Also see: Ousting of Benoît Battistelli Next Week Seems Feasible, But Jesper Kongstad Protects Rather Than Supervises Battistelli
Summary: The EPO’s Administrative Council continues to be subservient to — and without any authority over — Team Battistelli with its endless mischief and endless power grab, including unbridled money grab
THE EPO lost the separation of powers. Jesper Kongstad has become nothing but a lap pet — be it a chinchilla or a dog — of Battistelli (whom he ‘supervises’) and hence, those whom Kongstad ‘chairs’ are the lapdogs of the lapdog. It would be utterly comical if it wasn’t so serious and resulted in many suicides (tragedies to entire families, sometimes spouses and children too).
George Brock-Nannestad, who comes from Denmark, explains that Danish people are hardly aware what the head of their patent office, Kongstad, has actually been up to:
I (and nobody else in the general public) is aware of the role played by the Chairman of the AC, essentially because no journalists know enough about the esoteric patent field to perform investigative journalism.
The comments in IPKat have given us rumours, but they have not been substantiated. The journalists I have spoken to have been more interested in the human angle to the managerial atrocities at the EPO, and they have not been interested in learning that such atrocities are just a means to an end. And when I have argued that we do not even know what the end is, why all of this is happening, their deadline suddenly stops their absorbance of facts.
With a politician in charge (no scientist or someone from the legal professional), the “EPO moved from rules of law to lobbying.” So says this response to George Brock-Nannestad:
The problem at the EPO is not the quantity of grants (+40%) or their low quality. The main problem is that the EPO moved from rules of law to lobbying.
In your example, you suggest for the SMEs to file observations and to file good oppositions. But what could they do when the competitor has direct contact with the directors and with the higher management?
The examiners are instructucted to follow the opinion of their managers. The BoA is under control and has lost its independence.
For the SMEs the main problem is not the grant of the patent of a competitor but the refusal of their own inventive patent.
Watch the tyrannical Battistelli, based on this new comment, removing another position below him, in order to hoard/grab more power. The following was expected and we covered the subject earlier this month. Did the chinchillas stand in Battistelli’s way? Of course not!
Result of the discussion : BB says to the AC “I have decided not to replace VP1″ (who is only in charge of ca. 4500 civil servants”…
The AC (who IS in charge of nominating VPs) : MUTE
Result : BB 1 – AC 0
Don’t miss this rumour (unverified) that small countries, whose delegates Battistelli typically or at least allegedly 'buys', acted as couriers or mouthpieces of Team Battistelli. To quote:
Feedback AC nr 2
usually only few delegations speak during the open part of the AC meeting (eg CH, NL, DE and the like)
In confidential session though, all liliputian delegations (eg Albania, Croatia etc) who have the IP activities you know, who normally speak very bad English, then read speaches written in Oxbridge EN (apparently prepared by…the EPO !)
“Like his Greek tyrant friend Serafeim Stasinos,” wrote one person to us the other day, regarding one who “used to “represent” Greece in the Finance nd Budget Committee of EPO, while in his country had no institutional position!!!! just by being Beny’s [Battistelli's] friend…”
Remember just how many times, especially recently, Battistelli traveled to high-corruption countries to sign all sorts of deals. He’s barely seen with any widely-respected officials anymore. Maybe there is a reason for this. Maybe even these official are too wise to be publicly seen with a thug like Battistelli.
Readers who speak Dutch are encouraged to speak to Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Bert Koenders, who seems eager to take action [1, 2]. Collectively, delegates are evidently far too complicit to actually do anything. They themselves are part of the problem and the whole Organisation has thus gone rogue. █
Send this to a friend
They are afraid of divestment — an emergent reality which they themselves have led to with their reckless actions
Summary: Growing pressure on the EPO’s management to acknowledge that quality control has gone totally out of control as stakeholders already grasp the obvious and act accordingly, turning to other patent offices, such as their national ones (NPOs)
THE number of patent applications from the US nosedived at the EPO. It fell by nearly 6% in just a single year (based on EPO data, which is itself dubious), whereas the same cannot be said about the USPTO.
What does that mean? Maybe that means that Americans are sufficiently well informed. As we explained in our previous post, EPs are overpriced and have become easier to challenge in a court of law. Sloppy examination process isn’t the fault of examiners but the fault of their managers, who agree (on behalf of top-level management, notably Team Battistelli) to run the Office like an assembly line with unrealistic quotas. Examiners who don’t play alone with this spiel will simply lose their job and likely remain unemployed for a long, long time (there are severe sanctions imposed on future employment of former EPO staff).
“Sloppy examination process isn’t the fault of examiners but the fault of their managers, who agree (on behalf of top-level management, notably Team Battistelli) to run the Office like an assembly line with unrealistic quotas.”For those who missed the leak which Team Battistelli attempted to distract from, see it now: “Leaked E-mails From the EPO’s Roberto Vacca Reveal That Patent Quality at the European Patent Office Has Become Farcical” (based on hard evidence).
Many insiders have probably heard of if not actually seen this by now. This is seriously toxic stuff!
Yesterday the EPO wrote: “Knowing how examiners organise their work can help you understand the processing time of applications.”
Notice the wording (or words) used by the EPO nowadays: “production”, “demand”, “processing”…
“Processing” as in taking files off the shelf and pretending to do examination because Battistelli wants “production” (or else!)?
“Knowing how examiners organise their work can help you understand the processing time of applications.”
–EPOExaminers keep telling us they are unable to actually do their job. This isn’t what they joined the Office to actually do. Battistelli has accomplished nothing; he converted a bunch of highly sophisticated individuals (experts in their respective fields) into a horde of obedient “processors”. They don’t like it, stakeholders don’t like it, and the public should certainly not like it (much of it is still in the dark about this).
Several months ago we showed that both patent quality and quality of service (not the same thing) nosedived based on stories we had covered here. Complaints about this reached even European politicians! Quality of service and also patent quality are a problem. 0% approval rating for Battistelli says quite a lot. Nowadays, even the examiners themselves are signaling so outwards (maybe hoping that stakeholders will pressure further for the sacking of Battistelli).
“Heard just yesterday from an insider,” one person told us recently, “those guys are not loud enough, not enough guts.”
We mentioned this in our previous post. Battistelli’s reign of terror keeps many of them reluctantly quiet. This atmosphere of great fear at many levels (as they know he is immune from prosecution) serves to protect him. He’s another Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, bar the mustache.
“Heard just yesterday from an insider, those guys are not loud enough, not enough guts.”
–AnonymousSome examiners (not all), from what we have been able to gather, want to tell stakeholders that they need to divest — as few already do — because only then the EPO’s chinchillas (Administrative Council) might get the message and fire Battistelli (even if Battistelli lies to them constantly and pays them money).
Battistelli, who continues to use IAM as his propaganda mill (as he has done for a while), likes to pretend nothing is amiss when it comes to quality. Maybe he even trained himself to believe his own lies. Maybe.
On the subject of patent quality, since the 2016 ‘results’ were announced, we have written MANY articles, including:
Knowing that the truth would discourage further applications (at these high prices), maybe even renewals that have been a cash cow, the EPO’s management leaps into action and according to this comment from yesterday, the EPO’s management is attacking its own staff again, for merely stating facts:
New Communiqué from the two old farts VP1 and VP2 : the manipulation is so cheap and below the belt! this shows that when addressing the Admin Council in their statement where they worry about the fact that the figures are due to unhealthy production pressure which can only impact on the quality of the work done (thus caring for the future of the EPO), the Staff Reps have hit the nerve!
And this auch noch signed by VP1 (an ex-examiner who did all he could not to do patents) and from VP2 (a man whose level mirrors that of Manuel in Fawlty Towers…)
I am proud to be represented by you guys! Hut ab!
We have the duty to inform you that yesterday when the Administrative Council was discussing the progress report of the Unitary Patent Protection, the staff representatives took this opportunity to attack publicly again, in front of all Member States’ delegates and the user representatives, the quality of the products delivered by EPO staff, without any evidence but unfounded allegations.
Although all objective indicators, supported by regular internal and external audits and user surveys, have demonstrated that EPO quality has increased over the last years, these attacks are repeated publicly. It shows a total lack of respect for the colleagues who have shown by their efforts and professionalism the capacity of the Office to improve the quality of the products and services of the Office.
The staff representation has the right to criticize any aspect of the management of the Office if they so wish. The staff has the right to know what its representatives say about its work.
Got that? Truth is treason at the EPO! So much for an institution based on rule of law, science, and integrity. It looks more and more like a mosque. To deviate from the king’s rosy view is “apostasy”, punishable by suicide.
“New Communiqué from the two old farts VP1 and VP2 : the manipulation is so cheap and below the belt! this shows that when addressing the Admin Council in their statement where they worry about the fact that the figures are due to unhealthy production pressure which can only impact on the quality of the work done (thus caring for the future of the EPO), the Staff Reps have hit the nerve!”
–AnonymousQuality of patents at the EPO has definitely declined. That’s patently true, so it’s not a badge of honour — as Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona believes it to be — to just throw lots of money at EPs. It’s a total waste of money. “The UAB continues to lead Spain in patent applications,” it wrote, but isn’t that just misuse of public money? It’s worse than waste of money because some of these patents, as we have witnessed in the US, are funded by the public to later be sold to patent trolls, which in turn attack and tax the public. It’s like the public paying tax to fund the very weapons that will later be used against that same public.
The above tweet from Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona was retweeted by the EPO, which later added: “The EPO received 2.8% fewer applications from Denmark in 2016″ (link to
“You forgot to show the map from which you REMOVED Denmark,” I told them, alluding to the following series of articles about the insulting map and misleading claims from the EPO:
The EPO copied DKPTO on that tweet. Staff of the DKPTO ought to know what their boss is doing behind closed doors. It’s truly despicable. There are probably some countries where he would be arrested for such actions, for charges including — but not limited to — animal cruelty.
Thankfully, people who read our articles have begun actively challenging the lies from the EPO. One account that follows me asked them: “How did you search all the criteria (mentioned above) in the databases? Is there an automated and computated process?”
“Thankfully, people who read our articles have begun actively challenging the lies from the EPO.”The EPO did not even respond this time around. It wants to just take the discussion out of public sight. It said, “we appreciate your interest & would gladly provide you further details on the methodology. Pls email us at email@example.com”
Like “press” people are likely to understand the underlying science. They’re skilled at misleading and lying more than anything else. That’s in their job description almost, and they are now assisted by fracking lobbyists (outside help). Guess who foots the bills for these lies…
“If the EPO wanted to repair its reputation, it would have to delete many of these videos, including the one from Battistelli, in which he insults his staff, the staff representatives, the intelligence of all Europeans, the Boards of Appeal, and the laws of Europe (UPC is completely unconstitutional in a lot of countries).”We have said it before and it’s worth repeating: every single day the EPO spreads a lie or two (if not more). It’s more than embarrassing; it’s totally outrageous. It is damaging to Europe and it paints patents in a very negative light. See this new tweet which says : “Test your knowledge: Which tech field saw the most inventive activity in 2016? This might give you a hint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quXqa3zr5MI …”
This video is damage control and misdirection, as explained in yesterday's article about it. If the EPO wanted to repair its reputation, it would have to delete many of these videos, including the one from Battistelli, in which he insults his staff, the staff representatives, the intelligence of all Europeans, the Boards of Appeal, and the laws of Europe (UPC is completely unconstitutional in a lot of countries). █
Send this to a friend
Also see: The Boards of Appeal Openly Complain (in the EPO’s Web Site) About Battistelli, But Don’t Tell Battistelli About It…
Summary: Battistelli’s notorious reign of terror has caused patents to be granted that are bogus and no longer valid (if/once challenged); moreover, it prevents legal firms from lashing out at him publicly while bogus patents continue to pile up, diminishing confidence in European patents (EPs)
AT THE EPO, patent scope has gone awry based on the management's own admission. But depending on the target audience, they might attempt to tell a different story (diversionary tactics). The USPTO, by contrast, has acknowledged similar problems and is actively working to correct them, much to the pain of the patent microcosm in the US. Patents are a man-made concept and they need to be limited based on various factors such as speed of innovation, production costs, cost of research (e.g. drug discovery and facilities), and public interests (e.g. mortality versus luxury). All this is beyond the scope of this post and was covered here hundreds of times before.
“Patents are a man-made concept and they need to be limited based on various factors such as speed of innovation, production costs, cost of research (e.g. drug discovery and facilities), and public interests (e.g. mortality versus luxury).”A few days ago we saw the lawyers’ media publishing “EPO Stay Of Proceedings In Biotech Cases” — in itself not news but more of an analysis and déjà vu. We already wrote several articles about it; EPO management consciously took a swipe at the law by granting such patents in the first place. Patent lawyers and their clients are now understandably concerned that their patents may be worthless, as a result of belated political intervention (which Team Battistelli belatedly decided to obey, for a change). To quote:
Following a Notice of the European Commission related to certain parts of the EU Biotech Directive (98/44/EC), the EPO has decided to stay all examination and opposition proceedings in which the invention is a plant or animal obtained by an essentially biological process.
The Commission Notice appears to be in direct response to decisions of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal in the “Tomato II” and “Broccoli II” cases (G 2/12 and G 2/13). These decisions related to the patentability of products which could be obtained by an essentially biological process. Such essentially biological processes are excluded from patentability by Article 53(b) EPC. However, the Enlarged Board decided that the exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants by Article 53(b) EPC does not have a negative effect on the allowability of a product claim directed to plants or plant material. Therefore, such product claims are potentially allowable under the EPC.
Following these decisions, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution which asked the Commission to look at the patentability of plants and animals obtained by means of essentially biological processes. Surprisingly, we understand that the Commission undertook this review without consulting its own expert working group on biotech patents. The resulting notice sets out the Commission’s view of the intention of the legislator when adopting the EU Biotech Directive 98/44/EC, Article 4(1) of which contains an exclusion drafted in identical terms to Article 53(b) EPC. Their conclusion is that such plants and animals are not patentable under the Directive.
This is a good example of erosion when it comes to confidence in EPs and it is the fault of an Office that decided to disregard directives and common sense.
“See the ramification of Battistelli disregarding the Boards of Appeal?”As for the the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, they cannot function independently anymore (Battistelli lied about them last week in a lame video) as the following new article serves to remind us. Published (as above) by lawyers’ media, it is titled “Antidote to Toxic Divisionals—European Patent Office Rules on Partial Priorities” and it says: “Beginning in 2009, the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) issued a series of decisions that essentially created a new priority law in Europe that allowed members of the same patent family to negate each other’s novelty. Notions such as “poisonous priorities” and “poisonous or toxic divisionals” emerged, threatening patent holders and raising concerns among patent practitioners and scholars. Confirming principles established for priority rights by the Paris Convention, the recent decision G1/15 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO (“EBA” or “Board”) has put an end to this jurisprudence.”
See the ramification of Battistelli disregarding the Boards of Appeal? Or put another way, this is the impact of him choosing to attack/marginalise the Boards of Appeal rather than listen to them. Now there’s a pile of trash granted and enshrined as “EPs”, where the assignees themselves are no longer sure if such EPs are valid at all. Confidence (or certainty) in EPs is the very thing that gives them value, at both ends of negotiation and/or litigation (defendant or licensee included). Look what Battistelli has done!
“Confidence (or certainty) in EPs is the very thing that gives them value, at both ends of negotiation and/or litigation (defendant or licensee included). Look what Battistelli has done!”Battistelli has been so drunk on power and so eager to pursue just so-called ‘production’ that he forgot what a patent office actually is and what it is for (maybe he never knew at all, considering the awkward way INPI handles patents).
With Battistelli in charge, the Office makes enemies out of stakeholders (they want Battistelli out) and out of the public. The public interest groups now openly call, yet again, for the EPO to stop patents on beer, so to speak. Two days ago “No Patents on Seeds” circulated the announcement “Call to stop patents on beer” (see original and copies thereof). To quote just a portion of the text:
The protest is targeted at patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) in 2016 (EP2384110, EP2373154 and EP2575433) to the brewing companies Carlsberg and Heineken. The patents claim barley derived from conventional breeding, its usage in brewing beer and the beer produced thereof. However, the patents are simply based on random mutations in the plant’s genome. Just recently, the EU Commission and the EU Member States made it very clear that patents on plants and animals derived from conventional breeding are not allowed. Nevertheless, the EPO wants to continue to grant patents in future on random mutations. Currently, the civil society organisations are demanding that politicians ensure the loopholes in the law are closed.
The patented barley is said to simplify brewing and make it cheaper, the beer will also supposedly keep fresh for longer. The two brewing companies can profit twice over – by selling the beer and from the cultivation of the barley. At the same time, they can prevent other breeders from breeding better barley and also extend their market dominance – to the detriment of farmers, breeders, other breweries and consumers.
See our recent article titled “Boards of Appeal Still Under Attack From Team Battistelli While the EPO Proceeds to Granting Patents on Carlsberg BEER!"
“It just comes to show how Battistelli’s notorious reign of terror extends beyond the Office and even silences critical blogs (they tried to silence us too, using several legal threats).”Also bear in mind, as we shall show later tonight, that many in patent law firms are deeply concerned about the above granting of dubious patents, which they never thought merited a grant in the first place (there are analogous stories about the USPTO in the 1990s). These firms, i.e. individual employees, are afraid to speak out against the UPC and the EPO (or Battistelli himself), especially using real names (of firms or staff). Fear of retribution, we suppose, against or from an employer (fear that Battistelli will punish the firm and that the firm will then punish staff) is what keeps them separate and isolated. It just comes to show how Battistelli’s notorious reign of terror extends beyond the Office and even silences critical blogs (they tried to silence us too, using several legal threats). We are dealing not with public servants here but with psychopaths. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: The latest attempt of many to reach the ears of the ever-so-deaf Heiko Maas (whose silence on the matter seems to be akin to complicity with Battistelli and the UPC), in addition to the top German official, who — to the best of our knowledge — was never before contacted regarding the European Patent Office (EPO)
WHETHER intentionally or not, we seem to have become a source of information for many EPO workers and disgruntled stakeholders (a lot of concerned companies and legal firms regularly access the site now). More or less inadvertently we have become the de facto site for circulation of material and we are fine with that. It fills a need. We are updated regularly and our goal is justice, with transparency as the means.
“It has been several days since SUEPO published the letter and nearly a month since it was sent.”“Check the Suepo-Website for a new letter to Bundeskanzlerin Merkel,” an anonymous reader told us regarding this letter in German, noting that it is “publicly available” (as we had already noticed but hoped that a translation would become available).
It has been several days since SUEPO published the letter and nearly a month since it was sent. In this letter to Merkel and must-ignore Maas concerns are expressed about the situation at the EPO. As I’m neither a skilled German speaker, nor do I trust automated translations, I’ve decided to just maintain a local copy in image form (as the original PDF is nothing more than 3 scans or photographs anyway).
SUEPO described this as a “[l]etter of support from the International and European Public Services Organisation (IPSO), The European Central Bank’s recognized trade union for ECB staff to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Federal Minister of Justice Heiko Maas on dismissal at the European Patent Office.”
The letter cites an old Politico article in which Battistelli compared SUEPO to “Mafia” — a move so hypocritical in light of recent articles of ours, e.g.:
- The Battistelli Mafia and Corsica
- The European Patent Office Looks More and More Like the Sicilian Mafia Every Day
Maybe a Mafioso sees everything in terms like “Mafia” or “enemies”, not just concerned staff whose concerns may have merit. █
Send this to a friend