Related: Like EPO 'Grants' (up 40% in a Year), Patent Trolls in Europe Are Growing at Double-Digit Rates (Now 20% of All German Lawsuits)

Summary: A growing debate surrounding the EPO, this time pertaining not just to the tyranny but also the technical failure of Battistelli's regime, which yields a lot of bogus European Patents

POTENTIALLY plausible explanations are gradually emerging for the German media's (relative) silence on EPO scandals (this improved a little recently). Some of the causes/motivations were named here in past years and another possible reason is the subject of an ongoing series about Lufthansa. The Croatian media is writing about it right now, so why can't German media also? It implicates the government of Germany.

"Lots and lots of patents being granted with no quality control is a recipe for chaos for all sorts of industries (except the legal 'industry')."One aspect of the EPO we've warned about for many years is patent quality (or declining quality). The patent microcosm (litigation 'industry') absolutely loves this. See yesterday's Watchtroll piece where the author (not a technical person) quotes a judge as rejecting a discussion about patent quality. He is wrong of course, as the criteria for validity of patents can change over time and therein lies the question of quality. Lots and lots of patents being granted with no quality control is a recipe for chaos for all sorts of industries (except the legal 'industry' and maybe the UPC 'industry').

In another one of those self-promotional pieces, this time by Joel Smith and Krishna Kakkaiyadi from Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (yesterday), here is what was said:

From 1 July 2017, the EPO will no longer grant patents for plants and animals exclusively obtained by means of an “essentially biological process”. This follows a European Commission Notice dated 8 November 2016 (please click here for the full text of the Commission Notice) clarifying that the EU legislator had intended to exclude such plants and animals (either in whole or in part) from patentability when adopting the EU Directive on biotechnological inventions (Directive 98/44/EC) (the “Directive“).

So the EPO's erroneous granting process lays bare for all to see. This marketing piece is titled "EPO Administrative Council clarifies patentability position of plants and animals," but it's far too polite; what actually happened was, the EPO stroke out a lot of patents granted against the rules (EPC/EU) and against the public interest.

Belatedly, as the following new comment explains, German publishers "discover that behind the mad figures [of Battistelli], the granted patents are of crap quality..."

We still hope that a translation will surface at SUEPO's Web site (yesterday they published this PDF to help get around the paywall), but here is how one person summarised it:

beginning of the end?

OUCH in Wirstschaftswoche auf 4 pages : http://www.wiwo.de/politik/europa/europaeisches-patentamt-den-chef-nennen-sie-putin/20112542.html

SUEPO said nothing else for years ,to no avail.

All of a sudden (after having cashed hundreds of Millions Euros stemming from the work done at EPO) the German discover that behind the mad figures, the granted patents are of crap quality and that this does not serve their interests????????

All this could have been avoided had the German delegate in the Administrative Council C. ERNST not supported ALL destructive policies by Battistelli et al. Instead he preferred to bow down.

It will be interesting to learn about Ernst's role in the German government (mentioned here before) in case -- as alleged -- there is a major Lufthansa coverup. The story in a nutshell goes like this: Lufthansa used the EPO to essentially pass both a bribe and immunity to corrupt officials. To some people, the EPO certainly seems to have become a place where dirty laundry comes. But we'll leave this aside for now, until future parts of "EPO, Lufthansa, and the German Government".

The EPO "fees stayed the same," said the next comment, "but applicants don't get the same search quality and examination" (obviously, as leaks clearly confirm).

Here is the full comment:

Sure it will cost more, but it will still cost a lot less than a UPC litigation. But it is quite simple really: for a fee, applicants used to get quality search and examination. The fees stayed the same, but applicants don't get the same search quality and examination. Hence: it costs more. If an applicant still needs the same quality search and examination... or want to impose it on their competitors, they will need to pay more for doing an extra search themselves, pay extra representation, invest more time, etc...

"The EPO did need quite some reforms," says a separate comment in another thread. "but not towards an office for nepotism" (we'd go further and say that the EPO breeds institutional corruption).

It's about the UPC too:

The whole UPC was the reason for Article 4a EPC to be inserted. To meet, once the political process has evolved a bit more, and discuss the implications for the EPO and whether reforms of the EPC/EPOrg/EPOffice would be necessary. But some technocrats have preferred to work without political supervision, no matter how much the political representatives wanted to meet to discuss exactly these points.

The EPO did need quite some reforms, but not towards an office for nepotism, increasing the post levels for a small select group of people in the direct vicinity....

In this last comment there, President Battistelli is being compared to President Trump: "We have a Trump-ist act here where a decision is made in haste without regard to the consequences (that's for the little people). EU decisions are applied to non-EU states? Rules are applied retrospectively? Seems equivalent to the Trump no-trans serving tweet - how will it work in practice? Oops. We'll get back to you but we've got immunity so it doesn't matter."

In another thread and another place (UK) there's this ongoing long discussion about the EPO "Gold Standard" and one of he latest comments says this:

Whether a claim is entitled at the EPO onto Paris Convention priority is a matter of "same invention", what the priority document discloses, and the validity of the claim. Apply the Gold Standard. Forget Snackfoods.

Whether an accused embodiment infringes is an Art 69 EPC issue. Consider the jurisprudence, throughout EPC-land, on Art 69 and its Protocol.

You seem to be trying to bind the Gold Standard to Art 69 EPC. Your crusade is misconceived and not soundly based.

We've been through all this already. Really, the discussion is exhausted.

The EPO used to be so good that terms like "Gold Standard" (in another sense of the word) made sense. Under Battistelli it only gives us a chuckle. To Battistelli, the only "Gold" is money. Short-term gains at the expense of the very existence of the EPO. ⬆