-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to gemini.techrights.org:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini;lang=en-GB
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The sorts of people whom Battistelli’s EPO grants awards to are sometimes literal frauds and sometimes people who, according to domain experts, did not even deserve the patent they got a prize for
THE EPO is a highly abusive organisation. We’d go further and say corrupt, albeit that typically leads the EPO to trying to SLAPP us. We have never ever seen anything remotely like it at the USPTO, which is reasonably professional. We focus on patent scope there (this has improved in recent years). The USPTO maintains neutrality on patents; no rankings or “awards” (a form of special endorsement)…
EPO insiders can’t stop talking about next month’s event, which will be the passage of EPO budget to Saint-Germain-en-Laye.
As one comment put it a couple of days ago: “Hadn’t you noticed that the EPO is currently under the – I am almost tempted to add “totalitarian” – political control of the deputy mayor of Saint-Germain-en-Laye?”
Does nobody in the mainstream media see the problem with that? It’s not only against the rules (for public servants in international institutions); putting aside the passage of EPO money to Saint-Germain-en-Laye…
“Does nobody in the mainstream media see the problem with that? It’s not only against the rules (for public servants in international institutions); putting aside the passage of EPO money to Saint-Germain-en-Laye…”The remark is in the fifth comment by the way, responding to “MaxDrei” (mentioned/quoted here in relation to its context).
But this post is not about the scandal of Battistelli’s ‘alleged’ misuse of budget or even the award to a literal fraud (whom the EPO now tries to distance itself from — very, very belatedly). This post relates to our first part, which spoke about Morocco, a former French colony which Battistelli seems to be oftentimes leveraging for political agenda. This post is about award for EP1879655B1 (“Advanced [sic] Scientific [sic] Developments” [sic] led by Mr. Remmal).
How much of an invention was it really? Someone who is familiar with this scientific domain looked more closely at it. I should disclose that it’s well outside my field of specialty, so I mostly rely on others for this assessment, which was carried out anonymously.
“How much of an invention was it really?”“It is about the mentioned patent granted to Remmal,” told us a source, “who got the EPO inventor award last year.
“In my opinion there was a lot ado about nothing in the Gazette.”
There was an article about it the Gazette, in French even! [Page 1, Page 2]
“In the present case I am not questioning the probity of Mr. Remmal,” our source said, “but he is definitely NOT the genius that the EPO makes out of him.
“Clinical phytotherapy is a research field since the early 70s. Synergistic effects were investigated with antibiotics alone, and are the basis of aromatherapy. Yet the combination of essential oils and antibiotics and corresponding synergistic effects have been disclosed in 2003 already. See this publication: Bacterial resistance modifying agents from Lycopus europaeus.”
From the Abstract: “As part of an ongoing project to identify plant natural products which modulate bacterial multidrug resistance (MDR), bioassay-guided isolation of an extract of Lycopus europaeus yielded two new isopimarane diterpenes, namely methyl-1alpha-acetoxy-7alpha 14alpha-dihydroxy-8,15-isopimaradien-18-oate (1) and methyl-1alpha,14alpha-diacetoxy-7alpha-hydroxy-8,15-isopimaradien-18-oate (2). The structures were established by spectroscopic methods. These compounds and several known diterpenes were tested for in vitro antibacterial and resistance modifying activity against strains of Staphylococcus aureus possessing the Tet(K), Msr(A), and Nor(A) multidrug resistance efflux mechanisms. At 512 microg/ml none of the compounds displayed any antibacterial activity but individually in combination with tetracycline and erythromycin, a two-fold potentiation of the activities of these antibiotics was observed against two strains of S. aureus that were highly resistant to these agents due to the presence of the multidrug efflux mechanisms Tet(K) (tetracycline resistance) and Msr(A) (macrolide resistance).”
Our source continued to stress “that predates the priority date. (2005). Note that this document wasn’t cited – unfortunately – in the search report. This document does not quote carvacrol, carveol or alpha-ionone as constituents of essential oils. But carvacrol and carveol were already known at that time for their antibiotic effect . I see no inventive step there. In my opinion the inventor of the year 2017 was awarded a prize on the basis of an unduly granted patent.”
Research into this has gone on for at least a week. It’s not a rushed judgment. As our source put it, having consulted others as well, “the more I look into the Remmal case, the more I believe we have explosive material. I had the document I referred to double-checked by a specialist and yes I can say that the granted claims do not have the required inventive step.
“But there is more than that. The company owned by Mr.Remmal, Advanced Scientific Developments, is an asset management firm (gestion de valeur mobilere).”
On the day of the priority date (13/5/2005) Mr. Remmal filed 4 applications, namely:
US20080171709A1: Pharmaceutical composition comprising an antiviral agent, an antitumoral agent or an anti-parasitic agent, and active agent selected among carveol, thymol, eugenol, borneol and carvacrol.US20080214568A1: pharmaceutical combination comprising an antifungal agent and an active substance selected from carveol, eugenol, thymol, borneol, carvacrol, and alpha- and beta-ionones.US20080171768A1: pharmaceutical composition containing an anti-parasitic agent and an active ingredient selected from carveol, thymol, eugenol, borneol, carvacrol, alpha-ionone, or beta-ionone.US20080214518A1: pharmaceutical composition comprising an antibacterial agent and an active ingredient selected from carveol, thymol, eugenol, borneol and carvacrol.
“The last one in its EPO version is the patent on which Remmal received the “inventor” award,” our source remarked. “On all 4 patents the addition of essential oils exhibits a notable synergistic effect, not only with antibiotics but also with antifungal, anti-parasitic, anti-tumoral, antiviral agents. If all this was true, Mr. Remmal would deserve a Nobel prize, not just a dubious EPO inventor award prize.”
“I have also checked the publications by Remmal,” the source noted. “The number and scope of the publications is an indicator of a scientist’s activity. Here is a list. What I see are many publications in the field of essential oils and their medical uses. All these papers are published by Remmal at al but none deals with the use of essential oils in combination with other medications. I find very awkward that none of the publications addresses the subject for which the EP patent was applied for.
“To close the subject, an article published just after Mr. Remmal was awarded the EPO inventor prize [is] a very touching article that looks more like self promotion. I don’t want to judge someone without having an in-depth knowledge of the situation, but considering all the facts I have made my opinion and it is not positive. Frankly, I believe that Remmal is just another troll. What do you think?” █
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.
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Fri May 17 08:38:22 2024