● 06.21.18
●● Even Media of the Patent Microcosm Mentions the Decline in Quality of Patents at the EPO, Based on Its Very Own Stakeholders, While IAM Ignores the News
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The whole world basically accepts, based on patent examiners as well as those whom they interact with (patent agents), that patent quality at the EPO has sunk; but the EPO and IAM continue to vigorously deny that as it threatens some people’s nefarious agenda
THE quality of patents at the EPO goes in the opposite direction of those at the USPTO. This should be alarming to Europeans. It’s purely detrimental, a case of self-harm.
The sad thing is that the Chairman of the Administrative Council, Christoph Ernst, as well as António Campinos, will just carry on denying the problem. They’re simply not interested in facts; all they care about is their careers.
“It’s hard to ignore the fact that there’s still not a word from IAM, the EPO’s propaganda arm when it comes to dubious claims about quality…”Michael Loney from the patent maximalists’ media finally mentions “German firms’ EPO criticism”. He’s not alone. Kluwer Patent Blog, amplifier of Team UPC, broke this story, which has thus far attracted close to 50 comments.
It’s hard to ignore the fact that there’s still not a word from IAM, the EPO’s propaganda arm when it comes to dubious claims about quality (made in the form of several publications and even a public talk earlier this month, basically part of the anti-Section 101 lobby — the section that greatly limits patent scope in the US).
The EPO meanwhile lies yet again (see our response to it from yesterday), then receives press coverage (titled “Patent quality is up, according to EPO quality report”), albeit not without decent rebuttals in the text, e.g.:
>
>
Last week, four German law firms wrote a letter to the EPO, expressing their concern over recent developments, specifically the increasing work targets at the office.
>
The law firms Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald, and Vossius & Partner wrote that the incentive systems and internal directives appear to be directed at rewarding or even requesting “rapid termination of proceedings” and a “correspondingly higher productivity.
>
The letter said that while the firms appreciated the timeliness of examination, the “overreaching desire” for high productivity has lead to a range of problems, including issues of quality, scope of protection and inadequately assessed patents.
>
The EPO’s report mentioned that it had surpassed targets for establishing a comprehensive search and written opinion within six months from filing of the application with the EPO.
>
The firms noted a a recent petition from EPO examiners that expressed concern over the work targets and how they are affecting patent quality at the office.
>
SUEPO has meanwhile mentioned this letter directly, stating yesterday in its official site (after it had mentioned 5 articles about it): “Open letter from June 7, 2018 of four leading patent law firms in Germany – Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner, addressed to outgoing EPO president Benoit Battistelli, the chairman of the Administrative Council Christoph Ernst, principal director user support & quality management Niclas Morey and future EPO president Antonio Campinos (who will start in office on 1 July 2018).”
The original PDF version is available from SUEPO [PDF]; it’s basically text, not an image (like the above snapshot). Maybe somewhat of an historic item? IAM is on the wrong side of history and has been for years (after it had received payments from the EPO’s PR agency, FTI Consulting). █
Battistelli loves IAM:
From IAM’s event (UPC promotion):
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.