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 15/8/2018: Akademy 2018 Wrapups and More Intel Defects

    Links for the day



  2. Antiquated Patenting Trick: Adding Words Like 'Apparatus' to Make Abstract Ideas Look/Sound Like They Pertain to or Contain a 'Device'

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) still maintains that abstract ideas are not patent-eligible; so applicants and law firms go out of their way to make their ideas seem as though they're physical



  3. Open Invention Network (OIN) Member Companies Need to Become Unanimous in Opposition to Software Patents

    Opposition to abstract software patents, which even the SCOTUS and the Federal Circuit nowadays reject, would be strategically smart for OIN; but instead it issues a statement in support of a GPL compliance initiative



  4. President Battistelli 'Killed' the EPO; António Campinos Will 'Finish the Job'

    The EPO is shrinking, but this is being shrewdly disguised using terms like "efficiency" and a low-profile President who keeps himself in the dark



  5. Links 14/8/2018: Virtlyst 1.2.0, Blender 2.8 Planning Update, Zorin OS 12.4, FreeBSD 12.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  6. Berkheimer Changed Nothing and Invalidation Rates of Abstract Software Patents Remain Very High

    Contrary to repetitive misinformation from firms that 'sell' services around patents, there is no turnaround or comeback for software patents; the latest numbers suggest a marginal difference at best — one that may be negligible considering the correlation between expected outcomes and actions (the nature of risk analysis)



  7. Lockton Insurance Brokers Exploiting Patent Trolls to Sell Insurance to the Gullible

    Demonstrating what some people have dubbed (and popularised) "disaster capitalism", Lockton now looks for opportunities to profit from patent trolls, in the form of "insurance" (the same thing Microsoft does)



  8. Patent Lawyers Writing Patent Law for Their Own Enrichment Rather Than for Innovation

    We have become detached from the original goals and come to the point where patent offices aren't necessarily run by people qualified for the job of advancing science and technology; they, unlike judges, only seem to care about how many patents get granted, irrespective of their quality/merit



  9. Links 13/8/2018: Linux 4.18 and GNU Linux-libre 4.18 Arrive

    Links for the day



  10. PTAB is Loathed by Patent Maximalists Because It Can Potentially Invalidate Thousands of Software Patents (More Than Courts Can Handle)

    The US patent system has become more resistant to software patents; courts, however, are still needed to invalidate such patents (a potentially expensive process) because the USPTO continues to grant these provided some fashionable buzzwords/hype waves are utilised (e.g. "facial recognition", "blockchain", "autonomous vehicles")



  11. Gene Quinn and 'Dallas Innovates' as Couriers of Agenda for Patent Trolls Like iPEL

    Failing to hide their real purpose and malicious agenda, sites whose real purpose is to promote a lot of patent litigation produce puff pieces, even for patently unethical trolls such as iPEL



  12. Software Patents, Secured by 'Smart' and 'Intelligent' Tricks, Help Microsoft and Others Bypass Alice/Section 101

    A look at the use of fashionable trends and buzzwords to acquire and pass around dubious software patents, then attempting to guard these from much-needed post-Alice scrutiny



  13. Keep Boston (and Massachusetts in General) From Becoming an Infestation Zone for Patent Litigation

    Boston, renowned for research and innovation, has become somewhat of a litigation hotbed; this jeopardises the state's attractiveness (except perhaps to lawyers)



  14. Links 12/8/2018: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Mesa 18.1.6 Release Notice, New Linux Imminent

    Links for the day



  15. Thomas Massie's “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA) Would Put the US Patent System in the Lions' (or Trolls') Mouth Again

    An anti-§ 101 and anti-PTAB bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) strives to remove quality control; but by handing the system back to patent trolls he and his proponents simply strive to create more business of litigation, at the expense of innovation



  16. EPO-Style Problem-Solution: Tackling Backlog by Granting Lots of Low-Quality (Bogus) European Patents, Causing a Surge in Troll/Frivolous Litigation

    The EPO's lack of interest in genuine patent quality (measuring "quality" in terms of speed, not actual quality) may mean nothing but a litigation epidemic; many of these lawsuits would be abusive, baseless; those harmed the most would be small businesses that cannot afford a legal defense and would rather settle with those who exploit questionable patents, notably patent trolls



  17. Links 11/8/2018: PGP Clean Room 1.0, Ring-KDE 3.0.0, Julia 1.0

    Links for the day



  18. Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

    The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples



  19. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Still Try to Undermine Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), Refusing to Accept Patent Quality

    The patent maximalists in the United States, seeing that the USPTO is moving away from patent maximalism, is desperate for a turnaround; prominent patent maximalists take it all out on PTAB



  20. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement is Paralysed, So Team UPC is Twisting Old News

    Paralysis of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) means that people are completely forgetting about its very existence; those standing to benefit from it (patent litigation firms) are therefore recycling and distorting old news



  21. Patents as Profiteering Opportunities for Law Firms Rather Than Drivers of Innovation for Productive Companies

    A sample of news from yesterday; the patent microcosm is still arguing about who pays attorneys’ fees (not whether these fees are justified) and is constantly complaining about the decline in patent litigation, which means fewer and lower attorneys’ fees (less work for them)



  22. Links 9/8/2018: Mesa 18.2 RC2, Cockpit 175, WPA-2 Hash Cracking

    Links for the day



  23. Patent Maximalists -- Not Reformers -- Are the Biggest Threat to the Viability of the Patent System and Innovation

    Those who strive to infinitely expand patent scope are rendering the patent system obsolete and completely losing sight of the very purpose of the patent system, whose sanity US courts and lawmakers gradually restore (one ruling and one bill at a time)



  24. WeMove.EU Tackles Low Patent Quality at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The breadth of European Patents, which now cover even nature itself, worries public interest groups; Team UPC, however, wants patent scope to expand further and António Campinos has expressed his intention to further increase the number of grants



  25. Links 8/8/2018: KDE Neon for Testing, New LibreOffice Release, Dart 2.0

    Links for the day



  26. Links 7/8/2018: TCP Vulnerability in Linux, Speck Crypto Code Candidate for Removal

    Links for the day



  27. PTAB Needs to Expand and Become More Accessible to More Challengers of Wrongly-Granted Patents

    Challenges to US patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are helping to raise the bar for litigators; those who value the quality of patents should welcome rather than condemn PTAB and PTAB ought to be expanded to facilitate more scrutiny of granted patents



  28. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Precedents Might Make District Courts (Outside Texas) More Sceptical of Patents

    As patent lawsuits scatter around the United States (not as concentrated around Texas anymore) there's a real chance of turnaround in terms of outcomes; we look at some recent cases



  29. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is Cleaning Up the United States' Patent System

    The highest patent court (bar the US Supreme Court, SCOTUS) is rejecting a lot of patents, not only software patents; this is long overdue and is bad news to patent lawyers (not to companies that actually create and sell things)



  30. Racing to the Bottom, the António Campinos-Led EPO Continues to Promote Software Patents, Just Like China

    The EPO is being transformed into 'SIPO Europe', a dangerous gamble which would leave European firms more susceptible to frivolous litigation and generally reduce the value of previously-much-coveted European Patents


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