Source: http://techrights.org/2019/04/04/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 07:45:28+00:00

Document:
The subject is important enough that, even though we refuse to cover pertinent US patent cases, we wrote about it yesterday. The same thing is going to happen in Europe. To a certain degree, it is already happening. We wrote about it last week and the week before that after the UK Supreme Court had dealt with such a matter (after they had thrown out yet another European Patent). At Lexology, Gowling WLG’s Gordon Harris and Paul Inman wrote about the UK Supreme Court in relation to the EPO as recently as yesterday (“The UK Supreme Court review of the law of obviousness”), so people aren’t forgetting just yet. There’s a growing sense of tension between courts/judges and the EPO — similar to what we see in the Federal Circuit and SCOTUS (US).
Visual technology market leader RealD Inc. announced today that the European Patent Office’s (EPO) Opposition Division has upheld the validity of another one of the Company’s key patents for light-doubling 3D cinema projection systems. As a result, RealD’s European patent that covers triple-beam 3D cinema projection systems (EP2846180) remains in full force.
RealD announced on December 18, 2017 the filing of a complaint with the District Court in Düsseldorf, Germany, alleging that Volfoni SAS, Volfoni GmbH and CinemaNext Deutschland Gmbh have infringed three of RealD’s European patents by the importation, sale, or offer for sale of the Volfoni SmartCrystal Diamond cinema systems in Germany. In the complaint, RealD requested an injunction banning the sale of the infringing devices and sought financial damages.
Like what, patents on genetics? Vegetables? Seeds? Pigs?
The EPO is granting patents on life. Patents on nature, too. When do we get to see patents on religions and superstition too? Is “God” patented yet? All the “Gods”?
Great! European Patents on genetics! Yet again.
The only legally “clean” way for this to be resolved is for the Biotech Directive 98/44/EC to be amended – at that point the AC could use Art 33(1)(b) EPC to amend Art 53(b) EPC to bring it into line with the amended Biotech Directive. That does, however, requires unanimity of all EPC contracting states.
This is a political issue, and the big question is: why it is happening this way? If *all* EPC contracting states (therefore also implying all EU member states) wanted the EPC to be amended then it would be relatively simple and easy to make the necessary changes to the Biotech Directive and the EPC.
“in our view, there are no valid grounds for disputing the Board of Appeal’s conclusion that the above-mentioned EC Notice (i.e. the Notice upon which Rule 28(2) EPC was based) has no legal authority under the EPC”.
Campinos Presidency, 9 months and no delivery. Published Tuesday by SUEPO, the staff union of the European Patent Office (EPO).
WE HAVE SEEN the effect of it at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); decades of bad patent grants (e.g. software patents that had been granted) were dropping like flies at the Federal Circuit and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (through inter partes reviews (IPRs), i.e. without even a lawsuit necessarily being filed). It’s not just 35 U.S.C. § 101 but also § 102 and § 103 that came into play (we have seen some new examples this morning, but we don’t wish to delve into finer details this year).
“We wish to gently remind all kind examiners around the world that buzzwords do not magically render algorithms patent-eligible.”The same thing is nowadays happening at the EPO, as António Campinos keeps promoting software patents in Europe (under the guise of “AI” and similar buzzwords). What gives? Where does it end?
It is safe to say that Artificial intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) are hot topics and, as with any rapidly growing technological area on the industry side, there is also a rapidly growing number of patent applications being filed.
In view of this, the European Patent Office (EPO) issued new guidance for examination for AI and ML patent applications in November 2018. Meanwhile, in January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) also issued revised guidance directed to what constitutes patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Although the USPTO’s revised guidance is more generally directed to software applications, at least one of the accompanying hypothetical examples (Example 39) is directed to the AI and ML space.
Those are, admittedly (even the patent maximalists admit this), software patents. It’s all about algorithms. Those are the patents which trolls love the most, for various tactical reasons. Most lawsuits in the US still come from patent trolls that develop nothing at all and never did anything at all (maybe bought a bunch of patents in an auction). Some days 90% and above (or 100%) of US patent lawsuits come from these trolls and earlier this week it was ‘merely’ a majority.

References: Art 33
 Art 53
 § 101
 § 102
 § 103
 §101