02.28.17
The Boards of Appeal Openly Complain (in the EPO’s Web Site) About Battistelli, But Don’t Tell Battistelli About It…
…or this might happen
Summary: The Boards of Appeal have found the courage — in the face of a pattern of illegal retaliation — to state that Battistelli’s abuse of power compromises the perceived if not actual legitimacy of their decisions
Battistelli, having studied at ENA (a school notorious for producing French sociopaths), is accustomed to just intimidating and bullying those who don’t agree with him, even his bosses/overseers. So it’s hardly surprising that he’s scaring and punishing even judges, i.e. people who are far more qualified than he will ever be. Battistelli must feel lonesome and insecure at the EPO; he is surrounded by very clever people (although more of them are leaving over time) and at public events nobody wants to even speak to him. Any respect he may sense that he gets is purely out of fear, just like the Mafia’s Don (0% of staff and stakeholders tolerate Battistelli, based on polls). As someone from the inside put it last year: “People were chatting all around but all backs turned to him. He looked extremely alone, almost like a leper and maybe he also felt so. His body language showed enough: hunchbacked and looking down, avoiding eye contact with his staff.”
“Battistelli must feel lonesome and insecure at the EPO; he is surrounded by very clever people (although more of them are leaving over time) and at public events nobody wants to even speak to him.”The bully complex or inferiority complex is a well explained phenomenon that we probably needn’t explain to readers. It’s one possible explanation for the policies Battistelli — now enjoying immunity (crazy situation and a recipe for disaster of biblical proportions!) — foists upon everyone around him.
The other day we spotted this comment at IP Kat (which no longer writes about EPO scandals, but certainly continues to attract comments about it, from people who trust Google for anonymity):
Wow. The EPO’s annual report on the Boards of Appeal makes interesting reading… in that case Art 23 1/16 is now officially expunged from history. There is literally no indication in the report that the case ever took place.
I had wondered how Monsieur le President would handle this. Now I know. He has decided to contravene the provisions of the EPC yet again. Having suffered no consequences for doing the same in the past, he must feel confident of getting away with it again.
Frankly, I am disgusted by the ineptitude and cronyism displayed by the AC (as a whole) which has enabled this to come to pass under their watch. It makes you wonder which breaches of the EPC (or even crimes) they would actually take action over.
The “cronyism displayed by the AC,” as this person said, should make one wonder if Battistelli controls them by things he knows (and can have them scandalised/fired over), not necessarily money (EPO budget). Would “breaches of the EPC (or even crimes) [be things they would] actually take action over”? Some people have already compared this situation to that of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Speaking of crimes, we have something pretty big to show soon, but only after further and thorough verification (for our safety and the safety of sources).
“Speaking of crimes, we have something pretty big to show soon, but only after further and thorough verification (for our safety and the safety of sources).”Shortly after the above comment the EPO wrote: “The annual report of the boards of appeal of the European Patent Office 2016 is now available online” (linking to this page; warning: epo.org links can potentially be used to unmask readers).
Battistelli of course still crushes these boards, in spite of the EPC which he is trying to work around. He just keeps calling exile “independence” or “perception of independence”, so we can’t help but wonder if that fellow Corsican Napoleon (same place as Battistelli’s, but a more infamous person) felt like he was liberated after he had suffered expulsion.
Now read the following new comment about Battistelli:
G2301/15 made it online …
4.3.
Removal and judicial independenceThe Enlarged Board stated in G 2301/15 that removing an irksome judge from office could be used to indirectly influence decisions. It was crucial to judicial independence that judges cannot be removed without special institutional safeguards. The requirement that a board member may only exceptionally be removed from office on a proposal from the Enlarged Board intended to make sure that unsubstantiated or groundless allegations could not be used as pretext for getting rid of an irksome judge.
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_iv_f_4_3.htm
But watch it disappear soon when El Presidente finds out!!!
Well, we have taken a screenshot just in case and added the likely facial expression of Battistelli (if or when he sees this).
“In our view, anything that the boards (including the Enlarged Board of Appeal) do right now we have to assume that they do under fear/terror from Battistelli, hence their judgement — by their very own admission — may already have been severely compromised.”As a side note, Battistelli’s propaganda mill, IAM, has just published a so-called “International report” (these are not reports but self-promotional pieces from legal firms) that speaks of the Enlarged Board of Appeal rules on partial priority” — a subject which we already covered here earlier this year. To quote: “A new decision from the European Patent Office (EPO) Enlarged Board of Appeal (G 1/15) marks a radical change in the EPO’s approach to assessing priority entitlement. The decision resets the EPO’s approach to assessing priority in the situation where only some parts of the claim are entitled to priority – a concept known as ‘partial priority’ – making it much easier for a claim to benefit from partial priority.”
In our view, anything that the boards (including the Enlarged Board of Appeal) do right now we have to assume that they do under fear/terror from Battistelli, hence their judgement — by their very own admission — may already have been severely compromised. The Angry Baby, baby Battistelli, will throw some more toys out of his pram if the boards do not cave in and become his toys, enabling ever-so-great ‘production’ figures (at the expense of quality, wellbeing of staff, common sense and so on). The Office is not functioning and the whole Organisation is in shambles. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA