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

09.02.16

UPC Threatens to Send the European Patent Office Circling Down the Drain

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“When asked by Ars, the EPO’s spokesperson mentioned the imminent arrival of the unitary patent system as an important reason for revising the EPO’s internal rules…”

Dr. Glyn Moody

Expect a possibly new (or reused) name for the same bad scheme that favours trolls and large corporations

EPO as family business
The EPO is being run like a cliquish family business these days… and it shows [1, 2, 3, 4]

Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) may never see the UPC becoming a reality (almost definitely not under Battistelli) and staff of the EPO should antagonise any attempt to replicate and make it a reality

THE UNITARY patent, or UPC (Unified Patent Court)*, threatens the EPO‘s staff, especially or in particular parts of the Organisation which are currently foreseen/expected to be made redundant by unitary courts, with rumours suggesting that their jobs would go somewhere like Paris (Battistelli’s gift to France perhaps).

Not much is known about the UPC right now because Brexit undermined it so badly that it may never happen at all (in no shape or form). SUEPO noticed that this German programme covered the subject, presumably “(from 14’35’’ onwards, Das Erste, 17 August 2016): on the Unitary Patent.”

“German State TV “Das Erste” Plusminus,” told me one person (who informed many others as well), has a “very critical report about UPC-from 14’35’’ onwards, Das Erste, 17 August 2016″ (a translation of it would be very much appreciated as we already have a translation of a similar TV report from Italy).

Suffice to say, there are voices in the media that do try to advance the UPC. The boosters of the UPC (like Team UPC) act as though everything is alright (it’s not!) and MIP has just published another Unitary Patent and UPC “progress report”, even though there has been no concrete progress. To quote the summary: “UK IPO speaks out on UK’s involvement in the UPC and Unitary Patent system; UK patent attorney body CIPA prefers UK in the system; experts to discuss the latest on the UPC and post-Brexit patent strategies at MIP European Patent Forums in September.”

That’s all talk and lobbying, no action. Meanwhile, as one new comment put it:

Instead of running after something which has gone, it would be wiser to put energy in saving what is left from the UP/UPC once UK has gone, but then to look at the matter with fresh eyes. The matter should be simplified and the influence of common law should be thrown overboard. After all, UK has left and the continent is not an area relying on common law.

Going back to MIP, there’s this new bit of coverage from Shanghai which says: “Post-coffee break, Gordon Harris, a partner of Gowling WLG, shared his observation on the impact of Brexit on IP rights. He stressed that EU registered IP rights remain protected in UK for the time being, and there will be no change to European patents.”

As usual, it’s patent (or IP) lawyers that dominate all those debates and it’s hardly surprising that they want more litigation and more problems. They profit from it. The more, the merrier.

EPO patents are already suffering a steep decline in quality (we covered this many times before); imagine the effect of combining that with some EU-wide courts, which would effectively empower all sorts of parasitic elements like patent trolls. Regarding the “Unitary patent and related developments,” said a not-so-recent (pre-Brexit) oral report from EPO staff, “Ten Contracting States have ratified the treaty so far, most recently Bulgaria. The ratification in the Netherlands is currently pending. The consequences of the Brexit votum are unforeseeable. The Italian delegation as well as the observers from Business Europe and epi called for “business as usual” and encouraged further engagement of the EU states to conclude the Unitary Patent. SR [Staff Representation/Representatives] confirmed that staff would in principle be ready and willing to make the Unitary Patent a success, i.e. a legal title with high legal certainty. But the SR also reminded the Council that solid search and thorough examination requires time. Political guidelines are to be given by a conference of ministers of the Contracting States according to Article 4a EPC. The SR repeated again that this conference is long overdue.”

Generally speaking, the EPO under Battistelli arrogantly disregards the EPC in all sorts of way. Not only that in fact; Battistelli also ignores national and sometimes international laws. These people want us to believe that there is some “greater good” in all this and all the abuses are somehow to be justified in the long term because of “reforms” like the UPC.

Now that it looks increasingly unlikely that the UPC will ever become a reality, where does that leave Battistelli? Why did the SR (as above) play along with only very cautious criticism? Are they already this afraid of the lunatic in chief and his goons? Has it become unacceptable to merely question the merits of the UPC? There are no merits.

The UPC is on the retreat these days; as we noted last month, it’s hardly even mentioned these days (internally and externally). Our guess is, the whole bundle of legislative laundering will be changed to overcome Brexit and maybe renamed yet again. Will staff be prepared to antagonise it? Already, boards of appeal (patent quality assurance) have essentially been ejected from the EPO’s building (exodus or diaspora imminent, probably as early as next year), so time is running out for those wishing to save the EPO rather than letting it become another USPTO (with virtually no quality control, lots of patents trolls, and leanings towards large corporations that effectively run it**). It now attempts to garner support by asking for feedback, at a time when press releases are issued aplenty to celebrate newly-granted software patents [1, 2].

Judging by some of the latest comments in IP Kat, people generally understand that the boards’ move to Haar has nothing to do with independence. To quote one such comment:

In spite of all the nice words, the message of Mr Battistelli to his staff drafting the proposal and arranging the move to Haar (and to the Administrative Council) was clear: here is what I want to do to the Boards of Appeal; now you arrange for it to happen somehow, and if necessary find an explanation why it is legal.

By the way, as an (unintended?) side-effect, the president is for the moment de facto himself in control of the Boards of Appeal; see http://amba-epo.org/; so far for independence…

Here is a comment about the legal opinion just formally unleashed by SUEPO:

The London-based lawyers, Bretton Woods Law, has produced a legal opinion concerning the actions of the President of the EPO, and the responsibility of the Administrative Council as well as the Member States of the EPO with respect to staff:

LEGAL OPINION – CONSIDERING THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL AND
MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE

BREACHES OF BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AT THE EPO

I quote:

“It is not hard to see that many of the circumstances that have arisen at the EPO
amount to violations of the rights contained in the ECHR. To list but a few: fair
trial provisions are fundamentally absent at the EPO, since the President sits as a judge in his own cause; there is a lack of equality of arms, delays, an absence of due process and a tribunal that is itself beholden for its funding to the very institutions it is being invited to find against. The provisions in respect of sick leave (and the effective ‘house arrest’ of staff members) appear to contravene the right to a private and family life. The arbitrary treatment and abuses of the system in respect of staff representatives appear to be an attack on all of the rights listed above.”

It is probably worth the paper it is written on for President Battistelli and his Administrative Council.

Still, I am looking forward to the decision of the High Court in the Netherlands about the EPO breaching fundamental human rights …

Here’s more on that:

Me too.

Alas, the “Hoge Raad” seems to have pushed their decision date a bit further down the road… :(

From their site:
“15/02186 Europese Octrooi Organisatie en de Staat / Vakbondsunie Europees Octrooibureau (VEOB) en Staff Union European Patent Office (SUEPO)

Is de Nederlandse rechter bevoegd in deze zaak? En zo ja, moet deze vakbond door het octrooibureau worden toegelaten?

Conclusie 30 september 2016.”
Case number is there, and expected decision date.
A month to go, which puts it just beyond the next Board28 (22 September) and before the next AC meeting (12/13. 10.2016)

In December, we might see more party than decisions, as it’ll be meeting 150 of the AC. And that’s the AC which should discuss the results of the meeting regarding the social conference.
Well timed…

As the following comments note, Battistelli, who postponed any discussions about the social situation at the EPO until October, has produced propaganda to be used, for a payment, to lie to the Council (again):

And the Social Conference is arranged for 11th October – the day before the AC. Staff – but only the registered Union – can apply to participate but, with the ‘conference’ due to start and end less than 24 hours before the AC begins, it would be hard not to be cynical as to whether the conclusions may already have been decided or not.

The significance of the timing isn’t being overlooked:

What is the stated purpose of the “Social Conference”? If it is any way connected with the decision-making of the AC, then you would appear to have every reason to be cynical.

Also, do we know the proposed agenda for the next AC meeting? I would be very interested to learn what (if anything) the AC intends to do about the President’s interventions in case Art. 23 1/16, as well as whether they intend to make redress to the individual who was the subject of that case.

Remember the time Battistelli used his silly lobbying event and IAM propaganda to pretend (to the Council) that on the technical front everything was great? Again, well timed. The EPO is basically being run by villainous liars and since it’s like a family business there’s enough loyalty at the top to prevent dissent.
_____
* The name of the UPC just keeps getting changed, making criticism of it harder to maintain and easier to dodge.
** USPTO Directors typically come from mega-corporations, a de facto policy which inevitably introduces a conflict of interests (one of them, David Kappos, became a lobbyist thereafter, serving his former employer and intervening in USPTO policies). The latest such Director is at least a female (Lee) — something which Brimelow might have something to say about after she got muscled out by “alpha-males”. From the figures that are publicly accessible, say some EPO insiders, “we can deduce that female staff are not fairly and equally treated since in particular very few senior managers are female. This is an inadequate situation for an international organisation in the 21st century.” The few females at the top are not only French but in some cases connected (friendliness and kinship) to Battistelli himself. One must be careful of appointment of women where these appointments are made by man who virtually control and use them for “femmewashing”. Not too shockingly, the Wall Street-funded political campaign of Clinton is supported by patent maximalists (mostly males), white male executives, and extremely chauvinistic regimes from Gulf states. The patent maximalists reportedly support Clinton because her patent policy, as we noted here before, echoes their wishlist and desires.

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 23/3/2019: Falkon 3.1.0 and Tails 3.13.1

    Links for the day



  2. The Unified Patent Court is Dead, But Doubts Remain Over the EPO's Appeal Boards' Ability to Rule Independently Against Patents on Nature and Code

    Patents used to cover physical inventions (such as engines); nowadays this just isn't the case anymore and judges who can clarify these questions lack the freedom to think outside the box (and disobey patent maximalists' dogma)



  3. Patent Law Firms Still Desperate to Find New Ways to Resurrect Dead Software Patents in the United States

    There's no rebound and no profound changes that favour software patents; in fact, judging by caselaw, there's nothing even remotely like that



  4. Links 22/3/2019: Libinput 1.13 RC2 and Facebook's Latest Security Scandal

    Links for the day



  5. Why the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) Cannot Ignore Judges, Whereas the EPO Can (and Does)

    The European Patent Convention (EPC) ceased to matter, judges' interpretation of it no longer matters either; the EPO exploits this to grant hundreds of thousands of dodgy software patents, then trumpet "growth"



  6. The European Patent Office Needs to Put Lives Before Profits

    Patents that pertain to health have always posed an ethical dilemma; the EPO apparently tackled this dilemma by altogether ignoring the rights and needs of patients (in favour of large corporations that benefit financially from poor people's mortality)



  7. “Criminal Organisation”

    Brazil's ex-President, Temer, is arrested (like other former presidents of Brazil); will the EPO's ex-President Battistelli ever be arrested (now that he lacks diplomatic immunity and hides at CEIPI)?



  8. Links 21/3/2019: Wayland 1.17.0, Samba 4.10.0, OpenShot 2.4.4 and Zorin Beta

    Links for the day



  9. Team UPC (Unitary Patent) is a Headless Chicken

    Team UPC's propaganda about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has become so ridiculous that the pertinent firms do not wish to be identified



  10. António Campinos Makes Up Claims About Patent Quality, Only to be Rebutted by Examiners, Union (Anyone But the 'Puff Pieces' Industry)

    Battistelli's propagandistic style and self-serving 'studies' carry on; the notion of patent quality has been totally discarded and is nowadays lied about as facts get 'manufactured', then disseminated internally and externally



  11. Links 20/3/2019: Google Announces ‘Stadia’, Tails 3.13

    Links for the day



  12. CEN and CENELEC Agreement With the EPO Shows That It's Definitely the European Commission's 'Department'

    With headlines such as “EPO to collaborate on raising SEP awareness” it is clear to see that the Office lacks impartiality and the European Commission cannot pretend that the EPO is “dafür bin ich nicht zuständig” or “da kenne ich mich nicht aus”



  13. Decisions Made Inside the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Lack Credibility Because Examiners and Judges Lack Independence

    The lawless, merciless, Mafia-like culture left by Battistelli continues to haunt judges and examiners; how can one ever trust the Office (or the Organisation at large) to deliver true justice in adherence or compliance with the EPC?



  14. Team UPC Buries Its Credibility Deeper in the Grave

    The three Frenchmen at the top do not mention the UPC anymore; but those who promote it for a living (because they gambled on leveraging it for litigation galore) aren't giving up and in the process they perpetuate falsehoods



  15. The EPO Has Sadly Taken a Side and It's the Patent Trolls' Side

    Abandoning the whole rationale behind patents, the Office now led for almost a year by António Campinos prioritises neither science nor technology; it's all about granting as many patents (European monopolies) as possible for legal activity (applications, litigation and so on)



  16. Where the USPTO Stands on the Subject of Abstract Software Patents

    Not much is changing as we approach Easter and software patents are still fool's gold in the United States, no matter if they get granted or not



  17. Links 19/3/2019: Jetson/JetBot, Linux 5.0.3, Kodi Foundation Joins The Linux Foundation, and Firefox 66

    Links for the day



  18. Links 18/3/2019: Solus 4, Linux 5.1 RC1, Mesa 18.3.5, OSI Individual Member Election Won by Microsoft

    Links for the day



  19. Microsoft and Its Patent Trolls Continue Their Patent War, Including the War on Linux

    Microsoft is still preying on GNU/Linux using patents, notably software patents; it wants billions of dollars served on a silver platter in spite of claims that it reached a “truce” by joining the Open Invention Network and joining the LOT Network



  20. Director Iancu Generally Viewed as a Lapdog of Patent Trolls

    As Director of the Office, Mr. Iancu, a Trump appointee, not only fails to curb patent trolls; he actively defends them and he lowers barriers in order to better equip them with bogus patents that courts would reject (if the targets of extortion could afford a day in court)



  21. Links 17/3/2019: Google Console and IBM-Red Hat Merger Delay?

    Links for the day



  22. To Team UPC the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Has Become a Joke and the European Patent Office (EPO) Never Mentions It Anymore

    The EPO's frantic rally to the very bottom of patent quality may be celebrated by obedient media and patent law firms; to people who actually produce innovative things, however, this should be a worrisome trend and thankfully courts are getting in the way of this nefarious agenda; one of these courts is the FCC in Germany



  23. Links 16/3/2019: Knoppix Release and SUSE Independence

    Links for the day



  24. Stopping António Campinos and His Software Patents Agenda (Not Legal in Europe) Would Require Independent Courts

    Software patents continue to be granted (new tricks, loopholes and buzzwords) and judges who can put an end to that are being actively assaulted by those who aren't supposed to have any authority whatsoever over them (for decisions to be impartially delivered)



  25. The Linux Foundation Needs to Speak Out Against Microsoft's Ongoing (Continued) Patent Shakedown of OEMs That Ship Linux

    Zemlin actively thanks Microsoft while taking Microsoft money; he meanwhile ignores how Microsoft viciously attacks Linux using patents, revealing the degree to which his foundation, the “Linux Foundation” (not about Linux anymore, better described as Zemlin’s PAC), has been compromised



  26. Links 15/3/2019: Linux 5.0.2, Sublime Text 3.2

    Links for the day



  27. The EPO and the USPTO Are Granting Fake Patents on Software, Knowing That Courts Would Reject These

    Office management encourages applicants to send over patent applications that are laughable while depriving examiners the freedom and the time they need to reject these; it means that loads of bogus patents are being granted, enshrined as weapons that trolls can use to extort small companies outside the courtroom



  28. CommunityBridge is a Cynical Microsoft-Funded Effort to Show Zemlin Works for 'Community', Not Microsoft

    After disbanding community participation in the Board (but there are Microsoft staff on the Board now) the "Linux Foundation" (or Zemlin PAC) continues to take Microsoft money and polishes or launders that as "community"



  29. Links 14/3/2019: GNOME 3.32 and Mesa 19.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  30. EPO 'Results' Are, As Usual, Not Measured Correctly

    The supranational monopoly, a monopoly-granting authority, is being used by António Campinos to grant an insane amount of monopolies whose merit is dubious and whose impact on Europe will be a net negative


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