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. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  2. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB



  3. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way



  4. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division



  5. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately



  6. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  7. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  8. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels



  9. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)



  10. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles



  11. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers



  12. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)



  13. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  14. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  15. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts



  16. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs



  17. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply



  18. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day



  19. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated



  20. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'



  21. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day



  22. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter



  23. The EPO is Being Destroyed and There's Nothing Left to Replace It Except National Patent Offices

    It looks like Battistelli is setting up the European Patent Office (EPO) for mass layoffs; in fact, it looks as though he is so certain that the UPC will materialise that he obsesses over "validation" for mass litigation worldwide, departing from a "model office" that used to lead the world in terms of patent quality and workers' welfare/conditions



  24. IBM is Getting Desperate and Now Suing Microsoft Over Lost Staff, Not Just Suing Everyone Using Patents

    IBM's policy when it comes to patents, not to mention its alignment with patent extremists, gives room for thought if not deep concern; the company rapidly becomes more and more like a troll



  25. In Microsoft's Lawsuit Against Corel the Only Winner is the Lawyers

    The outcome of the old Microsoft v Corel lawsuit reaffirms a trend; companies with deep pockets harass their competitors, knowing that the legal bills are more cumbersome to the defendants; there's a similar example today in Cisco v Arista Networks



  26. The Latest Lies About Unitary Patent (UPC) and the EPO

    Lobbying defies facts; we are once again seeing some easily-debunked talking points from those who stand to benefit from the UPC and mass litigation



  27. Speech Deficit and No Freedom of Association at the EPO

    True information cannot be disseminated at the EPO and justice too is beyond elusive; this poses a threat to the EPO's future, not only to its already-damaged reputation



  28. No, Britain is Not Ratifying 'Unitary' Anything, But Team UPC Insinuates It Will (Desperate Effort to Affect Tomorrow's Outcome)

    Contrary to several misleading headlines from Bristows (in its blog and others'), the UPC isn't happening and isn't coming to the UK; it all amounts to lobbying (by setting false expectations)



  29. The EPO's Paid Promotion of Software Patents Gets Patent Maximalists All Excited and Emboldened

    The software patents advocacy from Battistelli (and his cohorts) isn't just a spit in the face of European Parliament but also the EPC; but patent scope seems to no longer exist or matter under his watch, as all he cares about is granting as many patents as possible, irrespective of real quality/legitimacy/merit



  30. Andrei Iancu Begins His USPTO Career While Former USPTO Director (and Now Paid Lobbyist) Keeps Meddling in Office Affairs

    The USPTO, which is supposed to be a government branch (loosely speaking) is being lobbied by former officials, who are now being paid by private corporations to help influence and shape policies; this damages the image of the Office and harms its independence from corporate influence


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