Raw: Central Staff Committee Requested EPO Audit by Transparency International One Year Before EPO Simply Hired Transparency International’s Director to Become EPO Spokesperson

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Context: EPO Press Spokesperson and Obvious Conflicts of Interest With Supposed Anti-Corruption Group Transparency International

Summary: Letter from Joachim Michels (CSC/SUEPO) to Battistelli’s ‘protector’, Jesper Kongstad, preceding the extraordinary move which was absorption of former Transparency International staff

Desirability of an assessment of the EPO’s integrity system by Transparency International

Dear Mr Kongstad,

In recent years Transparency International (TI) has established itself as a competent, independent and respected civil society organisation. It did so largely through running assessments of national integrity systems with the aim of highlighting improvement avenues to governments. The member states’ delegations are likely to be familiar with their respective national assessments.

Recently TI extended their assessment methodology to 10 EU1 institutions. Their very detailed report highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the EU Institutions with respect to transparency, integrity and accountability. It found the general situation to be good, whilst issuing recommendations for further improvement as it did establish a risk of corruption in the assessed institutions.

The EPO’s governance has, at times, come under criticism. The Administrative Council itself has apparently had doubts about how to handle e.g. the auditing of the EPO, as can be seen from the creation and subsequent abolition of an Audit Committee. Now that the EPO is taking over another important task for its Members States and for the European Union, namely the administration of the Unitary Patent, it would appear opportune and pertinent to raise confidence in the unitary patent and make it a success. Industry and the public should be shown that all is done to assure the integrity of the EPO.

The methodology developed by Transparency International for assessing the EU institutions can just as well be applied to the EPO. We respectfully request that the Administrative Council establishes contact with
1 http://www.transparencyinternational.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/EU_Integrity_System_Report.pdf

Transparency International for assessing the EPO’s integrity system. Such assessment would also complete the overall picture the EPO wishes to achieve with conducting various benchmarking studies.

Yours sincerely,

Joachim Michels
Chairman Central Staff Committee

Copies to:
Mr B. Battistelli, EPO President
Transparency International’s EU Office
Transparency International Deutschland
Transparency International Nederland

Raw: Battistelli Forbade EPO Strike Ballots at Least Four Times

Posted in Site News at 9:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Strikes verboten

Summary: Going back to the time of Battistelli’s controversial re-election, he went out of his way to suppress an electoral process — one in which a large majority voted for a lawful strike and nearly emptied the entire Office

Raw: Stacking the Deck to Interfere With a Fair Election at the EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO electoral process

Summary: Principal Director of Human Resources at the EPO (PD 4.3), and spouse of Battistelli's friend, tried to crush SUEPO by crushing the electoral process

EPO Becoming Like China is Something to Worry About, Not Something to Celebrate

Posted in Asia, Europe, Patents at 4:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The emergent home of patent trolls is something to remain as distant as possible from

China's patent trolls
Chinese media on patent trolls
From last month’s article by Bing Zhao

Summary: The EPO has nothing to brag about except growing ‘demand’ from China (patent applications numbers are down in most other nations) and media is doing a copy-paste of the EPO’s ‘press release’

YESTERDAY, not to our surprise, World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) decided to join in as a stenographer (among other stenographers), parroting the EPO’s ‘press release’ rather than doing any investigative work. It’s easier to just copy-paste some ‘prepared’ Battistelli quotes than to actually research the underlying facts. We are pretty certain that the EPO‘s PR people (Rainer, Jana Mittermaier and external help) were responsible for this. We already heard how that works.

“It’s easier to just copy-paste some ‘prepared’ Battistelli quotes than to actually research the underlying facts.”What was the ‘story’ about? Well, it was just a ‘press release’ retitled “EPO and SIPO renew patent cooperation” (i.e. nothing really changes). As a hallmark of corruption, last year Battistelli brought the Chinese officials to his home town where he works as a politician. He’s not even good at hiding his motivations and eternal mischief. Maybe he became blind to it as it became so routine.

Either way, the patent trolls’ megaphone (and Battistelli’s megaphone, which is an overlapping task) decided to revisit the situation in China, having recently hired Chinese staff (because that’s where patent trolls go nowadays).

China is burdening itself with a trap that will bring nothing but patent trolls [1, 2, 3] and less than a day ago IAM wrote:

In a speech that garnered a lot of attention around the world, the Chinese president declared that: “Wrongdoing should be punished more severely so that IP infringers will pay a heavy price.” More recently, IP got one mention in Xi’s marathon 19th Party Congress speech last month, as he called for China to become a “country of innovators” and create a “market-oriented system for technological innovation”.

For the time being, President Xi’s vision (or “priority list”) seems to be lots and lots of patent trolls. Urging for people to apply for patents by the millions isn’t going to make a “country of innovators” but a country of litigation. This is already happening and it’s not at all desirable. Perhaps if China had a multi-party system — i.e. not a single person held all the power (Xi) — saner patent policy would be chosen.

“Perhaps if China had a multi-party system — i.e. not a single person held all the power (Xi) — saner patent policy would be chosen.”Another country where there’s a de facto single-party system (PAP) that has ruled for about half a century (it actively attacks political opposition/dissent) has gotten a similar problem. We are talking about Singapore, whose recently-deceased leader emulated China’s autocracy and at times hailed crackdown on protests. Singapore’s patent trolls problem was covered here earlier this year and yesterday Lexology said that “[c]laims to software [in Singapore] that are characterised only by source code and not by any technical feature” are not patentable…”

There are loopholes, however, and they’re described below:

To what extent can inventions covering software be patented?

Claims to software that are characterised only by source code and not by any technical feature cannot be considered an invention on the basis that the actual contribution would be a mere presentation of information.

However, computer programs may be patentable if the invention involves a technical contribution outside the excluded subject matter.

To what extent can inventions covering business methods be patented?

Pure business methods are not considered inventions and are not patentable. However, similar to computer programs, business methods may be patentable if they involve technical contributions outside the excluded subject matter. For example, claims relating to a computer-implemented business method would be considered an invention if the technical features (eg, servers, databases and user devices) interact with the steps of the business method to a material extent and in such a manner as to overcome a specific problem.

To what extent can inventions relating to stem cells be patented?

The Patents Act contains no specific provisions barring stem cells from patentability. Inventions determined by the examiner to fall within the list of acts prohibited by the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Act will be objected to.

China, unlike Singapore, has pretty much no restrictions on software patents (not anymore, the bars were lowered earlier this year), which makes it similar to the chaos caused by and promoted by Grant Philpott at the EPO (they just call it “CII” instead of software patents).

Are SIPO and EPO going to become a controversial pair whose lowered patent quality will have them characterised as worthless? If the EPO going to transform to mere registration or pure automation a la INPI? Whatever it is, the EPO looks like a shadow of its former self and it’s the fault of Battistelli’s policies. Only God (or Buddha) can save the EPO now…

In New EPO Interview With Juve, Chairman of the Administrative Council Criticises Battistelli

Posted in Europe, Interview, Patents at 4:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ernst on Battistelli

Summary: Dr. Ernst, the new Chairman of the Administrative Council (who was recently slammed for not caring enough about patent quality), has relatively harsh words about Battistelli’s methods and toxic legacy; Union Syndicale Fédérale has also gotten in touch in order to raise awareness

THE EPO is mentioned a lot in Juve’s November edition, which is available for free online. Benjamin Henrion said it contains a “UPC must read” — the part which we alluded to earlier this morning (death of UPC). The edition contains a 5-page article about the likely end of UPC (German impasse), another article about UPC and Brexit, and a 6-page interview with Dr. Ernst (who recently replaced Jesper Kongstad, the man who immediately entered the private sector unlike EPO employees). There is one more article there which is less relevant to us. By all means, EPO workers should consider reading Ernst’s views on Battistelli. It may matter a lot in the coming months/years.

Incidentally, yesterday SUEPO published this “letter of Union Syndicale Fédérale to EPO Administrative Council on time-limited contracts” — a letter dated about a month old and titled “Position of Union Syndicale Federale (USF) on the currently discussed new “Employment Framework” at the EPO” – for the attention of the Council of the EPO.” Did that have much of an impact? Only time will tell…

Sometimes it feels like Battistelli intentionally takes away holidays, various contract benefits and job security just to anger the ‘expensive’ EPO staff, causing such staff to leave (rather than be fired) and give way to ‘cheap’ staff that would not flag decline in patent quality. It’s like Battistelli wants another INPI while pursuing SIPO-level patent quality.

Below is the letter from Union Syndicale Fédérale.

Union Syndicale Fédérale Letter to Ernst

Even UPC Proponents Admit UPC is Dead: “This is the End, My Friend”

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

UPC boat

Summary: The Constitutional Case against the UPC has fatal consequences, for there may be no judgment on it before 2020 (two whole years after Campinos takes over the EPO, whose future is uncertain)

OUR previous article showed how Team UPC and Team Battistelli were distracting from the real news regarding UPC. It’s like they live in a parallel universe where the UPC is believed to be imminent. It’s a big lie that EPO management would even pay media and academia to spread. It’s corrosive and offensive to truth itself (or facts).

“It’s corrosive and offensive to truth itself (or facts).”Well, posted throughout the day yesterday were a bunch of revealing tweets from longtime proponents of UPC (they have something to gain from litigation). Funny how nobody wants to write an actual article about it. They shy away from the truth. Christopher Weber, who had done a lot to promote the UPC delusion, saw this outline from Mathieu Klos‏ and added: “Nothing to add to this but some #Hashtags #Brexit #UPC #ThisIsTheEndMyFriend”

Klos‏ has important contacts around this entire process and he wrote (the tl;dr version): “Constitutional Challenge. Oral hearing means no judgement before 2020 + end of the British UPC dreams” (links to this page).

The longer version says this:

JUVE has been reporting on the UPC, the European Patent Office and developments at patent law firms and companies for twenty years – and now also in English.
You are reading the second edition of JUVE Patent, our new e-paper, which we will publish four times a year.

Germany is in the focus of the patent community – more than any other country in Europe. The Constitutional Case against the UPC has put the whole implementation of the new patent court on hold. The consequences for the European patent system could be dramatic if the Constitutional Court comes to a decision any later than 2019. While the patent world looks towards Karlsruhe the German patent courts are being flooded with cases by Non Practicing Entities. As a consequence the German patent market is running hot and the German litigation law firms are revving up their engines.

“I understand Mr. [Klos] to mean that IF there is hearing,” Weber remarked, “the UPC is in deep water. And that will be decided in 7-10 months.”

“Vigilance significantly limits their field of manoeuvre.”Even IAM, the biggest propagandist for UPC (paid and supported by the EPO to promote UPC), said “JUVE a top information source on Germany, so this is likely to be right. It means the UPC is dead in its current form. Whether there is the willingness to revive it remains to be seen. It’s unlikely, at least for a while.”

We have been saying that for a long as we too have contacts. But it’s premature to just declare the UPC dead and move on. As we’ve seen over the past decade, Team UPC is very mischievous and extremely manipulative. It even lies to politicians and makes stuff up. Some of these people should definitely be disbarred as they’re a disgrace to their profession. As Benjamin Henrion put it this morning: No decision of UPC constitutionality in Germany before a while means Brexit will kick in. But UPC proponents are legal hackers, they will come with another hack…”

Not if people are watching and reporting these ‘hacks’. Vigilance significantly limits their field of manoeuvre.

EPO Uses Bunk ‘Study’ and Team UPC Uses Italy to Prop Up Delusions About the Unitary Patent

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Corruption bred by EPO reminiscent of other scandals

Germany Rocked By Allegations of Ph.D. Bribes
Reference: Germany Rocked By Allegations of Ph.D. Bribes

Summary: In spite of so-called ‘progress’ in Italy, as claimed by Team UPC and AIPPI (villainous lobby), the UPC is dead in every country that matters other than Battistelli’s France

THE EPO just cannot help itself. The UPC is dead/dying, so the EPO has corrupted academia, allegedly in order to pressure courts. Having already corrupted the media (bribes and threats), Battistelli’s Office resorts to actions that insult the very background of many examiners. His latest ‘study’ is already being debunked. It’s propaganda ‘dressed up’ as something scholarly and those footing the bill are stakeholders who are being lied to.

“Having already corrupted the media (bribes and threats), Battistelli’s Office resorts to actions that insult the very background of many examiners.”Yesterday, the EPO yet again pushed this propaganda, as it had been doing every day for the past week or so. “This study [sic] assesses the role of the European patent system in supporting the circulation of inventions through trade & foreign direct investment,” the EPO wrote. But as even some people in the area argued, it’s flawed. “Seems to rely on dodgy assumption about stronger patent protection leading to greater trade and inward investment,” David Pearce wrote about it. He is a former ‘Kat’.

It’s not hard to see that Team UPC and Team Battistelli presently scrape the bottom of the barrel. If they corrupt some academics in the process, so be it. I happened to have a conversation about such corruption of academia less than a day ago. A very senior academic (Head of Centre) told me that this issue had become worryingly rampant. Academics are basically being paid (bribed) to produce lies. Such is the case with the EPO here, along with LSE and others.

“Academics are basically being paid (bribed) to produce lies. Such is the case with the EPO here, along with LSE and others.”Both Team Battistelli and Team UPC have corrupted the media, but as far as we’re aware, only Team Battistelli also corrupts academia.

Looking at the latest talking point from Team UPC, it’s about Italy. it is ignoring all the hard barriers and pretending — already — that Milan replaces London and all is therefore fine and dandy. Self-delusion.

“Looking at the latest talking point from Team UPC, it’s about Italy.”Bristows’ Gregory Bacon wrote: “A local division of the UPC will be in Milan (in an existing court building at via San Barnaba 50, which has potential for expansion), and Milan is also a potential location for the central division’s business currently allocated to London, if the UK cannot participate in the UPC following Brexit (see here).”

Team UPC in Italy said: “The Italian Parliament approved the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of Unified Patent Court.”

AIPPI wrote: “One more step to #UPC: Italian Parliament approved Protocol on Privileges and Immunities…”

But the issue is not Italy. Italian isn’t even an official language for the UPC. Italy does not have so many EPs. So the above is designed to distract or to shift attention. Bristows’ Brian Cordery, who has been pretty much invisible lately, chose to cover an entirely different topic yesterday and Bristows staff inside IP Kat has said absolutely nothing about the UPC for months.

“But the issue is not Italy. Italian isn’t even an official language for the UPC.”FFII’s Benjamin Henrion has meanwhile updated the petition against UPC and wrote: “In need of people in the UK to oppose the UPC monster next wesdnesday, an undemocratic agreement with software patents backdoor…”

We very much doubt any progress can be made on this in the UK. The subject/agenda has been repeatedly shelved (not that Team UPC mentioned that) and it’s no better in Germany. Without both countries giving the green light, nothing is going to happen and due to Brexit talks it can take years for any substantial progress. Battistelli is leaving in just 7 months.

Battistelli’s Home Country, France (Where He is a Politician in Defiance of the Rules), is a Patent Troll

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Quite shamelessly, and not just privately like Alcatel-Lucent and Technicolor

French troll

Summary: Academic paper from Dr. Thibault Schrepel‏ highlights the disturbing role played by French patent trolls that would certainly benefit from something like UPC in Paris (which Battistelli lobbies hard for)

THIS scholarly paper [PDF] from Dr. Thibault Schrepel‏ was sort of recalled yesterday when its author said that “the French state still has its public patent troll, @FranceBrevets. Let’s not forget.”

“As a reminder, IAM spent years whitewashing France Brevets, as it does pretty much every troll, including Technicolor (we wrote many article about that).”“My paper on the subject,” he said, is actually 3 years old. He then mentioned a written unanswered question on the subject. Here are the conclusions from the 9-page publication:

France Brevets is a public patent troll which, under the guise of protecting French innovation, creates well-­‐documented destructive effects on R&D. In sum, France Brevets reproduces the illusion of protectionism in the field of intellectual property.

In addition, its public nature reinforces the risk to see European states fight against each other, which would be extremely damaging to the European innovation. Plus, we believe that the creation of France Brevets is not only harmful, but illegal.

The initial endowment of France Brevets was conducted as part of the “future investment program”. Indeed, if the future is to kill innovation in Europe, France Brevets is a terrific investment.

Pay attention to how the patent trolls’ lobby, IAM, then creeps into the comments and ‘interrogates’ the author. As a reminder, IAM spent years whitewashing France Brevets, as it does pretty much every troll, including Technicolor (we wrote many articles about that).

IAM’s intervention there serves to suggest that Schrepel‏ strikes a nerve and it may or may not be related to the EPO under Battistelli (which works closely with IAM). As we mentioned in past years, Battistelli’s helping hand to trolls’ agenda cannot be ignored and it goes even further than the UPC. EPO staff ought to raise more questions about these matters. Who does Battistelli really work for and serves?

“IAM’s intervention there serves to suggest that Schrepel‏ strikes a nerve and it may or may not be related to the EPO under Battistelli (which works closely with IAM).”As a side note/footnote, yesterday afternoon Alberto Casado (Team Battistelli) got mentioned in relation to EPI, which criticised Battistelli and then deleted its own criticism. Marks & Clerk, a bunch of UPC boosters, showed how EPI had reacted to the thug, Battistelli, along with his controversial (harmful) practices. Stephen Blake wrote: “An innovative economy is something to be celebrated, but increased numbers of patent applications can cause problems for intellectual property offices tasked with examining them. It has long been known that the European Patent Office (EPO) has a large backlog of patent applications to examine, with applicants waiting years to receive a first examination report. At the meeting of the EPI Council last week in Warsaw, I learned of a new proposal presented to Council by Alberto Casado, Vice President of the EPO, for tackling this backlog. If implemented in its proposed form then it is likely to have implications for applicants, but most notably for third parties who may be significantly disadvantaged. [...] Council discussed the matter at some length and the view of the current proposal was broadly negative. Indeed, many were against any form of deferment of examination at all. Chris Mercer, former (and likely next) Chairman of the European Patent Practice Committee of the EPI will be submitting a letter to the EPO giving Council’s views and requesting reconsideration of the proposals where necessary.”

We eagerly await that.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources




Samba logo

We support

End software patents


GNU project


EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com

Recent Posts