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

11.20.17

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

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 4:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A shocked Battistelli

Summary: 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

LAST night we wrote about the EPO‘s latest attack on the boards, which have already been relegated to the ‘suburbs’ of Munich (Haar). It’s like Battistelli does not want these boards to exist, or wishes to overburden them to the point where they become useless for assurance of patent quality (prior art search and the like). He cannot legally knock them out of existence because of the EPC, but the EPC does not say anything about punishing them relentlessly, so Battistelli will probably get away with it. Now that his departure is almost imminent it’s ever more unlikely that he’ll lose his immunity and himself be subjected to disciplinary actions. 6 weeks from now he and Bergot will officially put the axe to long-term contracts. In other words, 6 months before he’s gone he’s totally destroying any prospects of the EPO ever recovering or salvaging the talent it once had.

Disturbing. To say the least.

We very much doubt the press will cover our findings regarding the Haar ‘party’, which is a sad display of irony if not black comedy. The press repeatedly ignores important stories and developments, as recently as weeks ago. Even comments on the matter might not get through. Here’s yesterday’s report of censorship in IP Kat (or maybe slow moderation by Bristows, or perhaps approval only after a complaint about it). “Censorship is never good,” the comment said. And yes, it’s about the boards. It often seems as though these matters cannot be brought up at IP Kat anymore, as people’s names cannot safely be mentioned (this limits useful debate). Truths are now “personal attacks”. To quote the comment at hand:

Why has my comment relating to recent case re entitlement of priority at the EPO not been accepted?

Is it because I mentioned the plea of a well known specialist about the fact that the EPO should only looking whether there is identity of invention?

I considered my comment as showing that the problem is not a specific one of British courts. No more, no less.

Censorship is never good.

We have meanwhile dug some archives and found the following letter from 3 years ago. We believe it demonstrates how, even before the ‘house ban’ of a judge (Battistelli broke the rules), the boards had come under attacks from Battistelli. This is for readers to judge:

DG3 nominees

Dear Mr Battistelli,

On 12.08.2014 you informed staff of your decision to reduce the “administrative tasks“ performed by the members of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The administrative tasks concerned are the participation in selection boards for procedures external to DG3 and in the work of other bodies under the Service Regulations. In practice, this decision heavily affects nominations in selection boards and in the Disciplinary Committee, where the staff representation used to rely on colleagues from DG3 to provide some independence in those procedures in the past.

As to the reasons, you referred to “possible consequences resulting from the discussion” on the interlocutory decision R 19/12 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

As we understand it, the Enlarged Board decided in decision R 19/12 that the obligation imposed on the Vice-President DG3 (VP3), when acting as a high-ranking officer directly under the President, to consider and support efficiency and productivity goals to be reached by the Office may conflict with his duty, when acting as a member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, to review decisions of the Boards of Appeal as an independent judge and, in so-doing, to contribute to the development of the case law as regards the protection of the procedural rights of the parties. In other words, the Enlarged Board saw in decision R 19/12 a potential conflict of interest between VP3′s managerial and judicial responsibilities.

We do not see such a general potential conflict in the involvement of DG3 members in selection boards, in the Disciplinary Committee or in other bodies under the Service Regulations, essentially because DG3 members have no managerial responsibilities in other DGs.

We therefore respectfully ask to be informed why you consider decision R 19/12 to be relevant to their involvement in those tasks.

We further respectfully ask to be informed why you considered that the obligation to consult the General Consultative Committee in accordance with Article 38 ServRegs did not apply to your decision.

As we now know, this Disciplinary Committee became a farce around that time. Grant Philpott, a thin-skinned advocate of software patents with background in the British Army, was Chairman of the notorious Disciplinary Committee (which ILO deemed to be unsuitably composed months after its union-busting activities had ‘decapitated’ SUEPO).

Those who pretend that the boards were “asking for it” or deserved punishment engage in artistic revisionism of history. Battistelli never wanted them. He wanted to destroy them, having already destroyed several other auditory jobs.

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

What Else is New


  1. Links 13/12/2018: IRS Migration, GNOME 3.31.3 Released

    Links for the day



  2. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions Still Uncontroversial Unless One Asks the Patent Maximalists

    Contrary to what the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has claimed, PTAB is liked by companies that actually create things and opposition to PTAB comes from power brokers of the Koch brothers, law firms, and trolls (including those who foolishly repeat them)



  3. Latest Talk From IBM’s Manny Schecter Shows That IBM Hasn't Changed and After the Red Hat Takeover It'll Continue to Promote Software Patents

    IBM's hardheaded attitude and patent aggression unaffected by its strategic acquisition of a company that at least claimed to oppose software patents (whilst at the same time pursuing them)



  4. The European Patent Troll Wants as Much Litigation as Possible

    Patent quality is a concept no longer recognisable at the European Patent Office; all that the management understands is speed and PACE, which it conflates with quality in order to register as much cash as possible before the whole thing comes crashing down (bubbles always implode at the end)



  5. António Campinos Turns His 'Boss' Into His Lapdog, Just Like Battistelli and Kongstad

    The European Patent Organisation expects us to believe that Josef Kratochvíl will keep the Office honest while his predecessor, the German who failed to do anything about Battistelli's abuses, becomes officially subservient to António Campinos



  6. Links 12/12/2018: Mesa 18.3.1 Released, CNCF Takes Control of etcd

    Links for the day



  7. EPO Trust, Leadership and Commitment

    "Trust, leadership and commitment" is the latest publication from EPO insiders, who in the absence of free speech and freedom of association for the union/representation are an essential spotlight on EPO abuses



  8. Links 11/12/2018: Tails 3.11, New Firefox, FreeBSD 12.0

    Links for the day



  9. Number of Filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Highest in Almost Two Years

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs), which [cref 113718 typically invalidate software patents by citing 35 U.S.C. § 101], are withstanding negative rhetoric and hostility from Iancu



  10. With 'Brexit' in a Lot of Headlines Team UPC Takes the Unitary Patent Lies up a Notch

    Misinformation continues to run like water; people are expected to believe that the UPC, an inherently EU-centric construct, can magically come to fruition in the UK (or in Europe as a whole)



  11. The EPO Not Only Abandoned the EPC But Also the Biotech Directive

    Last week's decision (T1063/18, EPO Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04) shows that there's still a long way to go before the Office and the Organisation as a whole fulfil their obligation to those who birthed the Organisation in the first placeLast week's decision (T1063/18, EPO Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04) shows that there's still a long way to go before the Office and the Organisation as a whole fulfil their obligation to those who birthed the Organisation in the first place



  12. Patents on Abstract Things and on Life (or Patents Which Threaten Lives) Merely Threaten the Very Legitimacy of Patent Offices, Including EPO

    Patent Hubris and maximalism pose a threat or a major risk to the very system that they claim to be championing; by reducing the barrier to entry (i.e. introducing low-quality or socially detrimental patents) they merely embolden ardent critics who demand patent systems as a whole be abolished; the EPO is nowadays a leading example of it



  13. Links 10/12/2018: Linux 4.20 RC6 and Git 2.20

    Links for the day



  14. US Courts Make the United States' Patent System Sane Again

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and other factors are making the patent system in the US a lot more sane



  15. Today's USPTO Grants a Lot of Fake Patents, Software Patents That Courts Would Invalidate

    The 35 U.S.C. § 101 effect is very much real; patents on abstract/nonphysical ideas get invalidated en masse (in courts/PTAB) and Director Andrei Iancu refuses to pay attention as if he's above the law and court rulings don't apply to him



  16. A Month After Microsoft Claimed Patent 'Truce' Its Patent Trolls Keep Attacking Microsoft's Rivals

    Microsoft's legal department relies on its vultures (to whom it passes money and patents) to sue its rivals; but other than that, Microsoft is a wonderful company!



  17. Good News: US Supreme Court Rejects Efforts to Revisit Alice, Most Software Patents to Remain Worthless

    35 U.S.C. § 101 will likely remain in tact for a long time to come; courts have come to grips with the status quo, as even the Federal Circuit approves the large majority of invalidations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) panels, initiated by inter partes reviews (IPRs)



  18. Florian Müller's Article About SEPs and the EPO

    Report from the court in Munich, where the EPO is based



  19. EPO Vice-President Željko Topić in New Article About Corruption in Croatia

    The Croatian newspaper 7Dnevno has an outline of what Željko Topić has done in Croatia and in the EPO in Munich; it argues that this seriously erodes Croatia's national brand/identity



  20. The Quality of European Patents Continues to Deteriorate Under António Campinos and Software Patents Are Advocated Every Day

    The EPC in the European Patent Office and 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the USPTO annul most if not all software patents; under António Campinos, however, software patents are being granted in Europe and the USPTO exploits similar tricks



  21. Team UPC is Still Spreading False Rumours in an Effort to Trick Politicians and Pressure Judges

    Abuses at the European Patent Office, political turmoil and an obvious legislative coup by a self-serving occupation that produces nothing have already doomed the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC); so now we deal with complete fabrications from Team UPC as they're struggling to make something out of nothing, anonymously smearing opposition to the UPC and anonymously making stuff up



  22. Patents on Life and Patents That Kill the Poor Would Only Delegitimise the European Patent Office

    After Mayo, Myriad and other SCOTUS cases (the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 101) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is reluctant to grant patents on life; the European Patent Office (EPO), however, goes in the opposite direction, even in defiance of the European Patent Convention



  23. EPO 'Untapped Potential'

    "Campinos is diligently looking for ways to further increase the Office’s output without increasing the number of examiners," says the EPO-FLIER team



  24. Links 9/12/2018: New Linux Stable Releases (Notably Linux 4.19.8), RC Coming, and Unifont 11.0.03

    Links for the day



  25. Links 8/12/2018: Mesa 18.3.0, Mageia 7 Beta, WordPress 5.0

    Links for the day



  26. The European Patent Organisation is Like a Private Club and Roland Grossenbacher is Back in It

    In the absence of Benoît Battistelli quality control at the EPO is still not effective; patents are being granted like the sole goal is to increase so-called 'production' (or profit), appeals are being subjected to threats from Office management, and external courts (courts that assess patents outside the jurisdiction of the Office/Organisation) are being targeted with a long-sought replacement like the Unified Patent Court, or UPC (Unitary Patent)



  27. Links 7/12/2018: GNU Guix, GuixSD 0.16.0, GCC 7.4, PHP 7.3.0 Released

    Links for the day



  28. The Federal Circuit's Decision on Ancora Technologies v HTC America is the Rare Exception, Not the Norm

    Even though the PTAB does not automatically reject every patent when 35 U.S.C. § 101 gets invoked we're supposed to think that somehow things are changing in favour of patent maximalists; but all they do is obsess over something old (as old as a month ago) and hardly controversial



  29. The European Patent Office Remains a Lawless Place Where Judges Are Afraid of the Banker in Chief

    With the former banker Campinos replacing the politician Battistelli and seeking to have far more powers it would be insane for the German Constitutional Court to ever allow anything remotely like the UPC; sites that are sponsored by Team UPC, however, try to influence outcomes, pushing patent maximalism and diminishing the role of patent judges



  30. Many of the Same People Are Still in Charge of the European Patent Office Even Though They Broke the Law

    "EPO’s art collection honoured with award," the EPO writes, choosing to distract from what actually goes on at the Office and has never been properly dealt with


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