Summary: The so-called 'Haar case' ends as expected; the EPO won't even deal with the question of legality, instead throwing it aside as "inadmissible" while bombarding the media with puff pieces about being "ethical", "social" and now "green"

THE European Patent Office (EPO) has had plenty to distract from recently, notably the way it was appointing judges for an outcome which can cover up EPO abuses (the Haar case or the Haar question). What good are courts that are controlled by the Office and afraid from the Campinos/Battistelli cabal? The USPTO has similar issues in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which is being abused by the Director of the Office. In Europe this has led to cementing of software patents in defiance of the EPC.

The EPO has not said a word about the case for months. Earlier today it announced that "EPO publishes latest Environmental Report 2018" (warning: epo.org link); The latest bout of greenwashing from a crooked organisation? Last week it pretended it was about "ethics" and "social"? Both on the same date the Haar case began. How much EPO money is being thrown at this propaganda? Accompanied by artwork, today the EPO tweeted: "The EPO’s 2018 Environmental Report is out! For insights into the EPO’s environmental impact and its commitment to achieving new levels of sustainability, take a look here..."

But this isn't really the news; the real news is that the EPO continues to violate the most fundamental law, the EPC, after judges in the Haar case sort of threw out the case (as we expected). An article by J A Kemp explained:

The oral proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal concluded on 16 July 2019, and at the end of the oral proceedings the Enlarged Board announced its final decision. Specifically, the Enlarged Board rejected the first referred question as inadmissible, while the second and third referred questions were reformulated and answered as follows (our English translation, with the language in the EPO Communication having been provided only in German)... [...] The reasoning of the Enlarged Board of Appeal is not yet available. This will be provided in due course in the written decision. However, the Enlarged Board may have felt it appropriate to announce its final decision immediately (which does not normally happen), in order to allay any concern there may have been about the possibility of a sudden need for the Boards of Appeal to move back to central Munich. Thus, for the time being at least, it seems the Boards of Appeal will be staying put in Haar.

So basically there's no ruling; they refuse to even examine the question. How convenient...

What we now know for sure is that justice cannot exist and may never prevail inside the EPO. These people who have judge-level jobs are basically like butlers of Campinos; they're there to serve patent maximalism or lose their job (appointment ending without renewal). This is a serious crisis. It means that many invalid patents will persist without challenge, irrespective of underlying laws. The Science Board's Samantha Black wrote about patents on life this week; "The CRISPR fight continues after nearly a decade," states the headline and it's about the elaborate ploy to patent life itself with CRISPR patents (even charge patent tax when an animal or organism merely reproduces!) and the role of the EPO in it. It's an unbelievable injustice and it's against the law. To quote: "Patents Around the Globe The US Patent and Trademark Office has issued more than 80 patents with claims to CRISPR and/or Cas9 to more than 300 inventors from nearly 60 applicant organizations. The European Patent Office (EPO) has issued more than 20 such patents to approximately 30 inventors from about ten applicant institutions. In addition, there are more than 1,500 applications filed (but not yet granted) around the world."

And Campinos referred/passed that question to the same court as above -- the same one that will assess software patents (a subject we'll cover separately in the next post).

This whole thing is truly troubling. We have a patent-granting authority which breaks its own rules and terrorises the people who can put an end to it. It's all rigged and nobody can stop it. Here's an example of the kind of patents being granted.

In today's EPO patent quality is a disaster, necessitating oppositions (which can be expensive). Bad patent quality has a high if not mortal cost (to people and to companies) and following up on its report from a few days ago Motley Fool is again mentioning Pacific Biosciences: (days after it wrote about this company's collapse)

It recently had its second patent revoked by the European Patent Office (EPO), which took issue with the company's claims to "single molecule sequencing" -- the core claim of its platform. The company's long-read approach is also under pressure from United Kingdom-based startup Oxford Nanopore, which was handed a decisive victory by the EPO's decision. The startup is playing a not-so-subtle role in recent events, and proving to be a thorn in the side of Illumina, too.

Does "IP" stand for invalid patents? Is that what the EPO means when it uses the term "IP" (to refer to patents, which is misleading)? Also this week we've taken note of MinterEllison's Michael Christie on the EPO fast-tracking justice and injustice by rushing already-overburdened examiners. It's like the EPO goes out of its way to impede actual patent examination. If it could, it would just grant a patent for every application sent, with little or no (minimal) scrutiny. Its latest 'efficiency' programme does exactly that. ⬆