Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Author Topic: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?  (Read 979 times)

Tobmapsatonmi

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 997
    • View Profile
Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« on: 06-14-18 at 05:53 pm »

This declaration was filed into the opposition/appeal file of EP2771468 owned by MIT/Harvard/Broad Institute.  Itís obviously a fake (note itís signed tomorrow and was forged from a real declaration filed 15 June 2016; the cover letter is similarly forged), but still funny in a sad way. 

https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=E1Z6TPY23490936&number=EP13818570&lng=en&npl=true

But it makes you wonder who would go to such lengths to make fun of the guy?

This fileís also interesting because the patentees are getting some big hitters to help and have obtained supporting declarations from John Doll (former US Commissioner for Patents), Paul Michel (former CJ of the US CAFC) and one Leonard, Lord Hoffmann, former Lord of Appeal and current VAP at Oxford teaching patent law.

Must be nice as a patentee to Have Friends In High Places.


Logged

Robert K S

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1916
    • View Profile
Re: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« Reply #1 on: 06-14-18 at 06:20 pm »

The hilarious content of the forgery aside, I mean, isn't it kind of a big deal, in a bad way, to file forgeries in official proceedings?  What's going on?  Who filed it and what will happen to the filer if caught?
Logged
This post is made in the context of professional discussion of general patent law issues and nothing contained herein may be construed as legal advice.

MYK

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4177
    • View Profile
Re: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« Reply #2 on: 06-15-18 at 05:39 am »

This declaration was filed into the opposition/appeal file of EP2771468 owned by MIT/Harvard/Broad Institute.  Itís obviously a fake (note itís signed tomorrow and was forged from a real declaration filed 15 June 2016; the cover letter is similarly forged), but still funny in a sad way. 

https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=E1Z6TPY23490936&number=EP13818570&lng=en&npl=true
Did you save it? Your above link comes up as "There is no PDF document" now.

Quote
An unexpected error occurred.

 The page you tried to display caused an error.

The data you requested cannot be retrieved at present. This could be due either to one of the databases being currently out of service for technical reasons or to network problems.

Please try again later. If this error persists, contact us.

There is no PDF document with id=E1Z6TPY23490936 for the application number EP13818570

You could try one of these options:

    Return to the home page
Logged
"The life of a patent solicitor has always been a hard one."  Judge Giles Rich, Application of Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990.

Disclaimer: not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer.  Therefore, this does not constitute legal advice.

fewyearsin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 375
    • View Profile
Re: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« Reply #3 on: 06-15-18 at 11:03 am »

It was basically an "affidavit" purportedly by the attorney admitting how much of a douche he is.
Logged
This comment: does not represent the opinion or position of the PTO or any law firm; is not legal advice; and represents only a few quick thoughts from the author, not a well-researched treatise.  Seek out the advice of a competent patent attorney for answers to specific questions you may have.

Robert K S

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1916
    • View Profile
Logged
This post is made in the context of professional discussion of general patent law issues and nothing contained herein may be construed as legal advice.

MYK

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4177
    • View Profile
Re: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« Reply #5 on: 06-15-18 at 12:26 pm »

Thanks, Robert!  Having read it now:

It was basically an "affidavit" purportedly by the attorney admitting how much of a douche he is.

Wow.  Did he actually botch the application with the wrong inventor names, or is that someone taking a dig at him for happening to represent a competing group that lost out on the priority race?  Disgruntled client, or someone unrelated who hates him?
Logged
"The life of a patent solicitor has always been a hard one."  Judge Giles Rich, Application of Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990.

Disclaimer: not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer.  Therefore, this does not constitute legal advice.

Robert K S

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1916
    • View Profile
Re: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« Reply #6 on: 06-15-18 at 12:55 pm »

This is a rather infamous case at the moment, because European patent rights to CRISPR technology have been lost due to a paperwork issue, an issue of form rather than of substance.  Here are some overviews that discuss the details:

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2018/01/epo-revokes-crispr-patent-clear-cut.html

https://haseltinelake.de/media-centre/news/2018/january/crispr-patent-wars-%E2%80%93-correct-priority-is-still-a-priority
Logged
This post is made in the context of professional discussion of general patent law issues and nothing contained herein may be construed as legal advice.

MYK

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4177
    • View Profile
Re: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« Reply #7 on: 06-15-18 at 01:01 pm »

Holy carp.  Thanks, Robert, I haven't seen any of this before.  I need to start paying attention to the blogosphere again.
Logged
"The life of a patent solicitor has always been a hard one."  Judge Giles Rich, Application of Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990.

Disclaimer: not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer.  Therefore, this does not constitute legal advice.

Robert K S

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1916
    • View Profile
Re: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« Reply #8 on: 06-15-18 at 03:32 pm »

If it's any consolation I don't think either of the two major blogs (PatentlyO or IPWatchdog) have covered this case.  I learned about it from a CLE presentation given in April by a European attorney from Mathys & Squire, LLP in London.  The presenter might have even been this guy, who apparently represented the patent opponent in oral proceedings in January, or a colleague of his.

http://www.mathys-squire.com/directory/person/james-wilding
« Last Edit: 06-15-18 at 03:42 pm by Robert K S »
Logged
This post is made in the context of professional discussion of general patent law issues and nothing contained herein may be construed as legal advice.

ConfusedIP

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« Reply #9 on: 06-15-18 at 07:44 pm »

Not sure how it works in EU, but these electronic submissions can't be truly anonymous, right?  There must a record of whoever made this submission? IP address at least?  Anyone know?

This is just too crazy... If this happened in US and someone's counsel filed a forged dec like that (even in jest), I imagine you could raise all kinds of hell.  Sanctions, complaints to the bar, I dunno... 
Logged

two banks of four

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Re: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« Reply #10 on: 06-15-18 at 09:37 pm »

Not sure how it works in EU, but these electronic submissions can't be truly anonymous, right?  There must a record of whoever made this submission? IP address at least?  Anyone know?

This is just too crazy... If this happened in US and someone's counsel filed a forged dec like that (even in jest), I imagine you could raise all kinds of hell.  Sanctions, complaints to the bar, I dunno...

whoever submitted it probably used a proxy/vpn located in a jurisdiction outside the EU, preferably a country without a lot of cooperation with the EU.  Good luck to whomever investigating obtaining the VPN log files.  Then again, some VPN doesn't keep logs at all, so all but impossible to trace.

Of course, this assumes the person to have half a brain and hide his/her tracks.
Logged

Tobmapsatonmi

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 997
    • View Profile
Re: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« Reply #11 on: 06-16-18 at 11:28 am »

The cover letter appeared to me to have a physical date stamp.  I assumed they mailed it in and were hoping for it to arrive on Friday (15th) instead of Wednesday.
Logged

snapshot

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« Reply #12 on: 06-16-18 at 10:39 pm »

If it's any consolation I don't think either of the two major blogs (PatentlyO or IPWatchdog) have covered this case.  I learned about it from a CLE presentation given in April by a European attorney from Mathys & Squire, LLP in London.  The presenter might have even been this guy, who apparently represented the patent opponent in oral proceedings in January, or a colleague of his.

http://www.mathys-squire.com/directory/person/james-wilding

I'm a little surprised this never popped up on PatentlyO, but given what IPWatchdog is posting about these days, are you really surprised they wouldn't pick up on it?  It doesn't involve bashing PTAB, how much Google is screwing with the US Patent system, or how bad individual inventors have it these days, so it's not of much use to Gene and his bunch.
Logged

Robert K S

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1916
    • View Profile
Re: Good, clean fun vs. defamation ?
« Reply #13 on: 06-17-18 at 05:56 pm »

No, you're right.
Logged
This post is made in the context of professional discussion of general patent law issues and nothing contained herein may be construed as legal advice.
 



Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.085 seconds with 20 queries.