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

03.08.17

Latest EPO ‘Results’ Should be Grounds for Immediate Dismissal of Battistelli Rather Than Celebrations

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

By Associate Professor in intellectual property law at London School of Economics:

Translation/projection: Prepare for massive, unprecedented EPO layoffs, probably amid what looks like a transition to a much-dreaded registration office (no quality control)

Summary: The quality of European patents, or EPs, should be the elephant in the room next week, but will delegates dare bring up the subject and recognise the irreversible ruin caused by Battistelli, who flushed down pending applications by cursory decisions?

WE have already published numerous articles about the EPO‘s so-called ‘results’ [1, 2], which measure ‘success’ using Battistelli’s yardstick that got ‘hacked’ (it was originally a well-intentioned yardstick, but Battistelli decided to just simply game it). Are European patents (EPs) becoming just (E)arly (certainty) (P)atents, i.e. something granted in a rush under pressure from above?

Low quality of patents leads to a lot of spurious, frivolous litigation. Anyone who has paid attention to the legacy of pre-reform (e.g. AIA) USPTO would know that. Yet this week, so far at least, all we see are puff pieces like “Italy has EU’s second-largest increase in patent requests” (not a word about quality) or this by Kelcee Griffis from Law 360. The latter says that the “European Patent Office both received more patent applications and granted more patents in 2016 than it did in the previous year, according to data released Tuesday, setting a new all-time high.”

“Low quality of patents leads to a lot of spurious, frivolous litigation.”Actually, this is not true. It wouldn’t be the first time the EPO fudges numbers, as we demonstrated repeatedly last year (other people too had spoken about it, including insiders who generally know the raw figures).

Earlier today the EPO wrote: “#Transport registered the 2nd strongest growth in 2016 in terms of patent applications. http://buzz.mw/b1wo0_l cc @Bulc_EU pic.twitter.com/NgaBB1aDE7″

“It wouldn’t be the first time the EPO fudges numbers, as we demonstrated repeatedly last year (other people too had spoken about it, including insiders who generally know the raw figures).”Maybe instead of “growth” they could say weakness — a weakness or weakening of rigorous examination. Earlier today we also discovered that EPO puff pieces had reached as far as English language Chinese media, e.g. [1, 2]. There are press releases from big companies, including tobacco companies like Philip Morris (we are not kidding!). Siemens just seems to think that it’s a popularity contest.

Benjamin Henrion told the EPO “thanks for your software patents, they account for a big part.”

This is true based on what insiders have told us. The EPO still flagrantly violates terms of the EPC and grants software patents in willful defiance of well-understood directives. And what for? Artificial gains?

“The EPO still flagrantly violates terms of the EPC and grants software patents in willful defiance of well-understood directives.”The EPO is either paying Watchtroll, a loud proponent of software patents, for press releases, or maybe Watchtroll just voluntary reposts press releases of the EPO for personal gain. We are not quite so sure yet, but either way, we are stunned at the lack of actual investigative journalism, taking into account input from professionals such as the above Associate Professor. Is every writer out there so lazy and so eager to just copy and paste EPO statements rather than examine the underlying evidence?

Today, being International Women’s Day, the EPO rode the wave (as it did on cancer, in spite of its terrible record on it). In spite of the EPO having a notorious lack of diversity, including the fact that the proportion of female workers at EPO is far lower than the average, it wrote this: “Happy International Women’s Day! Have a look at these brilliant women inventors & their life-changing work http://buzz.mw/b1wr7_l #IWD2017 pic.twitter.com/6UGDFcSOnU”

“The danger to Battistelli is, if appeals are affordable (access to justice), then the erosion of patent quality would quickly become measurable, abundantly evident, and simply undeniable.”Pure marketing and a two-faced attitude. At the same time (also today) the EPO had the audacity to pretend that it cares about appeals, even though it does everything it can to discourage appeals (understaffing, higher costs, shortening of appeal window, distance from airport/Office etc.). The EPO wrote: “What is the best approach to take when objecting to a pending application or granted patent?”

“There is no approach anymore,” I told them, as “Battistelli is killing the appeal boards…”

The danger to Battistelli is, if appeals are affordable (access to justice), then the erosion of patent quality would quickly become measurable, abundantly evident, and simply undeniable. Battistelli just wants a bunch of obedient assembly line workers, just like in INPI. He wants filers, not examiners, or so it would seem based on leaks

People at IP Kat have begun discussing how to get rid of Battistelli. The basis upon which Battistelli can be fired in 7 days or less, this person believes, is the EPO Service Regulations:

How about Article 53 of the EPO Service Regulations ?

Article 53
Dismissal for other reasons
(1) The appointing authority may decide to terminate the service of a
permanent employee if:

(c) in the case of an employee appointed by the Administrative Council in
accordance with Article 11, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention, the
Administrative Council so decides in the interests of the Organisation.

A bit of a no-brainer really I would have thought.

If Battistelli is buying votes (as widely alleged), then Battistelli won’t be fired except by outside intervention (which can potentially induce resignation). As another person put it, replying to the provocative comment above:

Read the small print,
But read the even smaller print about how they make such a decision.i think a simple majority isn’t enough (and you can be sure BB will not fall on his sword from a vote of no confidence.

The “EPO represents 73 per cent of the total number of pending ILO cases,” Henrion wrote, quoting The Register. Is that not enough to show the Council that the EPO is a disaster now (as Board 28 already admitted)?

The next comment says:

Replying to “Read the Small Print” immediately above, you refer to sub-Article 1 of Art 11 of the EPC, reminding us that the Administrative Council “may” decide to dispense with the services of any person appointed under Art 11(1) if that would be “in the interests” of the Organisation.

But Art 11(1) is exclusively concerned with the office of President of the EPO.

As you say, by now it is, for an AC that is mindful of its international responsibilities, using everyday undiplomatic parlance, a No Brainer.

Then the nature of a vote was brought up:

You may need to put your reading glasses on.

Article 35(2) EPC states that a three-quarters majority is required for a decision under Article 11(1) EPC – that is a decision to appoint a President.

http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar35.html

A decision to dismiss a President is a decision taken by the Administrative Council in exercise of its disciplinary authority under Article 11(4) EPC.

UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 35 EPC FOR SUCH A DECISION A SIMPLE MAJORITY WILL SUFFICE.

The only open question is: who would dare to put such a motion on the Agenda?

This next reply noted that “Article 35 EPC limits the requirement for a 3/4 majority to the appointment of a President under Article 11 paragraph 1 of the EPC. The exercise of disciplinary authority under Article 11 paragraph 4 only requires a simple majority.”

A “majority” when small (easy to ‘bribe’) nations are unweighted according to their size? In which case it’s not a majority of people but a majority of mere delegates (or flags)? Battistelli knows how to deal with such circumstances. He controls a lot of EPO budget and can distribute it to control outcomes.

Then, linking to Techrights, one person wrote about the so-called results:

Like a hamster in its wheel said

“Quality is overrated guys see: http://techrights.org/2017/03/07/destroying-the-reputation-of-epo/ ”

only + 40% output in one year. I would have expected more

If Battistelli was not to be judged based on his sheer abuses but only based on performance, would that qualify as a good outcome? It mustn’t. It’s just insane! It’s like selling one’s children for a profit. Such artificial ‘gains’ are temporary and damaging, by the very nature they are attained. Insiders know this and they agree with our assessment on this, but will anyone among the delegates be courageous enough to stand up and point it out next week? Or will they all just worship the invisible dress that covers Battistell’s naked body? Would it be a pain in the butt-istelli to speak truth to Battistell? Possibly.

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

A Single Comment

  1. Anton_P said,

    March 9, 2017 at 3:32 am

    Gravatar

    Re awards to women inventors:- don’t forget the 2015 inventor of the year award to Ms. Holmes
    http://www.epo.org/learning-events/european-inventor/finalists/2015/holmes.html
    A couuple of years later the company has shut down because the “invention” did not work and the company/Holmes is being investigated
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/10/08/bad-blood-the-decline-and-fall-of-elizabeth-holmes-and-theranos/#3e41bdf1c335

What Else is New


  1. Raw: Why EPO Host Nations (Netherlands and Germany) Turn a Blind Eye to Horrific Scenarios

    Put bluntly, attacks on the staff don't matter as much as the money, so host nations look the other way and try to brush a defunct system under the rug



  2. Raw: EPO 'Social Democracy' is Like a 1AM Vote on UPC by Only 5% of Politicians

    A reminder that the EPO's disdain for democracy goes more than three years back



  3. Amid Constitutional Court Barrier, Unitary Patent (UPC) Looks Dead Even to UPC Proponents, the EPO's UPC 'Study' Comes Under Fire

    This Thanksgiving Day is spent by Team UPC trying to prop up the UPC even though no progress whatsoever is being made and the EPO's 'study' on the UPC is said to be flawed



  4. The European Patent Office Has Become the 'Foxconn' of Patent Offices

    The demise of the EPO, which emulates patent offices that are racing to the bottom, is a life-threatening employer which now jeopardises its very existence



  5. Links 23/11/2017: Lumina and Qt Quick

    Links for the day



  6. EPO is Imploding as Benoît Battistelli Drains Out Work, Talent, and Justice

    Battistelli's vicious assault on the Office, culminating in an attack on justice and the drainage of work (declining/decreasing 'demand' for 'products') necessarily means mass layoffs and nothing to fill the vacuum left



  7. Links 22/11/2017: Qt 5.9.3 Released, FCC v the Internet

    Links for the day



  8. Patent Lawyers' Media Comes to Grips With the End of Software Patents

    The reality of the matter is grim for software patents and the patent microcosm, 'borrowing' the media as usual, tries to give false hopes by insinuating that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) may overturn Alice quite soon



  9. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Foes Manipulate the Facts to Belittle the Impact of PTAB

    In an effort to sabotage PTAB with its inter partes reviews the patent microcosm is organising one-sided events that slam PTAB's legitimacy and misrepresent statistics



  10. Links 21/11/2017: LibreELEC (Krypton) v8.2.1 MR, Mesa 17.3.0 RC5

    Links for the day



  11. PTAB Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) Are Essential in an Age When One Can Get Sued for Merely Mocking a Patent

    The battle over the right to criticise particular patents has gotten very real and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) fought it until the end; this is why we need granted patents to be criticised upon petitions too (and often invalidated as a result)



  12. Chinese Patent Policy Continues to Mimic All the Worst Elements of the American System

    China is becoming what the United States used to be in terms of patents, whereas the American system is adopting saner patent policies that foster real innovation whilst curtailing mass litigation



  13. Links 20/11/2017: Why GNU/Linux is Better Than Windows, Another Linus Torvalds Rant

    Links for the day



  14. “US Inventor” is a “Bucket of Deplorables” Not Worthy of Media Coverage

    Jan Wolfe of Reuters treats a fringe group called “US Inventor” as though it's a conservative voice rather than a bunch of patent extremists pretending to be inventors



  15. Team Battistelli's Attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal Predate the Illegal Sanctions Against a Judge

    A walk back along memory lane reveals that Battistelli has, all along, suppressed and marginalised DG3 members, in order to cement total control over the entire Organisation, not just the Office



  16. PTAB is Safe, the Patent Extremists Just Try to Scandalise It Out of Sheer Desperation

    The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which gave powers to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through inter partes reviews (IPRs), has no imminent threats, not potent ones anyway



  17. Update on the EPO's Crackdown on the Boards of Appeal

    Demand of 35% increases from the boards serves to show that Battistelli now does to the 'independent' judges what he already did to examiners at the Office



  18. The Lobbyists Are Trying to Subvert US Law in Favour of Patent Predators

    Mingorance, Kappos, Underweiser and other lobbyists for the software patents agenda (paid by firms like Microsoft and IBM) keep trying to undo progress, notably the bans on software patents



  19. Patent Trolls Based in East Texas Are Affected Very Critically by TC Heartland

    The latest situation in Texas (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in particular), which according to new analyses is the target of legal scrutiny for the 'loopholes' it provided to patent trolls in search of easy legal battles



  20. Alice Remains a Strong Precedential Decision and the Media Has Turned Against Software Patents

    The momentum against the scourge of software patents and the desperation among patent 'professionals' (people who don't create/develop/invent) is growing



  21. Harm Still Caused by Granted Software Patents

    A roundup of recent (past week's) announcements, including legal actions, contingent upon software patents in an age when software patents bear no real legitimacy



  22. Links 18/11/2017: Raspberry Digital Signage 10, New Nano

    Links for the day



  23. 23,000 Posts

    23,000 blog posts milestone reached in 11 years



  24. BlackBerry Cannot Sell Phones and Apple Looks Like the Next BlackBerry (a Pile of Patents)

    The lifecycle of mobile giants seems to typically end in patent shakedown, as Apple loses its business to Android just like Nokia and BlackBerry lost it to Apple



  25. EFF and CCIA Use Docket Navigator and Lex Machina to Identify 'Stupid Patents' (Usually Software Patents That Are Not Valid)

    In spite of threats and lawsuits from bogus 'inventors' whom they criticise, EFF staff continues the battle against patents that should never have been granted at all



  26. The Australian Productivity Commission Shows the Correct Approach to Setting Patent Laws and Scope

    Australia views patents on software as undesirable and acts accordingly, making nobody angry except a bunch of law firms that profited from litigation and patent maximalism



  27. EPO 'Business' From the United States Has Nosedived and UPC is on Its Death Throes

    Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot further accelerate the ultimate demise of the EPO (getting rid of experienced and thus 'expensive' staff), for which there is no replacement because there is a monopoly (which means Europe will suffer severely)



  28. Links 17/11/2017: KDE Applications 17.12, Akademy 2018 Plans

    Links for the day



  29. Today's EPO and Team UPC Do Not Work for Europe But Actively Work Against Europe

    The tough reality that some Europeans actively work to undermine science and technology in Europe because they personally profit from it and how this relates to the Unitary Patent (UPC), which is still aggressively lobbied for, sometimes by bribing/manipulating the media, academia, and public servants



  30. Links 16/11/2017: WordPress 4.9 and GhostBSD 11.1 Released

    Links for the day


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