Economies of monopolies, supported by 'research' funded by the European Patent Office (EPO)

The EPO considers its granting authority to be a blank cheque

Summary: The EPO is once again suppressing oppositions and/or appeals because these stand in the way of so-called 'production' (rubber-stamping monopolies without outside scrutiny)

AS SOON as the week began the EPO again bragged about scholars who were paid by the EPO to produce propaganda -- something which I can't quite recall the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ever doing with its large budget. It's just totally inappropriate, but good luck explaining scientific integrity and ethics to António Campinos and his appointer (neither has scientific background, yet they're happy to promote software patents in Europe and in the US, even in spite of 35 U.S.C. § 101). The EPO has become a corrupting force not only in Europe but in the entire world. As we put it months ago, "Patent Maximalists, Orbiting the European Patent Office, Work to ‘Globalise’ a System of Monopolies on Everything" (including code).

"Maybe they can instead bribe some more scholars, provided they guarantee an outcome that refutes even the EPO's own assessments (patent quality rapidly decreasing)."The collapse of patent quality at the EPO is hardly debatable; even the EPO's internal assessments have shown this (high-margin declines) and "The EPO’s ‘Solution’ to Being Caught Granting Illegal Patents is to Punish Those Who Show That" (gagging truth itself, suppressing facts).

Maybe they can instead bribe some more scholars, provided they guarantee an outcome that refutes even the EPO's own assessments (patent quality rapidly decreasing).

Published yesterday (3 February 2020) by Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP in Mondaq was "EPO Announces Changes To Official Fees From 1st April 2020, With A Substantial Increase In Appeal Fee For Most Appellants" ("appeal fee rises by about 20% from €2255 to €2705 for most appellants and corporate clients." [sic])

This ought to help EPO management hide the collapse in patent quality. Making appeals more expensive again? This was done before and here they go again:

The Administrative Council of the EPO has recently announced a number of amendments to the Rules relating to fees (RFees) which set the fees that are due to the European Patent Office (see CA/D 12/19, soon to be published in the The Official Journal of the EPO).

These changes are due to come into effect from 1st April 2020.

[...]

The fee for appeal is the only fee to increase substantially with respect to the previous fees. After 1st April 2020, the appeal fee rises by about 20% from €2255 to €2705 for most appellants and corporate clients. However, this fee for appeal only applies for entities other than (a) small and medium-sized enterprises, (b) natural persons; and (c) non-profit organisations, universities or public research organisations. These entities are still are entitled to a reduced fee; the amount of which has only increased by about 5% (see Table below).

In contrast, fees required by the Office with respect to international applications remain largely unchanged. Search fees in respect of an international search and supplementary international search keep the current fee of €1775, while the fee for the preliminary examination of an international application remains at €1830.

CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP's Jane Evenson and Frances Denney have meanwhile written a so-called 'guide' on "Priority Entitlement at the EPO", then promoted that along with statements such as "Article 87 EPC is based on Article 4A of the Paris Convention" (both are violated by today's EPO).

Another newly-promoted piece spoke of "priority entitlement" (the original PDF can be surveyed here) in the wake of the famous CRISPR patent invalidation (or affirmation of the opposition). REGIMBEAU's Nicolas Bouquin and Lucile Vernoux are few among many that brought up the subject lately. Just how many more oppositions would be filed if it wasn't so expensive?

"Hopefully some EPO examiners will once again speak up about it, perhaps through staff representatives (SUEPO has been rather quiet since the vote for a strike, so it feels like union-busting was effective and media narrative is shaped entirely by EPO management and law firms)."Regarding the CRISPR patent invalidation, we've seen lots more late articles like these (some we've decided to just 'shelve' in Daily Links without further remarks) and we've meanwhile found Bristows' patent extremists in IP Kat pushing for computer-generated parents (that would doom the legitimacy of the patent system as a whole). We've been seeing additional articles on this matter, all composed by law firms rather than journalists, and wound up 'shelving' these in Daily Links.

It's worth noting that just about no law firm is complaining about patent quality (anymore). That's like a weapons manufacturers bemoaning "too much demand" or "too many wars..."

Hopefully some EPO examiners will once again speak up about it, perhaps through staff representatives (SUEPO has been rather quiet since the vote for a strike, so it feels like union-busting was effective and media narrative is shaped entirely by EPO management and law firms). ⬆