This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2018/01/13/the-annotated-european-patent-convention/.
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The Annotated European Patent Convention
“The 25th edition,” says the reference page, “updated up until 15 November 2017, was published on 18 December 2017.”
Summary: With quality of European Patents (EPs) and of EPO staff in rapid decline if not a freefall, we look back at the best-selling book from Visser, who warned that the Council/Organisation and the Office would “have other priorities than the role of law” if the Boards don’t enjoy true independence (which they no longer do)
EARLIER today we found this British law firm promoting the EPO for assessment of patent validity; but people say that the EPO has become a lot worse/inferior even to the Spanish patent office (which isn’t particularly renowned) and leaks have already shown that the EPO is not reliable for this kind of service because quantity is the mantra under Battistelli.
=> ↺ promoting | ↺ EPO | not reliable for this kind of service
This has got to be a joke, but here is what they say:
In Europe, opposition at the EPO can be a cost-effective, time-efficient way to centrally challenge a granted European patent. There is a time limit for filing an opposition at the EPO, and if you miss that then each national patent derived from the European patent must instead be attacked individually according to national law. This can result in increased cost, time and effort compared to opposing the patent centrally at the EPO. Importantly, there is no estoppel in European National Courts based on opposition at the EPO.
What good is an assessment of patent validity that isn’t a good assessment? Mr. Herrnst can deny to himself (and in private meetings) that Battistelli destroyed patent quality, but the reality is hard to hide (Battistelli last lied about it some days ago as he heavily depends on that lie).
“So either Visser foresaw Battistelli or someone added it to the latest edition.”With Herrnst and Battistelli basically protecting each other (Herrnst is just another Kongstad so far), what chance is there for the Boards to become independent and actually add much-needed staff that can work independently and not punished/bullied like Patrick Corcoran?
Rule 12b in the above book says “it should be noted that the administrating council and the President of the EPO have decisive roles in a committee that monitors the independence of the Boards whereas both have shown on several occasions to have other priorities than the role of law…”
So either Visser foresaw Battistelli or someone added it to the latest edition. Either way, the EPC is now officially in crisis. Visser’s latest article (co-authored) is titled “A hope to succeed – are the EPO Guidelines misleading?” █
=> ↺ “A hope to succeed – are the EPO Guidelines misleading?”
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
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).