Credit: MSServices Global
IT IS becoming a busy week (and maybe weekend) down in Munich. SUEPO has had the final straw. We expect more to be said, maybe in light of the Kötter Group as well. Is the EPO about to become infested with thugs and goons from a firm founded inside the Third Reich? And apparently participated in the occupation and exploitation of the Netherlands?
"What we're seeing here is a gradual shift; the public does not view the EPO as an ally or a regional protector; rather, it's an exploitative foe that extracts money from the European public and gifts rogue entities, both contractors of the EPO (connected to EPO chiefs) and patent trolls."Earlier today we took note of the upcoming strike (assuming staff votes for it and it's approved), adding the above banner. As it turns out, it was made by a Dutch firm. "Sorry to bother you with this," one reader told us, "but it seems that you used the wrong source for the published picture ("Credit: Anonymous Twitter account“); however credits go to "MSServices Global" (a Dutch registered business). I've heard from a reliable source (from within the Union) that this company supports the union. Many thanks in advance for correcting it." (We've just corrected it)
What we're seeing here is a gradual shift; the public does not view the EPO as an ally or a regional protector; rather, it's an exploitative foe that extracts money from the European public and gifts rogue entities, both contractors of the EPO (connected to EPO chiefs) and patent trolls. The public is only going to suffer and Europe's reputation too is being harmed.
Earlier today we saw this press release in PRNewswire about "Formal Requirements of the European Patent System"; which system? The one foreseen and set up by the EPC or the sordid mess we have today, operating outside the rule of law and even defying the EPC itself?
"The EPO basically violates the law; the EPC, the courts, the European Parliament..."On May 16th this long blog post was published in Spanish (Spain opposes the UPC and is no friend of the EPO in general). Benjamin Henrion had a go at translations with [1, 2]: "Where the European Parliament did have a starring role was in the rejection of the Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions in 2005. [...] However, the EPO has continued to do what it has wished in this area [...] EPO has continued to do what it has wished in this area, so the rejection of the European Parliament did not result in the elimination of "software patents" and certainly leads to the EU's inhibition in patents, leaving initiative to the EPO..."
The EPO basically violates the law; the EPC, the courts, the European Parliament...
"Putting aside illegal software patents, how about patents on life and nature?"No sane judge would ever entrust or assign anything legally-sensitive to the EPO, which also violates the privacy of stakeholders (underreported issue that corporate media did not bother covering, as usual).
Putting aside illegal software patents, how about patents on life and nature? CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP's Robert Stephen has just published this article about Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent loss. Will the EPO's examiners manage to defy management and patent maximalists who infest the management level? Then deny patents on life itself? (Patents in violation of EPC)
To quote Robert Stephen:
The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard owns several key patents related to the CRISPR technology. One such patent is EP2771468 (“EP ‘468”), which relates to a fundamental aspect of the CRISPR technology in eukaryotic cells. EP’468 was granted in February 2015 and opposed by nine opponents. Following an oral hearing in January 2018 the Opposition Division of the EPO revoked the patent due to lack of novelty over two pieces of intervening art, i.e. documents published after the earliest priority date. These two documents became part of the state of the art after it was decided that the application was not entitled to its earliest two priority dates.
The Broad Institute has appealed the Opposition Division’s decision. Their grounds of appeal rely on attacking the EPO’s current approach to determination of priority entitlement.
The EPO applies an “all applicants” test for priority. The right to claim priority belongs simultaneously and jointly to applicants when there is more than one. The right to claim priority to the two earliest applications belonged simultaneously and jointly to Mr Zhang, Mr Cong, Ms Habib, and Mr Marraffini, yet neither Mr Marraffini nor his successor in title (Rockefeller University) were named as applicants on the PCT, and neither had assigned his right to claim priority to any of the named applicants. The PCT could not, therefore, validly claim priority to the two earliest applications, and thus EP ‘468 was deemed to have a priority date of 30 January 2013.
"They're dressing up corpses or embalming dead bodies."What do the bullies/litigators think of the UPC? Well, they live in another universe. Team UPC's Vanessa Rieu (who describes herself as "experienced litigator specialised in all areas of intellectual property" [sic]) makes it pretty obvious that Bristows were the ones writing this latest UPC propaganda in Kluwer Patent Blog (albeit anonymously). Just compare the texts. One says: "The latest development shows preparations are going on despite the uncertainty about the future of the UP system due to the German constitutional complaint which was filed against the UPCA in 2017."
That's similar to their obsession over/with robes. They're dressing up corpses or embalming dead bodies. In their official blog they said: "The building that will, at least initially, host the UPC is located on the Quai de la Mégisserie, overlooking the Ile de la Cité, and it is reported that a few years after the Court opens (and there are more cases) the Court may move to the Palais de Justice on the Ile de la Cité."
"Bristows continues to discredit itself each time it tries to reattach these clipped wings to their 'fallen angel'."Haha, they said something similar about venues in the UK up until Brexit. "The Paris offices of the future Unified Patent Court have been disclosed," writes the anonymous person in Kluwer. Guess who...
Bristows continues to discredit itself each time it tries to reattach these clipped wings to their 'fallen angel'. They must be in a lot of pain. Battistelli is meanwhile 'hiding' in CEIPI, presumably praying for a UPC (which he's hoping to head while António Campinos brings him back to the Office as a judge!). ⬆
