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

12.07.17

ILO is ‘Forcing’ Team Battistelli to Compensate the Banned Judge and Give Him Back His Job

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 1:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

But will Battistelli respect judges and obey the law or just snub courts, quite frankly as usual (flaunting immunity with an ongoing case as an excuse)?

Summary: ILO has, for a change, done some justice, but it comes three years too late and the compensation level (after salary got halved) is laughable, especially considering costs associated with legal fees and moral/reputational damage

REMEMBER 2014? Three years before Nazi-affiliated groups were marching the streets of the US and even entered the German ‘Parliament’ (Bundestag)?

Back then the term “Nazi” was pretty serious a thing (it still is, but it has become more banal/mundane) and to accuse a judge of being “Nazi” anything — let alone armed Nazi — can be pretty damaging to one’s career. It makes it hard to garner support/sympathy from one’s colleagues. It’s an effective smear. It’s a powerful discreditisation tactic (alongside “rapist”, “pedophile” etc.). Remember how Battistelli referred to SUEPO, accusing them of performing Nazi salutes and alluding to “snipers” et cetera (again the armed Nazi theme). He actually lied to French politicians about it, right there in front of cameras (we still have footage of it). That’s the very definition of defamation/slander/libel. But hey, this is the EPO we’re talking about here; the ‘king’ can do everything and can away with anything, right?

On Wednesday morning the EPO wrote: “The EPO offers a limited number of internship places for national judges of the EPC contracting states at the Boards of Appeal.”

The EPO desperately needs full-time judges at the Boards of Appeal, but Battistelli just keeps crushing them. He threatens them, punishes them, pushes them out of Town (Munich), and decreases their workspace/workload while increasing demands. Any sane outside observer can see what’s going on here; Battistelli does not want these boards to exist (they pose a threat by highlighting decline in patent quality), but he cannot squash them altogether because that would be the biggest violation yet of the EPC. Some stakeholders have already found the courage to point this out (notably Dr. Thorsten Bausch, whom we’ll mention further down).

We don’t know why the EPO tweeted the above at almost the exact same time as ILO’s 125th session (video here). Well, maybe an attempt to deflect, even though the timing could be just a coincidence?

Either way, the news is already out there. One of our readers said “lovely ILO!”

“Reinstated. Damages,” said another reader only a short time after the session had taken place. I was barely at home throughout the day and therefore I was unable to properly cover it.

“Dear EPO,” another person wrote, “how many lawyers and management experts it takes to spot a conflict of interest? Asking for friend.”

This could either allude to the CEIPI saga or Battistelli’s interference at the Boards of Appeal (including involvement in appointment of chiefs).

We assume that EPO insiders and stakeholders have already read the news elsewhere, but here is a recap/roundup anyway.

The ILOAT delivered 5 judgments regarding the EPO (the other 3 were not about the EPO). Judgment #3972 ended as follows:

For the above reasons,
1. The decision of 25 November 2015 is set aside in the part regarding
confirmation of dismissal for misconduct in accordance with
Article 93(2)(f) of the Service Regulations, as is the same part of
the earlier decision of 1 July 2015.
2. The case is sent back to the EPO in accordance with
considerations 15 and 16, above.
3. The EPO shall pay the complainant 20,000 euros in moral
damages.
4. It shall also pay him 1,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
In witness of this judgment, adopted on 2 November 2017,

Mr Giuseppe Barbagallo, President of the Tribunal, Mr Michael
F. Moore, Judge, and Sir Hugh A. Rawlins, Judge, sign below, as do I,
Dražen Petrović, Registrar.

Judgment #3960 as well (same person):

As a result, the impugned decision of 18 March 2016 to reject
the complainant’s request for review of decision CA/D 14/15 of
15 October 2015 extending the complainant’s suspension, as well as
decision CA/D 14/15 must be set aside. The complainant must
immediately be reinstated in his former post, and he is entitled to an
award of material damages in an amount equal to the deductions from
his remuneration made as a result of decision CA/D 14/15 extending
his suspension with reduced pay, plus interest at the rate of 5 per cent
per annum from the monthly due dates until the date of payment.
He is also entitled to an award of moral damages in the amount of
15,000 euros, and to costs in the amount of 5,000 euros.

[...]

For the above reasons,
1. The impugned decision of 18 March 2016 rejecting the complainant’s
request for review of decision CA/D 14/15, as well as decision
CA/D 14/15 itself, are set aside.
2. The complainant shall be immediately reinstated in his former post.

Judgment #3958:

For the above reasons,
1. The Administrative Council’s decision CA/D 12/14 of 11 December
2014 is set aside and so is the impugned decision of 10 April 2015,
insofar as they concern the complainant’s suspension, the imposed
house ban, the relinquishment of EPO property previously at the
complainant’s disposal, and the blocking of his User ID.
2. The Administrative Council’s decision to maintain the complainant’s
suspension pending completion of the disciplinary proceedings
against him (decision taken at the Administrative Council’s
143 rd meeting and communicated to the complainant by a letter of
26 March 2015) is also set aside.
3. The complainant shall be immediately reinstated in his former post.
4. The EPO shall immediately allow the complainant access to the
EPO premises and resources; it shall return to him any EPO
property it requested him to hand over pursuant to decision
CA/D 12/14, and it shall immediately unblock his User ID.
5. The EPO shall pay the complainant 10,000 euros in compensation
for moral injury.
6. It shall also pay him costs in the amount of 5,000 euros.
7. All other claims are dismissed.

The other judgments have been largely ignored by the media because not much happened. Judgment #3896, regarding Mr S. C. F., ends as follows:

Considering the application for interpretation of Judgment 3785
filed by Mr S. C. F. on 19 April 2017 and corrected on 6 June, the reply
of the European Patent Organisation (EPO) of 18 July, the
complainant’s rejoinder of 25 August and the EPO’s surrejoinder of
4 October 2017;
Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VI, paragraph 1, of the
Statute of the Tribunal;

Judgment #3895. concerning Mr T. C., yielded a dismissal of the appeal:

Considering the application for interpretation and execution of
Judgment 3694 filed by Mr T. C. on 19 April 2017 and corrected on
6 June, the reply of the European Patent Organisation (EPO) of 18 July,
the complainant’s rejoinder of 25 August and the EPO’s surrejoinder of
4 October 2017;
Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VI, paragraph 1, of the
Statute of the Tribunal;
Having examined the written submissions;

[...]

For the above reasons,
The application for interpretation and execution is dismissed.

We don’t know who S. C. F. and T. C. are. We also have not — at least not yet — had the time to properly read through these decisions (some are about 10 pages in length).

The media focused on relatively good news. SUEPO wrote the following announcement titled “SUEPO Central on the Extraordinary Session of the ILO Today” and it said:

Dear colleagues,

In an exceptional session today the Tribunal delivered Judgments 3958 and 3960 in which it ordered the immediate reinstatement of the suspended Board of Appeal member to his former post.

It further ordered the EPO to allow him access to the premises, return any EPO property it had requested him to hand over and immediately unblock his EPO User ID.

The Tribunal further ordered the EPO to pay a sum in costs as well as compensation for moral injury.

SUEPO central

SUEPO got vindicated. Again.

The Register — rightly or wrongly — finally blurted out the name Patrick Corcoran. We’re not sure why Kieren McCarthy decided to put “Nazi” in the headline and then namedrop the judge’s identity. Here are some fragments (it’s a long and detailed article):

The European Patent Office (EPO) has been commanded to immediately reinstate a judge it suspended two years ago and pay him tens of thousands of euros in compensation and damages.

In an extraordinary judgment delivered in public by the president of the International Labor Organization (ILO) in Geneva, the patent organization, its management and its administrative council were all excoriated for their treatment of Patrick Corcoran.

But the sharpest criticism was reserved for EPO president Benoit Battistelli, who for years has been accused of targeting his own staff in an effort to force through unpopular reforms and threatening them with disciplinary action if they resist.

Battistelli was repeatedly chastised by the ILO for his treatment of his own staff, for involving himself in disciplinary proceedings and for forcing the suspension of Corcoran through the EPO’s administrative council despite a clear conflict of interests.

Corcoran’s case is far from the only one – Battistelli has fired no less than four EPO union officials, among others – but it stands out as particularly egregious given the judge’s standing as a member of the EPO’s independent Boards of Appeal.

[...]

That intervention, incidentally, may cause the demise of Europe’s Unitary Patent Court (UPC) after a German patent lawyer pointed to the resulting lack of independence of the Boards of Appeals as evidence that the UPC broke German constitutional law – the case is still being heard but it has prevented it from becoming German law.

[...]

That may not be the end of it either.

The ILO president strongly implied at the public hearing that the decisions against the EPO were going to be repeated in a range of other EPO cases that have been lodged with the ILO.

Earlier this year, the ILO published an extraordinary paper for discussion at a meeting of its governing body later that complained about how the EPO’s management was causing so many complaints that it was undermining its ability to do its job.

The decisions in those cases will be published in January and will almost certainly add more pressure to the current EPO management.

Overall, the ILO’s extraordinary public meeting was a damning verdict on Benoit Battistelli’s presidency.

Don’t miss some of the early comments. “Perhaps they should have added that the moral damages should be paid out of Battistelli’s own pocket and not reimbursed to him,” one person said. The next person wrote: “Is an exceedingly tony suburb of Paris, as befits the birthplace of Louis XIV, and as much a part of Paris as Hampstead would be in London. This is not at all to minimize the brazen and repeated abuses of power Mr Batistelli committed while in office. I hope his departure will lead to reforms in the EPO’s governance.”

“I bet Battistelli . . . . . . did Nazi that coming,” one comment joked. “If Battistelli is going to act like a junior Napoleon, they should put him in charge of the branch office in St. Helena,” joked another reader.

Here is what was probably the first report about it:

He said: “The allegations of bias against the president do not justify derogating from these rules in the present case: in view of the exceptional situation with which the EPO was faced, the president had to communicate both internally and externally. In doing so, he did not cross the boundaries of confidentiality and presumption of innocence.”

But, the ILO tribunal found that “[there] is a conflict of interest on the part of the president.”

It said: “It stems from the fact that the alleged serious misconduct, with which the complainant was charged, might reasonably be thought to have offended the president specifically, directly and individually.”

“This situation, by itself, casts doubts on the president’s impartiality. Considering the whole situation, a reasonable person would think that the president would not bring a detached, impartial mind to the issues involved. The argument raised by the president in his opinion to the council, quoted above, namely that pursuant to the applicable rules the president was acting within his competence and had the power and duty to take all necessary steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the office, is immaterial.

IP Watch wrote about it as well, but sadly it’s behind a paywall. Here is the outline:

In an extraordinary 6 December session, the UN International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) handed down five decisions involving the European Patent Office (EPO), one of which reinstated a suspended Board of Appeals judge. The cases are just “the tip of the iceberg,” said the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO).

Thorsten Bausch then came out with another long article about ILO (mind the headline). He shows that even EPO stakeholders like attorneys are royally pissed off at Battistelli. He ruined the EPO. To quote Bausch:

The decisions speak for themselves and I highly recommend reading them in full. To cut a long story short, the party that “misbehaved” here was found to be the President of the EPO and the Administrative Council (AC). The facts are quite complex, but in essence, the problem was that the President, who felt defamed and insulted by emails allegedly sent out by this Board member, issued a house ban against this Board Member and requested the AC to suspend him, which the AC did. The Board Member requested a review of this decision, asked the AC to afford him the right to be heard and requested that the EPO President should be excluded from this review process due to partiality. The AC rejected the request for review and continued to involve the EPO President in his advisory capacity for its decision-making process.

There are probably more reports on the way, even in French and German (maybe Dutch).

Will Battistelli comply with this ruling? If not, then maybe it’s about time to seriously consider removing his immunity and putting this thug on trial (maybe in jail). Corsica can have him back; nothing would be more epic (or poetic justice) than exile in Corsica, which he happens to have come from.

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 22/2/2018: Qt Roadmap for 2018, Calculate Linux 17.12.2

    Links for the day



  2. As Expected, Bristows and Others Already Lying About UPC Status in Germany, But Doing This Anonymously (to Dodge Accountability for Lies)

    In their characteristic fashion, firms that created the UPC for their self-enrichment purposes, along with publishers/writers who deem it their role to promote the UPC and set up lobbying events for the UPC, look for ways to downplay if not intentionally distort what happened in Germany yesterday



  3. Further Attacks on EPO Staff and the Appeal Boards; Former EPO Boards of Appeal Member Speaks About EPO Scandals

    In the process of devaluing EPO workers and perhaps preparing them for a large round of layoffs information is also revealed about further repressions against the independence of the Boards of Appeal



  4. End of the UPC Lobby and Withdrawal of UPCA May Seem Imminent

    The Unitary Patent fantasy (of mass litigation firms) is coming to an end; in fact, the German government and courts (Bundesverfassungsgericht to be specific) now deem the complaint to be admissible and thus likely legitimate in spite of many attempts to shoot it down



  5. EPO's Board 28 Spikes Article 53 in CA/3/18, Apparently After Battistelli Withdrew It

    The latest plot twist, as odd as that may seem, is that the attack on the rights of thousands of workers (many of whom are rumoured to be on their way out) is curtailed somewhat, at least for the time being



  6. Links 21/2/2018: Apper 1.0, New Fedora ISOs

    Links for the day



  7. Rumour: European Patent Office to Lay Off a Significant Proportion of Its Workforce

    While the Administrative Council of the EPO praises Battistelli for his financial accomplishments (as laughable as it may seem) a lot of families stuck in a foreign country may soon see their breadwinner unemployed, according to rumours



  8. The Patent Trolls' Lobby, Bristows and IAM Among Others, Downplays Darts-IP/IP2Innovate Report About Rising If Not Soaring Troll Activity in Europe

    Exactly like last year, as soon as IP2Innovate opens its mouth Bristows and IAM go into "attack dog" mode and promote the UPC, deny the existence or seriousness of patent trolls, and promote their nefarious, trolls-funded agenda



  9. Links 20/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.5, Qt 5.11 Alpha, Absolute 15.0 Beta 4, Sailfish OS 2.1.4 E.A., SuiteCRM 7.10

    Links for the day



  10. Replacing Patent Sharks/Trolls and the Patent Mafia With 'Icons' Like Thomas Edison

    The popular perceptions of patents and the sobering reality of what patents (more so nowadays) mean to actual inventors who aren't associated with global behemoths such as IBM or Siemens



  11. The Patent Trolls' Lobby is Distorting the Record of CAFC on PTAB

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which deals with appeals from PTAB, has been issuing many decisions in favour of § 101, but those aren't being talked about or emphasised by the patent 'industry'



  12. Japan Demonstrates Sanity on SEP Policy While US Patent Policy is Influenced by Lobbyists

    Japan's commendable response to a classic pattern of patent misuse; US patent policy is still being subjected to never-ending intervention and there is now a lobbyist in charge of antitrust matters and a lawyer in charge of the US patent office (both Trump appointees)



  13. The Patent Microcosm's Embrace of Buzzwords and False Marketing Strives to Make Patent Examiners Redundant and Patent Quality Extremely Low

    Patent maximalists, who are profiting from abundance of low-quality patents (and frivolous lawsuits/legal threats these can entail), are riding the hype wave and participating in the rush to put patent systems at the hands of machines



  14. Today, at 12:30 CET, Bavarian State Parliament Will Speak About EPO Abuses (Updated)

    The politicians of Bavaria are prepared to wrestle with some serious questions about the illegality of the EPO's actions and what that may mean to constitutional aspects of German law



  15. Another Loud Warning From EPO Workers About the Decline of Patent Quality

    Yet more patent quality warnings are being issued by EPO insiders (examiners) who are seeing their senior colleagues vanishing and wonder what will be left of their employer



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

    Links for the day



  17. 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



  18. 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



  19. 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



  20. 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



  21. 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)



  22. 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")



  23. 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



  24. 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)



  25. 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



  26. 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



  27. 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)



  28. 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



  29. 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



  30. 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


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