently the embodiment of just one person, Battistelli, examiners that are treated like machine operators in an assembly line, and daily propaganda to keep those operators chugging along. No wonder a lot of smart people have decided to leave or retire early. They see the writings on the wall. Battistelli is just a liquidator, not a leader.

A new article by Andrew Chung, who wrote a highly misleading headline (unless his editor types the headlines, as is quite common) that we noted last night using a screenshot, is repeating Battistelli's latest propaganda in a new puff piece (published 24 hours ago). It's again misleading and we can't help but wonder what Chung has been drinking (maybe more of that aforementioned Kool-Aid). Basically, Battistelli is riding the coattails of older patents. He ruins EP (European Patent) quality while hiding it using the accomplishment of his predecessors. This guy is so clueless about patents (his workers know far more than he will ever know), but Chung acts like some kind of Battistelli stenographer (reposted in other news sites) and the editor went with the headline "Europe issues better patents than U.S. - Europe patent boss" (as if the US is a good yardstick these days).

As realised by EPO insiders, Battistelli is demolishing the EPO as they once know it and he now lies to everyone, much to the pleasure of those who lie for him (here he is propped up by CIPA and other interest groups or publishers that are in bed with the EPO [1, 2, 3, 4]).

The article itself will probably help Battistelli's lobbying (he likes to cite his paid "media partners" for support of his claims) and here is what it says:

Amid growing concerns by some U.S. lawmakers that federal officials may be granting patents that fuel abusive litigation, the head of the European Patent Office says his agency is producing better-quality patents than its American counterpart.

EPO President Benoît Battistelli said his office scrutinizes patent applications more closely than the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which he said results in patents that are more legally sound going out the door.

[...]

Battistelli, a French national who has led the EPO since 2010, said his agency has developed databases and search engines that allow it to perform the most comprehensive research on prior inventions that could lead to a rejection of a patent.

Unlike in the United States, he added, all patent applications are scrutinized by three officials, known as patent examiners, rather than just one.

This leads to a lower rate of granted patents, he said, but they are legally solid.

On the other hand, it costs roughly twice as much to obtain a patent in Europe, around 5,000 euros ($5,625), than in the United States.



Fact-checking Battistelli's claims? Not needed. Just write down what a chronic liar says and call yourself a "Reuters journalist".

This article was sent to us by several EPO insiders although we actually noticed it an hour after it had been published (we have an alerting system for all things EPO). Here is what a patent attorney wrote in response to a related discussion today:



On how to trade off quality and productivity, the USPTO and the EPO cannot meaningfully be compared. That's because the EPO is master of its own house and the USPTO is not. Who makes the law of patent validity in Europe? The EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal. Who in the USA? The Supreme Court of the USA and it makes law that i) frustrates any USPTO drive towards productivity and quality and ii) encourages Applicants and their lawyers to obfuscate and work diligently away from clarity in the claims.

So of course Mr Spigarelli sees it all as very simple. Pure self-interest drives Applicants at the EPO to draft clearly. EPO separation of search and examination, and strict enforcement of EPC Rules by DG1, makes it imperative that i) from the outset, Applicant presents an exhaustive set of dependent claims and ii) DG1 searches them all, at the outset, exhaustively. That way lies both quality and productivity. Simples. But not yet at the USPTO.

Now that the USA is on a First to File system however, Applicant self-interest in that country will kick in, gradually to improve drafting in the USA and, in its wake, will come better quality and productivity. How so? Because the US will now find it has to ratchet up its "written description" requirement to somewhere near the EPO's exacting Gold Standard for disclosure, in order fairly to judge issues of novelty, priority and added matter.



In response to this, one person wrote:



Improving patent quality flows both ways, with the quality of the drafted claims submitted for examination being an equally important aspect in the equation. The article mentioned situations where the examiners don't understand the invention - that's a clear indictment of the patent attorney who drafted the claims, isn't it? A strategy of drafting overly broad claims and seeing what sticks is not helpful for anyone (other than the attorney charging fees to his client).

The examiners in the USPTO need more time, better IT support and investment to help improve the quality of their work. They are working hard in less than perfect circumstances and we should all support them. Sharing lessons learned with the EPO is a good start, but attorneys need to do their part too, IMHO.



Also in response to the above:



"The U.S. speakers mostly assumed a trade-off between the two goals of productivity and quality...snip...Alfred Spigarelli, European Patent Office (EPO), disagreed with the trade-off premise, and stated that at the EPO, a focus on quality results in productivity. He argued the ultimate goal is always quality, from which productivity flows."

At the EPO, "Early Certainty" equals quality with timeliness. And timeliness increases productivity, since examiners are given targets on that. The trade-off is merely hidden and fully loaded onto the individual examiners' shoulders.

"Professors Melissa Wasserman and Michael D. Frakes discussed their study which indicates that promoted USPTO examiners may generally grant more patents because of less examination time as they are promoted."

At the the EPO, promoted and non-promoted examiners have the same examination time, but promoted examiners likely grant more.

Same here, same there, same everywhere ...



Looking at another thread, this one new comment on "Early Certainty" reveals how insiders feel about the patent quality and overcapacity:



- Overrecruitment is discussed in internal FAQ's on Early Certainty, but not in the external one, of course.

- Production demands for newcomers have always been inflating, as they doe for all other examiners on a yearly basis.

- Contracts for examiners: the numbers are in the Social Report published by the EPO.



We shall expand on that another day, possibly this weekend, due to lack of time. The above comments (the first three) were posted in response to coverage from an event that was mentioned here a few days ago. David Kappos, as we expected, used it to lobby for software patents again (he'd paid for that lobbying). Being like a corrupt official-turned-lobbyist, here is what he did: "Finally, David Kappos, former head of USPTO and current partner at Cravath, Swain and Moore, reviewed how the USPTO has historically worked on patent quality. He pointed out that the USPTO has been applying the changing standards and rules set by the courts. He stated that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice test is not a helpful flexible rule, but arbitrary and vague. He believes that the courts and USPTO are placed in a position of having to apply an impossible standard and should not be blamed for their application of said standard."

This utter nonsense from Kappos, calling for decline in patent quality (like it was under his reign), comes at an interesting/strategic time when software patents are pretty much dead. There are few exceptions to that, as we mentioned here before, but in the vast majority of cases software patents drop like flies, even in bulk. Last night we mentioned articles like this one (cherry-picking of cases by the patent microcosm) and here we have a Microsoft advocacy site, citing Microsoft's lobbying site, showing that Microsoft props up illusions of software patents resurgence, pretending they're fine (they're not). Remember that Microsoft is among the companies that pay Kappos to lobby along those lines. Here is what Microsoft has to say: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit yesterday issued an important decision strengthening the law related to software patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act. This ruling gives us useful guidance for determining which software innovations qualify for protection and helping provide greater stability to the U.S. patent system, a foundation for our digital economy. Erich Andersen, vice president and deputy general counsel of Microsoft’s IP (Intellectual Property) Group wrote a blog post expressing his views on this ruling."

Well, as expected right from the start, patent law firms yank out their misleading jubilations because of McRO (one single patent!) [1, 2] and Gene Quinn generalises at Watchtroll, having ignored pretty much all the recent decisions which invalidated software patents (the cherry-picking or selective coverage tactic).

"What we see in the US is a dodgy system wherein the patent office is inclined to just grant everything, courts reject a lot of patents, and if Battistelli gets his way the EPO will be the same, inviting a lot of patent trolls, software patents that hamper innovation, and a lot more money for the patent microcosm."In other news regarding patent scope in the US, “patented software” became the subject of an antitrust lawsuit, a drug patent of Teva got invalidated by PTAB [1, 2, 3], and USPTO examiners awarded another software patent (which courts would likely invalidate if ever scrutinised properly).

What we see in the US is a dodgy system wherein the patent office is inclined to just grant everything, courts reject a lot of patents, and if Battistelli gets his way the EPO will be the same, inviting a lot of patent trolls, software patents that hamper innovation, and a lot more money for the patent microcosm. So, are EPO patents better than US patents? Well, the old ones probably are, but Battistelli is going to change that. As a Conservative Neo-liberal he's likely to just abuse science, just like his 'master' Sarkozy, who is now publicly denying climate science.

Recent Techrights' Posts

Open Source Initiative (OSI) Privacy Fiasco in Detail: In Conclusion and Enforcement Action Proceeds Against OSI at the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA)
There's too much to cover in one single part
Links 17/04/2025: Calling Whistleblowers at Microsoft, Slop Doing More Harm Everywhere
Links for the day
Trump Authority (CA) With a Trump NSA is All About Security, But Whose?
A "turnkey tyranny", as the NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake loved to call it
 
Links 17/04/2025: Russian Bot Farms Infect TikTok (Which US Government and SCOTUS Decided to Block January 19), US Hardware Stocks Crash Due to Tariffs
Links for the day
Gemini Links 17/04/2025: Sticking to Free Software, Smolnet, and Counting the Reals
Links for the day
When You Fail to Filter Your Clients You End Up SLAPPing Reporters on Behalf of Bad People From Microsoft in Another Continent
“American Psycho”
Links 17/04/2025: LayoffBot and Tesla Cheats Buyers
Links for the day
Gemnini Links 17/04/2025: Role of Language and Back to Mutt for E-mail
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, April 16, 2025
IRC logs for Wednesday, April 16, 2025
Confirming IBM Shutdowns and Layoffs Today
It's not over yet
Gemini Links 16/04/2025: The 2010s Are Calling and Why "Tools Will Not Liberate Us"
Links for the day
You Should Probably Self-Host Your E-mail and Never Use a Web Browser for Mail
Does anyone still believe Gmail is "free"?
Links 16/04/2025: Cliff Lynch RIP, More Attacks on Science (NASA)
Links for the day
StatCounter Shows the Market Share of Vista 11 is Decreasing in Ukraine This Year
Microsoft abandoning Vista 10 users would be a victory for Vladimir Putin
Google Promotes Fake Articles (LLM Slop) Instead of Originals, Relaying Microsoft's Linux FUD Emanating From Microsoft LLMs
Shame on Google for participating in the slopfest
In Some Countries the Largest OEMs Already Dump Microsoft Windows
Windows at 18.9%, Android 60.2%
The "Gold" Rule: Taking Money for Reputation Laundering and Openwashing Under the "Linux" Banner
Seller of expensive toilet paper, Jim Zemlin
LLM Slop Says Slop is "coming for white-collar jobs. Microsoft’s layoffs are just the start"
Look what the Web has become
Microsoft Down From 100% to 10% in Myanmar/Burma
only about 4% of Web requests in Myanmar/Burma come from Vista 11, soon to be the only "supported" version of Windows
Reporting Facts About Violence Against Women Deserves Awards, Not Frivolous Lawsuits and Threats
What is Microsoft's stance on women's safety?
Linux.com as Spamfarm of the Linux Foundation, Partner of the Gates Foundation
They no longer publish articles
When Fedora Said It Was Looking to Integrate "AI" It Meant Promoting Microsoft's Proprietary Spyware and GPL-Violating Slop
When they say "AI" they mean Microsoft
Slopwatch: The Typical Slopfarms and the 'Brian Fagioli Dilemma'
To the Web and to society (exposed to the Web) LLMs are a net negative
It Used to be IBM, Now It's Microsoft (Why You Need to Fire Microsofters or CIOs Working for Microsoft)
Typically the only effective solution is to identity and remove Microsofters from one's project/organisation (before they can bring more Microsofters in)
IBM Closes Offices and Labs in the United States to Open New Ones in India
It's not layoffs per se; they're substituting/swapping veteran employees for lesser-paid ones
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, April 15, 2025
IRC logs for Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Gemini Links 16/04/2025: IndieWeb Carnival, Tinylog RFC, "Focus, the Web and Gemini"
Links for the day
Links 15/04/2025: Touchable Volumetric Display and Resistance to American Spying Firms
Links for the day
Links 15/04/2025: Some People Cannot Read and Re-discovering of 'Web 1.0'
Links for the day
Links 15/04/2025: China Admits Targetting Critical Infrastructure Using CALEA Back Doors, NASCAR Cracked by Windows Usage
Links for the day
Why We Support Carole Cadwalladr (Even If We Don't Agree With Everything She Said)
I first became aware of Cadwalladr's work a long time ago
Microsoft's Serial Strangler Chose to Attack Techrights With SLAPP When Over 400 Victims of Mohamed Al Fayed Complained About Media's Role in Enabling Him
There is a strong element of "free press" here
A Coalition or a Coup of Sexism
In the Free software community it's hard to avoid this issue
statCounter Sees GNU/Linux at New High of 6% in Bosnia and Herzegovina
GNU/Linux is measured at all-time high
To Celebrate Git Turning 20 Linus Torvalds is 'Selling Out' to Microsoft and Proprietary Software Which Attacks Git (E.E.E.)
He makes it seem like he's endorsing his attackers
Gemini Protocol Milestone (3,000 Active Capsules)
and a total of nearly 4,500
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, April 14, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, April 14, 2025