EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

11.04.15

The EPO’s Investigative Unit Exposed: Part II

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:28 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Benoît Battistelli created a shady, unaccountable army

Cobra

Summary: How the President of the European Patent Office got his own private mercenaries, who can outrageously enough ignore European laws and human rights, in order to guard his unprecedented tyranny

“In March 2013,” told us a source, “EPO staff representatives submitted their concerns about Circular No. 342 to the Administrative Council in the document CA/33/13.”

Circular No. 342 was the subject of Part I (textual copy was cited/attached) and here is the response to it [PDF], along with context in the PDF (scroll down to the bottom). Our emphasis is added in yellow to better suit quick readers:

CA/33/13
Orig.: en

Munich, 12.03.2013

SUBJECT: Investigations Guidelines of the EPO
SUBMITTED BY: President of the European Patent Office
ADDRESSEES: Administrative Council (for information)


SUMMARY

This document is submitted by the staff representatives via the President of the European Patent Office, in accordance with Article 9(2.2)(b) of the Administrative Council’s rules of
procedure (see CA/D 8/06).

Recommendation for publication:
No, in view of possible ongoing legal disputes.


On 01.01.2013 the Office adopted Guidelines for the investigation of fraud, misconduct and harassment. These Investigative Guidelines give excessive powers to the President of the EPO and to the Investigation Unit. The Investigation Guidelines fail to provide staff with basic protection against self-incrimination, incrimination of family members and violation of private property, including the home. The level of evidence required, “on the balance of probabilities” (i.e. more likely than not) is insufficient in view of the potentially grave consequences, including dismissal.

It has to be clarified if the Investigation Guidelines are in contradiction with international law, namely the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION
II. BACK-GROUND
III. MAIN ISSUES
A. NO LIMITATION TO THE PRESIDENT’S POWERS TO ORDER INVESTIGATION
B. NO PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION OR INCRIMINATION OF FAMILY MEMBERS.
C. NO PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
D. INSUFFICIENT LEVEL OF PROOF
E. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY
F. NO LEGAL ASSISTANCE DURING HEARINGS
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND REQUEST
ANNEX 1 CIRCULAR NO.342 (“GUIDELINES FOR INVESTIGATIONS OF THE EPO”)


I. INTRODUCTION

The Central Staff Committee welcomes the initiative of the President of the EPO to establish a Code of Conduct, a Staff Dignity Policy and Investigation Guidelines. Present Circulars 341 (“Formal procedure on staff dignity”) and 342 (“Guidelines for Investigations of the EPO”) fail, however, to provide the right protection needed and furthermore may infringe fundamental human rights. The present document concentrates on Circular 342 (investigation guidelines), but many of the shortcomings also apply to Circular 341.

II. BACK-GROUND

In all the EPO’s Member States a clear separation of power between the legislative and the operative exist. Amongst the typical safe-guards that apply is, for example, the need for a search warrant for the police to be able to enter private property.

In the EPO no such separation of powers exists. The President is in the EPO head of Internal Audit who act as the “internal police”. He is also the ultimate “judge”, deciding whether disciplinary measures will be taken or not. In so deciding he is not obliged to follow the recommendations of the disciplinary boards. The strong powers of the President and the Investigative Unit that reports to him are not in any way balanced by safeguards for staff subject to or involved in investigative processes. The most serious flaws are listed below. More can be found in the opinion of the General Advisory Committee (Annex 1).

III. MAIN ISSUES

A. NO LIMITATION TO THE PRESIDENT’S POWERS TO ORDER INVESTIGATION

Circular 342 foresees two triggers for the investigative process:

a) an allegation of misconduct (Art. 9(2)), or
b) a request by the President (Art. 9(3)).

Such a request by the President does not require a suspicion of misconduct or other justification. According to Arts. 10 and 11, allegations of misconduct are subject to initial review and preliminary evaluation before an investigative process is started. This is not the case for requests by the President. In fact, there is nothing in the Guidelines that would hinder the President of investigating whom he wants and how he wants, with or without informing the subject of the investigation.

B. NO PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION OR INCRIMINATION OF FAMILY MEMBERS.

Circular 342 does not foresee a right to remain silent. On the contrary: according to Art. 8(1) “All persons covered by … this Circular shall be obliged to co-operate fully with the investigative unit”. According to Art. 8(3) of the Guidelines as adopted, “failure to co-operate without legal justification” may constitute misconduct and hence expose the person concerned to disciplinary proceedings. Neither the Service Regulations nor the Guidelines provide any legal basis for non-co-operation: the duty to co-operate thus seems absolute.

C. NO PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

The Guidelines explicitly foresee search and seizure of all data and materials owned by the Office or present on its premises. There is no protection against access to private material (e.g. personal mobile phones) or confidential information (e.g. medical file, appeals procedures) other than, in some specific cases, prior
authorisation of the Data Protection Office. Such prior authorisation can be dispensed with if this would risk to “jeopardise the investigation”. The Circular expressly foresees access to evidence located outside the Office premises (Art. 16(9)). It is stipulated that for this the investigate unit “must abide by all the applicable provisions of local law or (sic!) obtain prior written permission from the individual concerned”. In view of the duty to co-operate fully (see above), it would seem that such written permission cannot be refused. Hence it would seem that investigators appointed by the EPO can search and size private property without regard of national law.

D. INSUFFICIENT LEVEL OF PROOF

The results of the fact-finding of the investigative unit form the basis for further decisions, ultimately taken by the President. If the investigative unit finds that fraud, misconduct or harassment has occurred, this could lead to disciplinary proceedings and ultimately dismissal. According to Art. 18(4)(ii), the investigative unit will base its conclusions “on a preponderance of the evidence”, i.e. a merely greater than 50% likelihood that fraud, misconduct or harassment has occurred. This is an unacceptably low level of proof given the potentially serious consequences.

E. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

According to Article 18(7) “the subject of an investigation shall receive a copy of the report if and when, on the basis of the report, disciplinary proceedings are initiated”, meaning that an investigative report on a person may exist without his or her knowledge of the contents. This would not seem acceptable in any European state in 2013.

F. NO LEGAL ASSISTANCE DURING HEARINGS

The subject of an investigation does not have the right of legal assistance of his own choosing (e.g. from outside the office) during hearings. This is in contradiction to article 6 paragraph 3(c) of the ECHM.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND REQUEST

The CSC is of the opinion that the Guidelines for Investigations confer excessive powers to the President of the EPO and the Investigative Unit without providing the corresponding guarantees and safeguards for staff as normally provided by national law in the EPO Member States.

The CSC doubts whether the Guidelines as they currently stand are in accordance with Art. 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

The CSC also doubts whether the Guidelines as they currently stand are in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial

[...]

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

[...]

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

The CSC therefore requests an independent legal evaluation of Circulars 341 and 342 of to answer the following questions:

(a) are Circulars 341 and 342 in compliance with international human rights conventions, and

(b) do Circulars 341 and 342 afford staff of the EPO a level of protection against arbitrary interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence that is equivalent to that provided in the EPO Member States?

The Central Staff Committee

As anyone who has read through the above text can certainly see, this is quite a coup d’état by Benoît Battistelli. It may seem unthinkable that he can get away with it, but he did. Somehow he did.

“The Council seems to have ignored these submissions,” the source told us, “because there is no available record of any response having been made.”

This is also the response received after Transparency International was called to intervene, whereupon it wrote to Jesper Kongstad (definitely not a popular person inside the EPO) and never received a response thereafter (that was before the doors revolved, perhaps even twice).

“In part III we are planning to look deeper into the EPO and step into the chambers of the notorious I.U.”“The bottom line here,” explained our source, “is that due to the apparent inaction of the Administrative Council, the President has succeeded in single-handedly imposing on the EPO a system which places unlimited power into his own hands and there is no effective system of checks and balances to prevent abuse.

“This situation is contrary to the spirit of the European Patent Convention which envisaged a European Patent Organisation based on the classical tripartite “separation of powers” model à la Montesquieu.

“From the minutes of the Diplomatic Conferences which led to the signing of the Convention in its final form in 1973, it its clear that the drafters envisaged a tripartite system consisting of a legislative body (the Administrative Council), an executive body (the Office administration headed by the President) and a judicial or quasi-judicial body (the Boards of Appeal).

“The tripartite model of governance doesn’t appear to be to the liking of the current President whose preference seems to be for a more centralised autocratic system.

“The current dysfunctional developments in EPO governance were already commented upon by a number of external observers back in December 2014. For example, the German patent attorney Thorsten Bausch wrote an article entitled “Que le pouvoir arrête le pouvoir – >From Montesquieu to Battistelli” dealing with the perceived breach of the principle of the separation of powers by the President.

“Further critical observations in a similar vein have been made recently by Siegfried Broß, a retired judge of the German Federal Constitutional Court.

“The most puzzling aspect of the current situation is the role of the Administrative Council. It is unclear why they have permitted such an unfettered concentration of power in the hands of the EPO President contrary to the fundamental principles enshrined in the EPC. Either they understand what is going on and are actively colluding in it or else the President has been very successful in pulling the wool over their eyes. Whatever the truth of the matter may be, it is very difficult to avoid the impression that the Administrative Council is failing to fulfill its institutional role as envisaged by the drafters of the EPC.”

In part III we are planning to look deeper into the EPO and step into the chambers of the notorious I.U. Therein we may find reasonably good explanations for at least some of the many suicides (casualties of war, namely Battistelli’s war on dissent or perceived opponents).

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  2. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  3. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts



  4. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs



  5. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply



  6. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day



  7. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated



  8. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'



  9. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day



  10. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter



  11. The EPO is Being Destroyed and There's Nothing Left to Replace It Except National Patent Offices

    It looks like Battistelli is setting up the European Patent Office (EPO) for mass layoffs; in fact, it looks as though he is so certain that the UPC will materialise that he obsesses over "validation" for mass litigation worldwide, departing from a "model office" that used to lead the world in terms of patent quality and workers' welfare/conditions



  12. IBM is Getting Desperate and Now Suing Microsoft Over Lost Staff, Not Just Suing Everyone Using Patents

    IBM's policy when it comes to patents, not to mention its alignment with patent extremists, gives room for thought if not deep concern; the company rapidly becomes more and more like a troll



  13. In Microsoft's Lawsuit Against Corel the Only Winner is the Lawyers

    The outcome of the old Microsoft v Corel lawsuit reaffirms a trend; companies with deep pockets harass their competitors, knowing that the legal bills are more cumbersome to the defendants; there's a similar example today in Cisco v Arista Networks



  14. The Latest Lies About Unitary Patent (UPC) and the EPO

    Lobbying defies facts; we are once again seeing some easily-debunked talking points from those who stand to benefit from the UPC and mass litigation



  15. Speech Deficit and No Freedom of Association at the EPO

    True information cannot be disseminated at the EPO and justice too is beyond elusive; this poses a threat to the EPO's future, not only to its already-damaged reputation



  16. No, Britain is Not Ratifying 'Unitary' Anything, But Team UPC Insinuates It Will (Desperate Effort to Affect Tomorrow's Outcome)

    Contrary to several misleading headlines from Bristows (in its blog and others'), the UPC isn't happening and isn't coming to the UK; it all amounts to lobbying (by setting false expectations)



  17. The EPO's Paid Promotion of Software Patents Gets Patent Maximalists All Excited and Emboldened

    The software patents advocacy from Battistelli (and his cohorts) isn't just a spit in the face of European Parliament but also the EPC; but patent scope seems to no longer exist or matter under his watch, as all he cares about is granting as many patents as possible, irrespective of real quality/legitimacy/merit



  18. Andrei Iancu Begins His USPTO Career While Former USPTO Director (and Now Paid Lobbyist) Keeps Meddling in Office Affairs

    The USPTO, which is supposed to be a government branch (loosely speaking) is being lobbied by former officials, who are now being paid by private corporations to help influence and shape policies; this damages the image of the Office and harms its independence from corporate influence



  19. Links 14/2/2018: Atom 1.24, OSI Joins UNESCO

    Links for the day



  20. The EPO Now Censors the Central Staff Committee Like It Used to Censor SUEPO

    The EPO's Central Staff Committee (CSC) is now being treated as poorly as SUEPO several years ago (when it was threatened to remove publications from its site or face severe action)



  21. Microsoft-Connected Patent Trolls, Xerox, and Andrei Iancu

    A roundup of news pertaining to Microsoft-connected entities and their patent activity this month; Director Iancu is only loosely connected to one of them (he fought against it)



  22. The Campaign to Subvert the US Patent Office by Misrepresenting Its Successes

    Figureheads of the patent microcosm (firms that profit from patent chaos) are still meddling in affairs which they intentionally mis-portray, conflating innovation with number of patents and so on



  23. Almost All Patent Lawsuits in China Are Filed by the Chinese, But IAM (Cherry) Picks the Exception

    China's patent office (SIPO) is a pretty one-sided office where Mandarin patents get filed primarily by local firms and lawsuits too are filed by local firms; IAM, however, found a "man bites dog" slant



  24. Congratulations to Cloudflare on Beating Patent Troll Blackbird Technologies

    After nearly a year in the court (no doubt an expensive exercise for Cloudflare) the Northern District of California finally dismisses the lawsuit, deeming the underlying claims “[a]bstract ideas [which] are not patentable”



  25. Watch Out for Buzzwords That Are Used to Mask Patents on Software, Even in Europe

    The EPO now exploits EPO budget for advocacy of software patents; It's troubling as it was traditionally the 'job' of the patent 'industry' and moreover it reveals an EPO so adrift from law and order that it's a Bavaria-based pariah acting with impunity, posing a threat to software development in the whole of Europe



  26. EPO Opposition to CRISPR Patents Has Wide-Ranging and Far-Reaching Impact, But Mind Not the Lobbyists

    The patent maximalists who strive to bring patent trolls and limitless patents to Europe are losing their battle; this is, for the most part, owing to courageous European examiners who say "no" to patents that aren't justified



  27. Links 13/2/2018: Rise of the Tomb Raider on GNU/Linux, KDE 5.43.0, Qt 5.10.1

    Links for the day



  28. Denialists of Patent Trolls Are at It Again

    The patent trolls' lobby (sites like IAM and Watchtroll or Koch-funded scholars) want us to think that patent trolls are just a myth that can be dismissed and ignored; sadly for these lobbyists, underlying facts are not on their side



  29. Patent Maximalists Won't Get Their Way and UPC Will Likely Never Happen (Even After Battistelli)

    The incautious optimism from the patent 'industry', trying to convince us all that expansion of patent scope and litigation would be a boon to innovation, faces growing resistance; contrary to what the patent microcosm is saying, it's extremely unlikely that the UK and Germany will ratify the Unified Patent Court (UPC), i.e. open the door for patent trolls in Europe



  30. Links 12/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC1, ZFS Back in Focus

    Links for the day


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts