Your latest coverage about Europe’s most important subject is several months old, in a British blog…
Summary: IP Kat’s awkward silence about the European Patent Office (in the face of many historic/critical events) demonstrated again, in light of the news that the EPO’s Boards of Appeal might soon be sent to ‘exile’ (likely a long-term deprecation plan to mask patent quality degradation)
PEOPLE who rely on IP Kat for EPO news won’t get the information they deserve, unless they look very closely at the comments added to a very, very old thread (see above). The site has been totally quiet about it since the EPO threatened by means of blocking the site, as it first did to Techrights. Has IP Kat just surrendered to the bullies? Will there ever be any criticism of the EPO there (ever again)?
The EPO was mentioned very briefly only in “Friday Fantasies” (yesterday) where there’s a small section that reads:
New EPO Enlarged Board referral: does the gold standard apply to a bitten apple? Tufty the Cat brings us news on the latest EPO Enlarged Board referral in the appeal case of T 437/14, which considers if the “gold standard” test for assessing any amendment for compliance with A123(2) EPC must also be applied to the type of undisclosed disclaimers that would otherwise be allowable under G 1/03.
There is much bigger news regarding the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeals, but IP Kat isn’t talking about it. Only its readers do and the only place where it would not be off topic is a thread from the summer. “It seems that 63% of the voters do not agree with the move of the BoA to Haar,” this commenter wrote. To quote:
the Budget & Finance Committee of the Admin Council has approved the “resettlement” of the Boards of Appeal to Haar.
13 votes in favour, 8 against and 15 abstentions.
It seems that 63% of the voters do not agree with the move of the BoA to Haar.
Abstentions, however, are not taken into consideration when counting the votes.
The move to Haar, therefore, has been approved by 61% of the voters.
Magic at the EPO!
The response to which was:
BoA: To the great silent majority of the B28 and AC we ask your support.
BB: Hmmm…the Silent Majority is a phase used by Homer to describe the dead!
And here is the latest very curious input:
It seems to me that this is a case in which weighting of votes in accordance with Article 36 EPC would be justified.
Weighting of votes
(1) In respect of the adoption or amendment of the Rules relating to Fees and, if the financial contribution to be made by the Contracting States would thereby be increased, the adoption of the budget of the Organisation and of any amending or supplementary budget, any Contracting State may require, following a first ballot in which each Contracting State shall have one vote, and whatever the result of this ballot, that a second ballot be taken immediately, in which votes shall be given to the States in accordance with paragraph 2. The decision shall be determined by the result of this second ballot.
I wonder if the AC delegates have actually read the rule book?