Déjà vu today. We saw that last year in spring. Lobbyists of patent trolls come out of the woodwork and relentlessly attack those who dare point out that today's EPO gives rise to patent trolls and UPC would further exacerbate this problem. But let's structure what happened yesterday and today chronologically, having researched this the entire day. We'll leave this for readers to decide on, e.g. who is right and who is wrong.
"The same thing is happening in China right now because patent scope is broadened and examination weakened. It's an avalanche of low-quality patents."This brings us to the EPO. We last wrote about decline of patent quality just earlier today, based on a two-page report/bulletin from EPO insiders. Anyone still in denial about the decline of European Patents' (EPs) quality is either deluded or called Benoît Battistelli (he probably lies to himself about it, maybe he actually believes his own lies).
We've long warned (long before we covered EPO scandals) about low-quality EPs ushering in patent trolls, more so if the UPC ever becomes a reality. We weren't alone. Others were saying the exact same thing. It's so evident that in order to deny this one has to be both greedy and financially-motivated (Bristows comes to mind).
Patent trolls are already soaring in Germany. This was measured last year. Patent trolls' representatives make a load of money out of it and they want to make it worse with 'unitary' effect (more defendants, higher damages and so on). The UPC is a disaster in the making, but thankfully it has been stopped. IP2Innovate already spoke out against it, echoing many of the same arguments we had made for years.
"Patent trolls are already soaring in Germany. This was measured last year. Patent trolls' representatives make a load of money out of it and they want to make it worse with 'unitary' effect (more defendants, higher damages and so on)."Remember that IP2Innovate isn't some 'commie' thing or some 'radical' group; it's an actual representative of many companies, both large and small. It's akin to CCIA and HTIA in terms of the pattern of membership. Many are technology firms. They actually create and innovate things. They're not litigators.
This brings us to the study, which was carried out by another firm, probably at the behest of IP2Innovate. The study speaks of PAE [sic] activity in Europe. This is a form of troll (the other form typically being NPE or something the trolls' lobby calls PIPCO if large enough to have gone public).
"The study speaks of PAE [sic] activity in Europe. This is a form of troll (the other form typically being NPE or something the trolls' lobby calls PIPCO if large enough to have gone public).""The reports shows there is growing activity of patent trolls in Europe," told us a source associated with the study, "with a 20% year-on-year jump over the last ten years. US-based patent trolls initiated 60% of all lawsuits targeting European companies. 25% of victims are European SMEs. Furthermore, here is the link to our latest press release."
I was about to cover this irrespective of their reach-out. From the press release:
European innovation is increasingly under attack from patent assertion entities (PAEs) and particularly from US-based PAEs who now file the majority of PAE suits in Europe. This is the conclusion evident from the information presented by the world’s leading authority in intellectual property case law data, DARTS-IP, to Europe’s lawmakers, regulators and business leaders this evening.
PAEs do not innovate and do not create and sell new products. Instead, they buy up patents and profit from asserting these patents against operating companies. In pursuing this model, PAEs can exploit certain aspects of Europe’s patent legal system to the detriment of Europe’s innovators and the European public.
DARTS-IP’s comprehensive study of the past ten years of available patent litigation data in Europe reveals increasing activity by PAEs, also commonly known as “non- practising entities” (NPEs) or “patent trolls.” There has been a 20% year-on-year jump in PAE litigation. US-based PAEs initiated most of those suits (60%) and targeted applications of information and communication technologies (ICT) (75%). As application of ICT is central to innovation and growth across many industries, the consequences of these attacks will be far-reaching. Most importantly, data shows that it is not just large companies who are affected — almost a quarter of the unique defendants are European SMEs. Germany is the preferred venue, with 20% of all German patent litigation having been brought by PAEs.
Non-practicing entity (NPE) litigation and enforcement in Europe has increased by an average almost 20 percent year-on-year since 2007, according to a new report from Darts-IP.
The report, NPE Litigation In The EU, which was released yesterday (19 February), claims to provide a “factual overview of NPE related litigation and patent enforcement activities across the EU”.
In 2017, 173 NPE-related actions were recorded by the report, compared to 56 in 2007.
The report noted a spike in the number of cases in 2014, with 146 NPE-related actions that year compared to 90 in the previous year.
"The response to it was a lot more fascinating than the study because it revealed allegiances and biases."If that's not bad enough, watch their tweets (based on the Google TLD, someone who works for IAM from Belgium tweeted these): "IP2Innovate press release here: ip2innovate.eu/wp-content/upl… @IPKat report here: ipkitten.blogspot.be/2018/02/has-eu… Judge for yourselves whether IP2Innovate is painting an entirely accurate picture here. @DartsIp [...] The last US IP import Europe needs is the distorted debate about patent litigation that deep pocket corporations with a vested interest in infringement have successfully created. https://twitter.com/iam_magazine/status/965643285816664069 … [...] If there are around 1,000 patent cases filed in Germany each year, 20% would be 200. The @DartsIp NPE report says there were 173 suits filed by NPEs in the whole of Europe last year. So how can the #IP2Innovate claim that NPEs file 20% of all cases in Germany be correct? https://twitter.com/BenGrzimek/status/965868605652000768 …"
"It's called extrapolation," I told them, "but carry on bashing people who speak out against patent trolls (sponsors of IAM)."
Remember that the IAM company (they call themselves IAM Media) was paid by the EPO's PR firm and by patent trolls to promote UPC and to muzzle the voice of real SMEs. IAM is basically funded to undermine news, not to spread news. This is why Battistelli loves them so much (he recently wrote an article for them and will soon be their keynote speaker).
Disturbing? To us it is.
"This lobby group now uses articles to smear a study showing trolls' rise in Europe."Here is what Benjamin Henrion wrote: "European innovation is increasingly under attack from patent assertion entities (PAEs) and particularly from US-based PAEs who now file the majority of PAE suits in Europe http://www.ip2innovate.eu/patent-abuse-damaging-digital-innovation-europe/ …"
Here is what they themselves wrote in Twitter: "We are pleased to be part of the launch of @DartsIp report today. Hope the new #data will demonstrate the need for greater #transparency and improvements to make Europe’s #patent legal system robust, balanced and flexible." [...] There is an average 20% annual increase in Non-practicing entity #litigation in Europe - David Marques, @DartsIp #patents #BalancedPatents [...] US-based #NPEs account for 60% of NPE-related #litigation in the #EU - David Marques of @DartsIp. #patents #BalancedPatents [...] Patrick Schmitz sharing @Telekom_group experience with abusive #patent practices by patent assertion entities. #BalancedPatents [...] Our Chairman Kevin Prey of @SAP concluding the event: hopefully it’s just the beginning of the discussion about how Europe can promote #innovation by making its #patent legal system fit for our modern era. #BalancedPatents [...] We hope that all the stakeholders represented at our event today - #EC, Member States authorities, industry, legal profession and judicial authorities will work together to implement safeguards against abusive #patent practices. #BalancedPatents"
"Remember that the IAM company (they call themselves IAM Media) was paid by the EPO's PR firm and by patent trolls to promote UPC and to muzzle the voice of real SMEs."But wait, there's more.
Lawyers of patent trolls saw it as their duty to confront this study in public (but without disclosure). We're talking about Bristows, who love posting anonymously these days (because they lack ethics and when they consciously lie they don't want to be held accountable for these lies).
Watch Bristows' own site. It's a shipwreck. Nobody reads it. It is run by incompetent people who hours ago posted a blank test page and neglected to remove it for several hours (in the process revealing weaknesses; it's like a toy site with physical path being publicly exposed as "D:\inetpub\sites\upcblue\latest-news\test\").
"Lawyers of patent trolls saw it as their duty to confront this study in public (but without disclosure)."This Windows site of Bristows, with its truly bizarre (infinite) RSS feeds, does not want to be seen as attacking IP2Innovate, so obviously, as usual, they'll just 'borrow' some other blogs (with an actual audience) like IP Kat and Kluwer Patent Blog.
For those in doubt about Bristows' motivations, the firm is working for trolls. It knows that. For those who wonder why Bristows staff spends endless efforts and money promoting UPC, check out its list of services. It's all about money and greed. Earlier today Bristows' Sophie Lawrance, Francion Brooks and Jonathan Ross did a puff piece for the notorious patent troll MPEG-LA. "The creation of the CRISPR patent pool was announced last spring by MPEG LA," they wrote. It now uses CRISPR patents (which are mostly invalid) to bully everyone who 'dares' study genetics. In their own words (just hours ago):
The creation of the CRISPR patent pool was announced last spring by MPEG LA, an organisation well-known for creating patent pools for consumer electronics. Thus far, only the Broad Institute has publically revealed that it has submitted patents for evaluation.
"And the last time the same sort of study/press release came out (from IP2Innovate) IAM also came out with an attack."Going back to Bristows, watch what IP Kat posted in Twitter and in its blog. IP Kat did not disclosure that the writer is from Bristows. She's always promoting software patents, pushing the pro-UPC card, as she/IP Kat did last year (almost exactly the same, in response to IP2Innovate).
And the last time the same sort of study/press release came out (from IP2Innovate) IAM also came out with an attack. Yes, IAM did the same thing back then. At least they're consistent. Reading between the lines, Bristows -- like IAM -- alleges that the data is wrong:
However, the data is imperfect. This is only data held by Darts-IP and in many countries information about issued cases which settle early is impossible to maintain. Data and scrutiny of data is important. The lack of fulsome data from EU Member States' courts is important not just for this study but for analysis of all substantive and procedural IP subsistence, validity, protection and enforcement. As it is in the business of sharing IP decisions from across the world, the IPKat has been banging this drum for near 15 years now - the EU must make it a priority to ensure that all Member States court information and decisions relating to IP are made easily accessible by the public (subject to confidentiality restrictions of course). It is noted that this issue was/is being looked at by the Commission as part of their IP Enforcement consultation.
"Reading between the lines, Bristows -- like IAM -- alleges that the data is wrong..."Check out the comments, which are generally better than the posts (shameless lobbing and marketing) at IP Kat, especially after the founder of the blog left. "All of these factors point to the UPC becoming a paradise for NPE litigants," the following comment said. "Is this really what we want for Europe?"
To quote the whole comment:
This certainly lends weight to the concerns voiced (repeatedly) about possible, negative impacts of the UPC.
It is no surprise that bifurcation in Germany attracts NPE litigants, and that the costs of litigation in the UK (as well as the absence of bifurcation) is off-putting for all but the most confident / determined of NPEs. However, the confirmation that these factors do indeed influence the behaviours of litigants ought to prompt some serious consideration of what behaviours we can expect the UPC to induce in NPE litigants.
My own view is that there are a number of important factors that will almost certainly influence behaviour. These include: the (relatively) low cost of bringing infringement cases at the UPC; the absurdly high cost of raising a defence of invalidity at the UPC; the opportunities for "forum-shopping", particularly the selection of fora that are inconvenient for defendants; and the opportunities for "gaming" the system with regard to withdrawal of opt-outs (and consequent changes to the law(s) of infringement that will be applied by the court).
All of these factors point to the UPC becoming a paradise for NPE litigants. Is this really what we want for Europe?
"The author continues to nitpick and downplay the study, doing little but pretending it boils down to drama and false claims..."And the response: "Sure, but consider this. If someone is living on that land, and then someone moves in next door and plays loud music every evening (and thereby disrupting the landowner's quiet enjoyment of the property next door), then the damage being caused is much greater here than the alternative where no one is living on the land."
The following comment notes the correlation with the EPO's actions. "With the EPO seemingly granting more and more (clearly) invalid patents," it said, "and with the current UPC set-up being such a favourable forum for NPE litigants..."
Here is the full comment:
Drawing an analogy with land ownership is not appropriate.
New plots of land cannot be created "at will" by those seeking land. And they most certainly not be created within an existing plot that has a different owner.
Another point is that, for land, there is no official authority that decides whether or not title to the land will be granted, and how big the plot will be.
The latter topic reminds me that there is yet another factor that could drive "antisocial" behaviour in Europe from NPE litigants. That is, if the granting authority does not do its job properly (ie grant new titles inappropriately) then this will encourage abusive litigation based upon invalid rights.
Such abusive litigation has many characteristics in common with protection rackets run by gangsters: "That's a nice market for your product that you've got going there. It would be a real shame if something nasty happened to it, like a court injunction."
With high costs for launching a defence and no absolute guarantee of a high-quality (ie correct) court decision, how many of those threatened with such abusive litigation do you think would be inclined to pay the litigants to make the issue go away?
It is at least a little reassuring to see that "big" companies have so far been the main targets of NPE litigation in Europe, as they should at least have the option of fighting back (hard) against any "gangsters". However, if pan-European litigation is made that much cheaper, and the costs for raising an invalidity defence are made that much more expensive, then it is a no-brainer that NPE litigants will inevitably turn their attention to less lucrative but far "softer" targets ... such as SMEs.
With the EPO seemingly granting more and more (clearly) invalid patents, and with the current UPC set-up being such a favourable forum for NPE litigants, it is clear what will be in store for us if and when the UPC as currently envisaged ever sees the light of day. I repeat: is this really what we want for Europe?
"That Google News syndicates IAM as though it's a source of news says a lot about Google itself."We think it's important to remind our readers what Bristows and IAM stand for. They're the worst in Europe when it comes to coverage regarding patent matters because they're deeply corrupted by money. They pretend to be telling news, but they knowingly spread falsehoods, such as patently 'fake news' about the UPC. That Google News syndicates IAM as though it's a source of news says a lot about Google itself. ⬆