Bonum Certa Men Certa

Decline in Patent Quality at the EPO Increasingly Reaffirmed by More Branches, Insiders, and Even the European Commission

Not everything under the Sun needs to be patented after all...

“The only patent that is valid is one which this Court has not been able to get its hands on.”

--Supreme Court Justice Jackson



Summary: The lowered quality control at the European Patent Office gives reasons for concern and legitimises those who worry about Europe losing its edge in pursuit of misguided goals

The quality of EPs (European Patents at the EPO) is declining. Their quality is poor not only in the eyes of longtime workers who cross horns with Battistelli as even new workers tell me that the workplace encourages quantity, not quality. As one examiner put it, "I feel bad to say that because it brings bad reputation to EPO, to EPC, and maybe to my colleagues."



If workers do not manage to save the EPO from Battistelli's misguided plan that culminates in massive layoffs, then the Office will likely collapse or become a shadow of its former self, damaging Europe's economy in the process. Watch what a burden the USPTO became to the US economy. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has openly complained about this recently; then the FTC did too (taking note of the parasitic role of patent trolls).

According to an article that IP Kat published yesterday, the European Commission belatedly steps in with an effort to enforce the Biotech Directive and prevent the EPO from granting patents on tomatoes (among other natural things like seeds and plants). We covered this last week, but it's still in the news. To quote:

The Commission argues that the EPO was not bound to take the legislative history of the Biotech Directive into account and thus came to a different conclusion (but it did take it into account…). While admitting that the final wording of the Biotech Directive does not contain a provision on the patentability of products obtained through essentially biological processes, according to the Commission, “having regard to the preparatory work related to the Directive, as summarised above, certain provisions of the Directive are only consistent if plants/animals obtained by essentially biological processes are understood as being excluded from its scope”, referring to Articles 3(2), 4(1) and 4(3) of the Biotech Directive.


George Lucas of Marks & Clerk wrote about the role of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in this. It said:



Following the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in G 2/12 (Tomatoes II/State of Israel) that “… Article 53(b) EPC does not have a negative effect on the allowability of a product claim directed to plants or plant material…”, as reported in our article last year, the appeal that led to this referral to the EBA has been decided. In the decision, T 1242/06 (Tomatoes II/State of Israel), the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) concluded that the subject matter of the claims of auxiliary request I was not excluded under Art 53(b).

The TBA decided to remit the decision to the Opposition Division with the order to maintain the patent, EP1211926, on the basis of auxiliary request I, claim 1 of which is reproduced below.


Another new article from Marks & Clerk also speaks of the EPO Board of Appeals, dealing with the notion of lack of impartiality -- something which Battistelli certainly contributes to with his outrageous moves. To quote the opening part:

A recent decision from the EPO Board of Appeals, T 1647/15, deals with, amongst other things, the issue of suspected partiality of a member of the Opposition Division, in this case the chairman.


By all indications, as sad as it may seem, Battistelli's solution to everything seems to be "UPC", no matter how undesirable it is to the lion's share of Europe's businesses.

Only days ago the EPO brought its malicious "unitary" agenda to EPOPIC, as according to its own tweets [1, 2, 3]: "Yolanda Sanchéz García presented mock-ups of the Unitary Patent Protection Register. Available soon [...] Unitary Patent Protection Register: part of the EPR, same look & feel, contains info in Rule 16 UPR, allows file inspection..."

The UPR (Unitary Patent Protection) is described in the EPO's Web site. It's not quite the same as the UPC, but centralisation and broader enforcement seems to be the trend. There is no UPC landslide for Battistelli and no signs of anything "unitary" or "community" or "EU" (previous buzzwords for the same thing), so why were jobs even advertised for it?

The current trends witnessed inside and outside the EPO give reasons for concern. It lacks quality control and it now works to expand the scope of applicability of rather bad patents which it grants. Trolls would love the idea! So would their patent law firms.

There happens to be some good discussion about this at IP Kat this week. A couple of people correctly point out that applicants have been willing to pay a lot for EPs because of the high (perceived) certainty that courts would rule in their favour and not throw away their patents, costing them a fortune in legal fees (in vain). Patent quality was the focus of all the following comments, namely:



To Dubious, I agree re [patent] quality.

To EP No. "If you feel the quality has declined, it is your job to defend your applicant's rights by complaining to the EPO management that the quality you have received has declined.

There is no need to refer to the actual product, but examples can help.

And do it publicly, preferably not anonymously."

That's a silly suggestion. My role is to represent my clients' interests, not to destroy them for political purposes.

"If you won't do anything for you, we will not risk our job being proactive for you, as we will get problems when we do anything without being prompted to do so."

Difference is, it is your job to apply the EPC diligently. You have responsibilities the wrong way round.


People from the EPO still tell us (even this week) that patent quality is declining. Battistelli is ruining the whole thing because he ceased to care about the quality of output; the public would pay the price. Here is another comment:

And who decided what is diligently? I think we both know that it is not the examiners. Effectively in this case the judge is pressurising the key to decide within an ever shorter time. The judge thinks he could do it without delay so everyone else should. If the jury spends too long - no matter how complicated the issues are or are made by the parties, the judge will apply sanctions for not meeting his target. So who has the biggest interest in the jury's diligence??


And "with current management," another person said, "chose a very bad system to measure our quality" of patents. Here is the full comment:



Well, I'm not killing my career for political purposes. I am diligently applying the PC, as far as I am given time to work on the dossier.

And please tell my bosses, that they are here to apply the EPC. (I agree, that's not your job, and there you could have your career killed. But complaining about our product quality is your right, and likely even your obligation. The arrow would be pointed differently, as in the first case the repercussion arrow would go against the one telling the boss he did it wrong, and in the second case you point the boss's arrow against the examiner taking shortcuts and producing things you do not want to pay our high fees for.)

If you, as outsider, are not willing to stand up, where the possibilities of repercussion are difficult to obtain by our politicians, how do you expect me to stand up, when my career, my job, my pension, my health insurance depends on it? And when I lose my job, I do not access to unemployment benefits. So I'll loose my house/home too. And the impact on my family?

Sorry for your client(s), they deserve better. But with current management, which chose a very bad system to measure our quality, and considers quantity a major element of our work quality, I fear we are on an even steeper slippery road than last year.


"Every patent attorney is the same bound by the EPC as every examiner," Barbi wrote. "If a patent attorney argues against an examiner than he must do it in goof faith and vice versa."

Here is a response posted in reply to this:



Every patent attorney is the same bound by the EPC as every examiner! If a patent attorney argues agains an examiner than he must do it in goof faith and vice versa.

Well said Barbi !

I'm glad that you didn't add "The President and the Admin Council are also bound by the EPC! If they argue against staff then they must do it in good faith."

Let's all focus on examiner-bashing. Nobody else could possible be to blame for this mess.

Just like in the old Soviet system: THE MANAGEMENT IS ALWAYS RIGHT!


Another comment on this topic:



Diligently = a far higher standard than is frequently applied today. Time is important, but only to the extent you are on the right track initially.

Searching for and analysing prior art is a time-consuming task, agreed. A diligent search is at least more than cursory. However, it is not this aspect I am challenging regarding quality. Today, simple misapplication of the law, or to be more precise, a complete lack of application of the law to the case in hand is all too common.

Polymorph patents are granted for merely being novel. Frequently, no benefit is even described, let a lone an arguably unexpected benefit. The EPO no longer even attempt to apply their own guidelines. See the EPO presentations by Dr Sofia Papathoma and others. This is not a time-consuming examination task.

Chemical compound patents are granted with no described industrial utility. I recently read a very detailed IPRP written by an EPO examiner that did the inventors job for them, explaining the utility and inventiveness of the compounds. I had thought that the IPRP must have been repeating the applicant's arguments from their written opinion response, but no, it was the examiner's own work. They would certainly make a good patent attorney with their arguments, because the case ultimately granted. Unfortunately, the patent drafter, possibly a non-chemist scientist, hadn't performed their role competently. Luckily they had the examiner batting for them. The examiner didn't rush this task, however, they simply failed in their duty to make the most basic of objections.

It is most unfortunate that many of today's examiners operate to a far lower professional standard than in previous decades.


"EPO management has created conditions in which examiners operate to a far lower professional standard than in previous decades," said the following person. Some day in the near future we will provide more information about that. Here is the full comment:



It is most unfortunate that many of today's examiners operate to a far lower professional standard than in previous decades.

Shouldn't that be redrafted ???

For example: "It is most unfortunate that today's EPO management has created conditions in which examiners operate to a far lower professional standard than in previous decades."

Don't be so quick to blame the examiners. Start by looking at Article 10 EPC. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar10.html


"No," said another person in reply to the same thing. "Unless you are saying that PB has ordered the hiring of incompetent staff."

What the above serves to show is somewhat of a consensus that Battistelli has been lying about patent quality, which truly fell since he took over. No doubt he will lie to his chinchillas about it in December's meeting.

Recent Techrights' Posts

Even LKML Subjected to Slop/SPAM by Guardian Digital, Inc (linuxsecurity.com)
They're really awful
What Makes RMS Such an Attractive Target ('Discreditisation' Campaigns)
Don't be so easily fooled
The Biggest OEMs or Vendors of GNU/Linux Stopped Competing With Microsoft (Which Pays Them to Promote Windows, Too)
Where are the competition authorities (or regulators for that matter)?
Would You Trust a Liar?
Why lie about the authorship?
 
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, November 06, 2024
IRC logs for Wednesday, November 06, 2024
Microsoft-Connected Publishers Want Us to Think That Linux is Some Sort of a Virus and a "Backdoor"
"The problem is with windows and the attack vector is via Windows"
We've Made it to 18! Here's to Another 18!
Going on for another 18 years means until some time at the end of 2042
Links 07/11/2024: Political Angst and Laptop Issues
Links for the day
Links 06/11/2024: BPF in RFC 9669, More Facebook Fines for Privacy Abuses
Links for the day
Gemini Links 06/11/2024: Political Shock and Hermaic Encouragement
Links for the day
Planet Debian Allows Politics (But It Depends on Your Opinions and Debian's Big Sponsors)
Planet Debian is OK with politics... as long as all your political opinions are the "correct" ones and you add cute animals
Let's Encrypt Falls to a New Low of Only 0.6% of Gemini Capsules Known to Lupa
In Gemini Protocol, certificates for encryption are required, but centralised Certificate Authorities (CAs) aren't needed
Computer-Generator Crap Flooding the Web, the Latest Example About "Linux"
Here's today's example
Links 06/11/2024: Election Disinformation and Legal Actions
Links for the day
Gemini Links 06/11/2024: Stargazing and Death on Hallowe'en
Links for the day
Mass Layoffs at Mozilla Announced During US Elections
Maybe nobody will notice?
[Meme] Announcing "Results" Before Everyone Even "Played"
There is a "tech" angle to otherwise political news
US Polls Close in One Minute (Social Control Media Does Not Care, Will Not Wait)
US election results will be known in about 2 days
Concentration and Centralisation Versus Aggregation or Syndication
KDE has a history of burying old sites
Social Control Media, Even Hours Before Polls Have Closed
Has social control media controlled by CPC (TikTok) and the Trumpmobile guy (Musk's "X") done enough to convince people not to even vote (based on presumptive "results", presented a long time before all polls have closed)?
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, November 05, 2024
IRC logs for Tuesday, November 05, 2024
Wayland Pains in Community-Led Distros of GNU/Linux
Few people and companies use Wayland; there's hardly any technical or practical reason to choose it
IBM Still Conflating Microsoft With 'Security'
As a meme
Sanctions Cause Fragmentation in Software
some Chinese Linux developers are already subjected to restrictions similar to Russians'
Web Failing With Slop, Even in 'Linux' Sites (LLM Spam)
Add SEO prompting to the mix and the Web becomes a pool of slop, not knowledge
[Meme] State of the World Wide Web and Online Journalism
Technically a failure (DRM) and cannot even get basic things right
Trump's signature policy, building a wall, copied from Irish-Australian student politician
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Linus Torvalds' self-deprecating LKML CoC mail linked to Hitler's first writing: Gemlich letter
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
[Meme] Turning 18 in One Day
just one more day
Birthday Tomorrow
Many cakes and drinks are ready; we're one day away now
The Internet is Failing to Protect Democratic Processes and Human Knowledge
Amplifying lies, rewarding plagiarists
Links 05/11/2024: Criminal Referrals Regarding Patent Trolls and Disinformation About the Election Process (Already)
Links for the day
Gemini Links 05/11/2024: 'App' Needed for Parking, NNCP, Gomphotherium
Links for the day
How Voting Does Not Work
You cannot vote from an "app"
Saving the Planet With Honesty, Transparency, and Sharing (Not Only of Computer Code)
GAFAM is destroying the only habitat humans and other animals have and it'll only get worse
Disinformation About Election Outcomes Even Before Any Election Outcomes (or Election/Voting!)
seeding doubt about election outcomes
Links 05/11/2024: Bluesky and Enshittification, Pugad Baboy, and Lots of Disinformation Flooding the Web
Links for the day
[Meme] Sweaty Under the Belly
"OK, my critics are 'spam'"
Microsoft Bribing Canonical (to Stop Competing) and Bribing Users to Shun the Competition
Canonical is worth shunning
[Meme] The 2024 'Info Bros'
And prehistoric googling
Computers Getting Worse (for the User) Over Time
This is like Windows-ism coming to "Linux" through the hardware
[Meme] How NOT to Vote
Another form of (mostly-unspoken-of) election interference
An LLM Inside a 'Search' Engine Means That Companies Tell You What They Want, Not What Web Pages to Visit
The future of 'googling' things might be as unreliable as using Social Control Media as a source of information
Google's Debt Has Increased and 'Cash on Hand' Fell by 22.27% This Past Year
These are the numbers that the corporate media intentionally leaves out
Against Outsourcing of Sites and E-mail
Software Freedom is great, but it is not enough if you let someone else do it 'for you'
Drew DeVault: People Talking About My Attack Site (Against the Founder of GNU/Linux) is "Spam"
"Spam on sr.ht mailing lists"
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, November 04, 2024
IRC logs for Monday, November 04, 2024
There's a Reason Why Techrights is Turning 18 and Tux Machines Will Turn 20.5 Next Month
I started advocating GNU/Linux when I was a teenager
"Oppose the Fascist"
what the founder of GNU/Linux said
Techrights Has a Long History of Fighting to Expose 'Team Mono' or Microsofters Inside GNOME
Never downplay the malice of Microsoft and its operatives
Halloween, All Saints Day & Swiss citizenship
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Gemini Links 05/11/2024: Halloween Over, Intention and Implementation, Bookmark Syncing
Links for the day