tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7003918101802685017..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: EPO prioritises newest (and oldest) filesVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8449251293912163442014-07-24T18:25:33.015+01:002014-07-24T18:25:33.015+01:00If searches are a priority why don't examiners...If searches are a priority why don't examiners spend a bit of time doing them properly? Applicants can re-file old applications these days and they wouldn't be picked up by the EPO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78700601390193292782014-07-24T13:34:50.488+01:002014-07-24T13:34:50.488+01:00Received from an anonymous commenter who had a dif...Received from an anonymous commenter who had a difficulty in getting the comment posted<br />-------<br /><br />The comment posted on Saturday, 5 July 2014 by Wabora gets to the heart of it:<br /><br />"The only voice EPO is listening to is the one of its president who needs more and more grants for satisfying the Council. So are all tools implemented for this one and unique goal."<br /><br />EPO staff is getting used to jargon meaning the opposite of what is said. “Social Democracy” is neither social nor democratic and “Strike Rules” have been drafted to make strikes almost impossible. “Early Certainty from Search” is another one of that order.<br /><br />A search by an individual examiner provides a good indication, whereas only the joint efforts of the Examining Division manage to approach the legal certainty which European Patent Convention wants to ensure. The Division's decision can either be a grant or a refusal, based on intense interaction during the examination phase with the applicant for revising the set of claims.<br /><br />Searches are already a top priority, together with oppositions, applications with third party observations or requests for accelerated examination. What effects can the applicants expect from “Early Certainty from Search”? <br /><br />A new focus on applications where examination already started means reaping the benefits from cases in an advanced state, as they are closer to a final decision. This productivity increase comes at the expense of the examination for the majority of the other cases. It will not start, less investment in a sustainable examination process is made. The increase in the number of grants which is currently driven at for beefing up the productivity statistics will be offset by a sharp drop in a couple of years. The card house will collapse after Mr Battistelli will be gone. <br /><br />The applicants will still be there, paying annual renewal fees and patiently waiting for a decision. And the examiners, who have to cope with the aftermath of the short-termist stop-and-go mentality.David Brophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03756548361266218916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57240666967053669012014-07-06T22:30:00.783+01:002014-07-06T22:30:00.783+01:00Under the "Early Certainty from Search" ...<i>Under the "Early Certainty from Search" scheme, the EPO will aim to issue all search reports and written opinions on patentability within six months of filing; prioritise completing already started examination files over beginning new files; and expedite grants after a positive search opinion has been issued. [The IPKat wonders how prioritising old files over new ones is compatible with the aim of issuing all written opinions within six months of filing. Surely the latter goal must involve prioritising those new filings over older ones?]</i><br /><br />I think you should read "beginning new files" as "starting the examination for a file after a request for examination has been received". Effectively the start of examination will be delayed (the written opinion issued together with the search report not counting as the start of examination).<br /><br />One could wonder why there is now still a need to respond to the written opinion... Chances are the attorney writing this reply will not live to see the first examination report.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-92198777858340238602014-07-06T20:19:03.529+01:002014-07-06T20:19:03.529+01:00It is easy to tell which EPO-granted patents are d...It is easy to tell which EPO-granted patents are dodgy.. They are suffixed with "B1".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65301633386374627922014-07-05T18:24:15.978+01:002014-07-05T18:24:15.978+01:00I agree with original anon that we should speed up...I agree with original anon that we should speed up the opposition process on dodgy granted patents. Do they have an ID code so we know which ones they are,<br />e.g EP 1,234,567 DY ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42561296737831919332014-07-05T13:59:36.917+01:002014-07-05T13:59:36.917+01:00@ Mrs B. Cookson
The only voice EPO is listening t...@ Mrs B. Cookson<br />The only voice EPO is listening to is the one of its president who needs more and more grants for satisfying the Council. So are all tools implemented for this one and unique goal.Waboranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55949956992740806072014-07-04T19:36:14.443+01:002014-07-04T19:36:14.443+01:00Somebody above observed that if everything gets gi...Somebody above observed that if everything gets given an URGENT sticker, nothing gets processed faster.<br /><br />Many Applicants are quite happy to preserve for most of the 20 year term a cloud of uncertainty about what is going to issue. and they pay handsomely for the privilege through the annuity payment ramp. The strict line on Art 123(2) means that observers of the pending application can nevertheless still dispense meaningful FTO opinions. The EPO should serve its customer base conscientiously.<br /><br />Hardly anybody asks for their case to be put on the PACE program of accelerated handling.<br /><br />The EPO should seriously accelerate those few cases where Applicant (or a business competitor) writes in to ask the EPO to accelerate the procedure.<br /><br />Won't that work? What's wrong with it?MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-49539878601651282612014-07-04T15:42:36.313+01:002014-07-04T15:42:36.313+01:00Although there is nothing more frustrating than wa...Although there is nothing more frustrating than watching a third party application sit for years in the EPO with unexamined super-broad claims and nothing you can do about it. I would have thought it best to prioritise the cases with no first exam report (not counting the response to the rule 161 letter) to at least let third parties get an idea who examination will go or to provide a mechanism to enable third parties to (anonymously) request that unexamined cases with no action for years and years get kick-started.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41188952936271298562014-07-04T14:36:47.276+01:002014-07-04T14:36:47.276+01:00This is good news. It shows the EPO is listening. ...This is good news. It shows the EPO is listening. How about we suggest an incentive. Renewal fees are waived if there has been no communication from the office in the period up to 1 month before the renewal date in cases where a response from the applicant was not due during that period.<br /><br />The appeal and opposition procedure also need to be accelerated. One distressing factor in the <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2149.html" rel="nofollow"> Baillie v Bromhead</a> debacle was the client being told that his patent would not clear the EPO for 9 more years which did make his business plan of enforcing it rather vulnerable. Still the Board of Appeal is independent and must take its own decisions to improve its image or undermine the Unitary Patent before it has begunFilemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22492171694042867852014-07-04T14:19:48.916+01:002014-07-04T14:19:48.916+01:00It seems that everything, except old cases that ha...It seems that everything, except old cases that have not received a first Examination Report, will be prioritised. Surely if you prioritise almost everything then nothing actually gets prioritised.<br /><br />I take from this Press Release that Applicants can expect longer delays on their old cases which have not had the first Examination Report. And as for the rest, nothing much will change. Huzzah!Rory Littonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84235469018269620642014-07-04T14:19:32.759+01:002014-07-04T14:19:32.759+01:00The EPO should have a proper service-level agreeme...The EPO should have a proper service-level agreement with reimbursements of the search, examination and renewal fees to applicants if the EPO fails to issue communications in a timely manner. <br /><br />I can't think of any other organisation that will happily relieve you of thousands of pounds but will then wait 5 years of more before starting to provide the purchased service.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37676641997802927532014-07-04T13:59:14.232+01:002014-07-04T13:59:14.232+01:00"...often despite pleas for attention from th..."...often despite pleas for attention from the applicant or attorney."<br /><br />Really? What sort of pleas?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-39092983845075695772014-07-04T13:50:16.601+01:002014-07-04T13:50:16.601+01:00Here's one that went 20 years without a decisi...<a href="https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP92301623&lng=en&tab=main" rel="nofollow">Here's one</a> that went 20 years without a decision. OPs were scheduled to be held several months <i>after</i> the expiry date, but the application was withdrawn shortly before they took place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1423577819673600042014-07-04T12:57:32.102+01:002014-07-04T12:57:32.102+01:00IMHO it is not so much the legal (un)certainty rel...IMHO it is not so much the legal (un)certainty relating to pending applications that needs to be addressed by the EPO, but rather the legal (un)certainty relating to opposition and appeal-from-opposition proceedings.<br /><br />If a dodgy patent is granted, any opposition and subsequent appeal proceedings need to be given a high priority by the EPO in order to reduce the period of time in which the proprietor can wield that dodgy patent around. <br /><br />By the time all of these proceedings have been concluded, the patent is likely to have expired anyway. This is not how it should be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com