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

12.16.15

Battistelli Wants to Make “Lobbying in the Field of European and Unitary Patent” a “Prohibited Activity” for All Except Himself

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Totally drunk on power, Battistelli is now trying to ban more people from speaking

Wine
Battistelli’s alleged infatuation with the French wine industry (to be covered at a later date) gone too far?

Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s globalist/internationalist ambitions (in practice a servitude to large multinational corporations) defended or shielded using the widely-discredited roadmap in CA/98/15

THE MANAGEMENT of the EPO — and Benoît Battistelli in particular — loses faith even among its ‘customers’, or representatives such as AIPPI and EPI. It means that the management is left with almost no allies, only foes or perceived enemies (a consequence of the management trying to brutally crush its critics, even reporters).

A reader who is intimately familiar with the EPO sent us a detailed explanation of the current situation. This relates to what we previously showed (with very extensive proof) about suppression of free speech or diversity of opinions inside the EPO. “Some observations about CA/98/15″ is what our reader called it, alluding to the document responded to by AIPPI and EPI (we posted their letters earlier this evening). Here is what our reader wrote:

The document CA/98/15 has been discussed a lot recently in IP circles.

For example:

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2015/12/boards-of-appeal-tell-ac-we-were-never.html

A copy of the document itself can be found here:

http://eplaw.org/document/epo-ca9815/

It’s Battistelli’s proposed “roadmap” for the planned reform of the Boards of Appeal.

Section IV.C deals with the topic of “conflict of interest” situations and refers to “the need to avoid real or apparent conflict of interest situations, including in post-service employment”.

Amongst other things, it contains a proposal for a “cooling-off period” with restrictions in post-service employment for staff who leave the EPO.

Paragraphs 38 and 39 deal with “prohibited activities”.

According to paragraph 38 “the scope of prohibited activities should be so defined as to ensure that knowledge gained while in service may not be used to the advantage of private interests, considering notably the risk of impairing equality among users of the public service rendered by the Office”.

Paragraph 39 states that “the activities covered by the cooling-off period would be thus primarily those closely related to the Organisation’s core mandate, e.g. patent granting activities or lobbying in the field of European and Unitary Patent”.

This is very interesting because here the President is basically telling the Administrative Council that “the Organisation’s core mandate” includes not only patent granting activities but also “lobbying in the field of European and Unitary Patent”.

This seems to be complete nonsense because Article 4(3) of the European Patent Convention states the following:

“The task of the Organisation shall be to grant European patents. This shall be carried out by the European Patent Office supervised by the Administrative Council.”

http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar4.html

The “core mandate” of the EPO is the granting of European patents – full stop.

There is nothing in Article 4 or anywhere else in the EPC about “lobbying in the field of European and Unitary Patent”.

So – apart from perhaps unintentionally revealing Battistelli’s own internal mindset about these matters – what is the rationale behind the attempt to present “lobbying in the field of European and Unitary Patent” as part of the “core mandate” of the EPO?

I did some research and found out the following:

A former Vice-President of the EPO was a gentleman by the name of Manuel Desantes Real who is a Spanish professor of law at the University of Alicante:

http://www.ir-facility.org/manuel-desantes

http://www.asipicartagena2015.com/en/users/manuel-desantes

Prof. Desantes was the Vice-President of Directorate-General 5 (Legal and International Affairs) of the EPO between 2001 and 2008.

Since leaving the EPO in 2008, Prof. Desantes has been quite active lecturing and publishing articles and commentaries about Intellectual Property matters.

One of his favorite topics is the Unitary Patent.

http://conflictuslegum.blogspot.com.es/2013/04/manuel-desantes-el-tribunal-de-justicia.html

https://www2.uni-hamburg.de/fachbereiche-einrichtungen/fg_ta_med//aktuell_is/esf/desantes_manuel_esf_hh2014.pdf

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-eu-patent-package-dangerous.html

http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1906853

Not only has he lectured and published on this topic, he was also involved in the legal challenges mounted by Spain before the CJEU.

“Professor Manuel Desantes (University of Alicante, Spain) presented Spain’s second legal challenge before the CJEU after the Opinion of the Advocate General Mr. Ives Bot in Case C-146/13 Spain v Parliament and Council. Professor Desantes underlined the inconsistency of the Opinion and noted that, although both a Unified Patent Court (UPC) and a European patent with unitary effect are certainly needed, it should be done on the foundations of a robust system. The unitary patent protection system is not robust enough in its current state, Desantes argued.

In his view, the shortcomings are: the mix of EU and International Law procedures, the vague concept of “enhanced cooperation” in the Unitary Patent Regulation and the presupposition of economical aspects.

https://qmjip.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/preparing-for-the-unitary-patent-package-event-review/

Now, as can be seen from the above, Prof. Desantes is not an opponent of the general idea of a Unitary Patent. He takes the position that “a Unified Patent Court (UPC) and a European patent with unitary effect are certainly needed” but he sees some shortcomings in the current proposals.

So he takes what could reasonably be called “a critical stance” and tries to stimulate an informed public debate about what he sees as the defects in the current proposals. That sounds reasonable enough and it’s hard to see how anybody could object to that.

However, from what I have heard, it seems that Prof. Desantes’ “post-service” activities since leaving the EPO have greatly irritated Battistelli.

He seems to consider such activities as trespassing on what he incorrectly claims to be a “core mandate” of the EPO: “lobbying in the field of European and Unitary Patent”.

It seems that Battistelli is keen to claim his own personal monopoly on such activities and would like to find a way to muzzle critical “insiders” like Desantes when they leave the EPO. He apparently objects to anybody who makes efforts to express “critical views” and/or stimulate informed public debate about these matters.

As far as I can work out, this seems to be one of the key motivating factors behind the proposed restrictions in post-service employment which are discussed in CA/98/15.

We hope that more of our sceptics may, in due course, realise why we have been worried about the Unitary Patent all along (even in previous incarnations when it was given other catchy titles). Its only big fan is Battistelli and Battistelli has virtually no fans; there are only many people who are afraid of Battistelli, who now acts like a lunatic dictator and throws a fit at any opposing view. We will continue to write about the Unitary Patent/UP/UPC in conjunction with coverage about systematic gagging of Battistelli’s critics. There is a class war going on at the EPO and it’s clear whose class Battistelli belongs to (it’s certainly not the European SMEs’ class).

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. Articles About a Unitary Patent System Are Lies and Marketing From Law Firms With 'Lawsuits Lust'

    Team UPC has grown louder with its lobbying efforts this past week; the same lies are being repeated without much of a challenge and press ownership plays a role in that



  2. The Decline in Patent Quality at the EPO Causes Frivolous Lawsuits That Only Lawyers Profit From

    The European Patent Office (EPO) will continue granting low-quality European Patents under the leadership of the Battistelli-'nominated' Frenchman, António Campinos; this is bad news for science and technology as that quite likely means a lot more lawsuits without merit (which only lawyers profit from)



  3. What Battistelli's Workers Think of His Latest EPO Propaganda

    "Modernising the EPO" is what Battistelli calls a plethora of human rights abuses and corruption



  4. Links 19/6/2018: Total War: WARHAMMER II Confirmed for GNU/Linux, DragonFlyBSD 5.2.2 Released

    Links for the day



  5. More Media Reports About Decline in Quality of European Patents (Granted by the EPO)

    What the media is saying about the letter from Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner whilst EPO communications shift attention to shallow puff pieces about how wonderful Benoît Battistelli is



  6. Beware Team UPC's Biggest Two Lies About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    Claims that a Unified Patent Court (UPC) will commence next year are nothing but a fantasy of the Liar in Chief, Benoît Battistelli, who keeps telling lies to French media (some of which he passes EPO money to, just like he passes EPO money to his other employer)



  7. Diversity at the EPO

    Two decades of EPO with 16-17 years under the control of French Presidents (and nowadays predominantly French management in general with Inventor Award held in France almost half the time) is "diversity at the EPO"



  8. Orrin Hatch, Sponsored the Most by the Pharmaceutical Industry, Tries to Make Its Patents Immune From Scrutiny (PTAB)

    Orrin Hatch is the latest example of laws being up for sale, i.e. companies can 'buy' politicians to act as their 'couriers' and pass laws for them, including laws pertaining to patents



  9. Links 17/6/2018: Linux 4.18 RC1 and Deepin 15.6 Released

    Links for the day



  10. To Keep the Patent System Alive and Going Practitioners Will Have to Accept Compromises on Scope Being Narrowed

    35 U.S.C. § 101 still squashes a lot of software patents, reducing confidence in US patents; the only way to correct this is to reduce patent filings and file fewer lawsuits, judging their merit in advance based on precedents from higher courts



  11. The Affairs of the USPTO Have Turned Into Somewhat of a Battle Against the Courts, Which Are Simply Applying the Law to Invalidate US Patents

    The struggle between law, public interest, and the Cult of Patents (which only ever celebrates more patents and lawsuits) as observed in the midst of recent events in the United States



  12. Patent Marketing Disguised as Patent 'Advice'

    The meta-industry which profits from patents and lawsuits claims that it's guiding us and pursuing innovation, but in reality its sole goal is enriching itself, even if that means holding science back



  13. Microsoft is Still 'Cybermobbing' Its Competition Using Patent Trolls Such as Finjan

    In the "cybersecurity" space, a sub-domain where many software patents have been granted by the US patent office, the patent extortion by Microsoft-connected trolls (and Microsoft's 'protection' racket) seems to carry on; but Microsoft continues to insist that it has changed its ways



  14. Links 16/6/2018: LiMux Story, Okta Openwashing and More

    Links for the day



  15. The EPO's Response to the Open Letter About Decline in Patent Quality as the Latest Example of Arrogance and Resistance to Facts, Truth

    Sidestepping the existential crisis of the EPO (running out of work and issuing many questionable patents with expectation of impending layoffs), the PR people at the Office choose a facts-denying, face-saving 'damage control' strategy while staff speaks out, wholeheartedly agreeing with concerned stakeholders



  16. In the United States the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Which Assures Patent Quality, is Still Being Smeared by Law Firms That Profit From Patent Maximalism, Lawsuits

    Auditory roles which help ascertain high quality of patents (or invalidate low-quality patents, at least those pointed out by petitions) are being smeared, demonised as "death squads" and worked around using dirty tricks that are widely described as "scams"



  17. The 'Artificial Intelligence' (AI) Hype, Propped Up by Events of the European Patent Office (EPO), is Infectious and It Threatens Patent Quality Worldwide

    Having spread surrogate terms like “4IR” (somewhat of a 'mask' for software patents, by the EPO's own admission in the Gazette), the EPO continues with several more terms like “ICT” and now we’re grappling with terms like “AI”, which the media endlessly perpetuates these days (in relation to patents it de facto means little more than "clever algorithms")



  18. Links 15/6/2018: HP Chromebook X2 With GNU/Linux Software, Apple Admits and Closes a Back Door ('Loophole')

    Links for the day



  19. The '4iP Council' is a Megaphone of Team UPC and Team Battistelli at the EPO

    The EPO keeps demonstrating lack of interest in genuine patent quality (it uses buzzwords to compensate for deviation from the EPC and replaces humans with shoddy translators); it is being aided by law firms which work for patent trolls and think tanks that propel their interests



  20. Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner Find the Courage to Express Concerns About Battistelli's Ugly Legacy and Low Patent Quality

    The astounding levels of abuse at the EPO have caused some of the EPO's biggest stakeholders to speak out and lash out, condemning the Office for mismanagement amongst other things



  21. IAM Concludes Its Latest Anti-§ 101 Think Tank, Featuring Crooked Benoît Battistelli

    The attack on 35 U.S.C. § 101, which invalidates most if not all software patents, as seen through the lens of a Battistelli- and Iancu-led lobbying event (set up by IAM)



  22. Google Gets Told Off -- Even by the Typically Supportive EFF and TechDirt -- Over Patenting of Software

    The EFF's Daniel Nazer, as well as TechDirt's founder Mike Masnick, won't tolerate Google's misuse of Jarek Duda's work; the USPTO should generally reject all applications for software patents -- something which a former Commissioner for Patents at the USPTO seems to be accepting now (that such patents have no potency after Alice)



  23. From the Eastern District of Texas to Delaware, US Patent Litigation is (Overall) Still Declining

    Patent disputes/conflicts are increasingly being settled outside the courts and patents that aren't really potent/eligible are being eliminated or never brought forth at all



  24. Links 13/6/2018: Cockpit 170, Plasma 5.13, Krita 4.0.4

    Links for the day



  25. When the USPTO Grants Patents in Defiance of 35 U.S.C. § 101 the Courts Will Eventually Squash These Anyway

    Software/abstract patents, as per § 101 (Section 101) which relates to Alice Corp v CLS Bank at the US Supreme Court, are not valid in the United States, albeit one typically has to pay a fortune for a court battle to show it because the patent office (USPTO) is still far too lenient and careless



  26. Buzzwords and Three-Letter Acronyms Still Abused by the EPO to Grant a Lot of Patents on Algorithms

    Aided by Microsoft lobbying (with its very many patent trolls) as well as corrupt Battistelli, the push for software patenting under the guise of "artificial intelligence" ("AI") carries on, boosted by Battistelli's own "Pravda" (which he writes for), IAM Magazine



  27. The United States is Far Better Off With the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), So Why Do Lawyers Attack It?

    The anti-PTAB lobby (which is basically the pro-troll or pro-litigation lobby) continues to belittle and insult PTAB, having repeatedly failed to dismantle it; in the meantime PTAB is disarming several more patent trolls and removing from the system patents which were granted in error (as well as the associated lawsuits)



  28. Links 12/6/2018: Neovim 0.3 and Wine 3.10

    Links for the day



  29. Corrupt Benoît Battistelli Promotes Software Patents in IAM's Patent Trolls-Funded Event in the United States

    With less than 3 weeks remaining for Battistelli's term he engages in gross revisionism, lobbying, and even looting of the patent office



  30. The EPO's 'Expert' Georg Weber is Still Advocating Software Patents in Europe (But He Disguises Them Using Buzzwords)

    The EPO's overzealous support for software patents continues unabated while the European Parliament looks the other way; this is part of the plan to expand patent scope in Europe and flood the continent with low-quality patents (causing a ruinous litigation boom like in China)


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