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

06.13.16

Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal Urges EPO Administrative Council to End Battistelli’s Coup

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal (AMBA)

Summary: A call for the Administrative Council to take swift action and remove Battistelli along with his outrageous plans (risking collapse of the entire organisation) has just grown louder

As of last night, based on the timestamp in the page, the Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal (AMBA) had this to say as Battistelli's attacks on the boards intensify (they don’t mention Battistelli specifically, for the sake pf diplomacy):

Open Letter to all Stakeholders with an Interest in Maintaining the Boards of Appeal of the EPO as an Independent Judicial Body

The Boards of Appeal (BoA) are the body within the organisational structure of the European Patent Office taking final decisions on appeals against decisions refusing patent applications and revoking patents. Thus, they must meet the requirements of TRIPS and national constitutional law “Rechtsweggarantie/Access to justice”.

After two years of work, the European Patent Office has produced a proposal for re-structuring the BoA. The President will put this to a vote by the Administrative Council (AC) at the end of June.

The aim is to increase the BoA’s independence, within the limits imposed by the EPC. However, while some aspects of the proposal have a superficial appeal, even minimal reflection on the principles underlying judicial independence shows that the proposals are very wide of the goal, namely to increase the functional independence of the BoA without changing the EPC.

The issue came to the fore after the Enlarged Board’s decision R 19/12 in which the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decided that its Chairman, who is simultaneously Vice-President of the BoA, was not independent because of his administrative functions within the Office. That the proposals represent a serious deterioration, as compared to the situation before that decision, is evident from the following.

The status quo before R 19/12

  • The President’s respect for the BoA’s judicial independence meant he did not intervene in their functioning, and de facto delegated his powers to the Vice-President, on the basis of Article 10(2)(i) EPC.
  • The BoA were responsible for selecting members and chairmen, and the President then proposed their appointment by the AC.
  • At the end of a member’s five-year term, re-appointment was the default, in the absence of serious reasons.
  • The Rules of Procedure of the BoA were adopted by the Presidium, subject to the approval of the AC. The President played no part.
  • The Office President shared the responsibility with the AC of selecting and appointing the BoA Vice-President, who is simultaneously the Chairman of the EBA – the highest judicial position in the European patent system.

The proposal

- Delegation

  • The President of the Office’s “act of delegation” aims at clarifying his lack of influence over the BoA, but in fact makes clear that he can and will intervene for any number of reasons, including whenever he considers the “interests of the Office” to be at stake.

- Independence

  • The proposal does not codify any new guarantee of independence.
  • There is a problem of external independence. Apart from being accountable to the AC, the President of the BoA is bound also by the BoAC’s “guidance” and “objectives”, and holds his powers only so long as the President of the Office deems fit.
  • There is a problem of internal independence. Key judicial tasks are placed in the hands of a single person, the BoA President. This is aggravated by the following point.
  • The AC can only appoint a President of the BoA that the President of the Office proposes because the latter retains his power to propose the appointment of the Chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
  • Shoehorning the career structure of the BoA members into the performance-based system of the rest of the Office ignores the BoA’s judicial nature. It also produces strange, not to say inexplicable, results: young members start on unusually high grades and experienced members are downgraded.

- Security of tenure

  • There is, de facto, a loss of security of tenure because re-appointment is subject to a positive recommendation in the light of unspecified reporting and performance criteria.

- The advisory body to the AC (BoAC)

  • The BoAC is to “monitor the independence” of the BoA, but has no means of guaranteeing it, or, indeed, clarity as to what such monitoring entails.
  • The BoAC is responsible for “guiding” and “controlling” the President of the BoA regarding general objectives, performance criteria, the annual report, the budget request and its execution, and even criteria for the distribution of cases, an area that currently falls within the power of the Presidium.
  • The President of the Office is entitled to participate in all meetings of the BoAC.
  • The BoAC, rather than the Presidium, adopts the Rules of Procedure of the BoA after consulting the Office President.

Conclusion

In the Boards’ view, if this proposal is adopted in its present form, it will inevitably result in further challenges before constitutional courts and before the Enlarged Board as in R 19/12.

In our view, it would be far better to reject this proposal and accept that the problem underlying R 19/12 has in fact already be resolved by the Vice-President’s withdrawal from management activities.

Additional considerations

This reform has not proceeded in a way commensurate with the importance or status of the BoA and the user and public interest. There has been a lack of transparency and any meaningful consultation, as can be deduced from the following:

  • The ideas in the project have essentially not changed since the original paper CA/16/15, which was criticised by the Boards, users and some delegates of the Administrative Council.
  • The “consultation” with the BoA amounted to no more than discussing our proposals, no aspect of which was incorporated, and last minute discussion of finished drafts, which were not changed at all.
  • No meaningful consultation took place with any stakeholder. The on-line user consultation invited users to give answers to leading questions about invented problems, and the responses were then misrepresented.
  • The proposal contains several aspects that the AC had regarded as secondary (efficiency, location) or had not been aware of at all (fees).
  • A new location is being pursued without any contact with the BoA.
  • An efficiency study of the BoA was commissioned without informing either the BoA or the AC.

Further information can be found on the AMBA website and in particular in an information pack that formed the basis of a recent panel discussion event in Munich where distinguished judges debated the principles of judicial independence and their application to the BoA.

We encourage any stakeholder with an interest in this matter to make their views known to their national delegations in the AC, who already have access to the proposal.

Yours faithfully,

The Association of Members of the Boards of Appeal

Board 28 has already warned about a "crisis" and the Administrative Council should sack Battistelli for his failure to even listen to the Administrative Council. It’s long overdue. Here are contact details for delegates to the Administrative Council.

Our next post will shed more light on why Boards of Appeal and Battistelli cannot get along and also shed light on the timing of the above letter.

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. Links 9/12/2019: Linux 5.5 RC1, EasyOS Buster 2.1.9

    Links for the day



  2. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, December 08, 2019

    IRC logs for Sunday, December 08, 2019



  3. Mandatory Education for Those Who Use and Misuse Buzzwords Would Go a Long Way

    In an age of substitution — where marketing terms replace meaningful words and concepts — it has gotten more difficult to have honest debates, for example about the scope of patents



  4. Once Upon a Time Banter Was Allowed on Mailing Lists

    Hours ago Torvalds announced RC1 of the next Linux (kernel) release; it has been a while since he last said something ‘controversial’ (following his month at the penalty box); free speech deficit can make us weaker, not stronger (advantage to those who work in the dark)



  5. Links 8/12/2019: Debian Init Systems GR, NomadBSD 1.3

    Links for the day



  6. Can We Quit Celebrating DRM in GNU/Linux?

    Over the past couple of days various news sites and "Linux" sites expressed great satisfaction [1-5] over the passive embrace of Disney's DRM ploy (Disney+), even when Disney itself rejects DRM, seeing the harms practically caused by it [6,7]



  7. You Know WSL is Bad for GNU/Linux Because Anti-Linux People, Microsoft and Its Propagandists, Want People to Use That

    Microsoft and its boosters (and media partners) haven’t grown tired of spreading falsehoods to stigmatise and take control of GNU/Linux by creating their own versions and traps for it



  8. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, December 07, 2019

    IRC logs for Saturday, December 07, 2019



  9. 5 Years Ago the Linux Foundation Turned Linux.com Into a Non-Linux Site

    One can leverage the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine to better understand how, over time, the Foundation called “Linux” deviated or diverged away from its mission statement for the sole purpose of raising corporate funds and selling influence to corporations (passing the community’s hard work to them — a form of tacit privatisation)



  10. Microsoft Redefining Ownership and Identity of GNU/Linux

    The idea that “Microsoft loves Linux” is as insane as it gets; but the lie which is “Microsoft loves Linux” is a powerful enabler of Microsoft entryism, e.g. if Greg steps down, does a Microsoft employee become the deputy of Linus Torvalds?



  11. Things That Cannot Be Said

    The limits on what we can say are mostly defined by what sources permit us to say publicly (for the sake of source protection)



  12. Fake European Patents (on Algorithms) Leading to Fake Embargoes

    Law firms have gotten their way in Germany; instead of supporting the productive workers the patent system is nowadays promoting the litigation 'industry' and it ought to be corrected



  13. From Moderate Advice to FUD and Misinformation: The Case of a VPN Vulnerability (CVE-2019-14899)

    What should have been a trivial bugfix in a variety of operating systems and bits of software — both proprietary and Free software — somehow became anti-Linux FUD, clickbait and worse



  14. Dangerous Thinker

    Society oughtn't be alarmed by people who say unusual things; it should be wary and sceptical of those corporations ever so eager to silence such people



  15. Unitary Patent (UPC) Died Along With the Credibility of Managing IP and the Rest of the UPC Lobby

    It is pretty astounding that Team UPC (collective term for people who crafted and lobby for this illegal construct) is still telling us lies, even in the absence of underlying supportive facts, and pressure groups disguised as "news sites" latch onto anything to perpetuate an illusion of progress (even in the face of a growing number of major barriers)



  16. IRC Proceedings: Friday, December 06, 2019

    IRC logs for Friday, December 06, 2019



  17. Links 7/12/2019: Fedora 31 Elections Results, Lots of Media Drama Over VPN Bug

    Links for the day



  18. Links 6/12/2019: DRM in GNU/Linux and Sparky Bonsai

    Links for the day



  19. The EPO Rejects Innovation

    The EPO ceased caring about the needs of scientists whose work involves invention; instead, EPO management crafts increasingly lenient guidelines that yield illegal European Patents (not compatible with the EPC) that heavily-besieged EPO judges are unable to stop



  20. Startpage CEO Robert Beens in 'Damage Control' Mode, Trying to Get Startpage Relisted After Selling to a Massive Surveillance Company

    PrivacytoolsIO is being lobbied by the CEO of Startpage to relist Startpage, based on no actual refutations at all



  21. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, December 05, 2019

    IRC logs for Thursday, December 05, 2019



  22. Links 5/12/2019: qBittorrent 4.2.0, Expensive Librem 5 and OpenBSD Bugs

    Links for the day



  23. Microsoft Staff Repeatedly Refuses to Tell How Many People Use WSL, Defends Patent Extortion and Blackmail of Linux Instead

    The people who develop WSL (mostly Microsoft employees) get easily irritated when asked how many people actually use this thing; but more interestingly, however, they reveal their disdain for GNU/Linux and support for Microsoft blackmail (for 'Linux patent tax')



  24. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, December 04, 2019

    IRC logs for Wednesday, December 04, 2019



  25. Links 4/12/2019: Tails 4.1, UCS 4.4-3 and Proxmox VE 6.1

    Links for the day



  26. Google Tightens Its Noose

    Now it’s official! Google is just a bunch of shareholders looking to appease the Pentagon at all costs



  27. Europeans Still Need to Save the European Patent Office From Those Who Attack Its Patent Quality

    Patent quality is of utmost interest; without it, as we're seeing at the EPO and have already seen at the USPTO for a number of years, legal disputes will arise where neither side wins (only the lawyers win) and small, impoverished inventors or businesses will be forced to settle outside the courts over baseless allegations, often made by parasitic patent trolls (possessing low-quality patents they don't want scrutinised by courts)



  28. We Never Accepted and Will Never Accept Corporate Money

    Corporate money is a unique problem because of its magnitude and the fact that it's impersonal; shareholders can only ever accept its supposed justifications if they're receiving something in return (of proportional worth to the payment/transaction)



  29. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, December 03, 2019

    IRC logs for Tuesday, December 03, 2019



  30. Links 3/12/2019: elementary OS 5.1 Hera, Plasma 5.17.4, Firefox 71

    Links for the day


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

Recent Posts