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

12.31.17

Raw: EPO Staff Went on Strike, Referencing — Among Other Things — Battistelli’s French Nepotism

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:32 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Reminder: Battistelli is expected to bring millions of EPO Euros (stakeholders’ money) to his home town only months before the end of his term [1, 2]

Original/full: Letter from the SUEPO Central Executive Committee [PDF]

EPO nepotism

Summary: An explanation of why the EPO’s staff voted overwhelmingly in favour of a multi-day strike

Just 3 Days Before Christmas Judge Corcoran is Told That His Boss Becomes Battistelli, Who Wants to Remain in Control for Years to Come

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

…And it’s widely agreed/broadly expected that Corcoran will lose his job (perhaps when journalists are absent again)

Narcissus by Caravaggio
Narcissus by Caravaggio, gazing at his own reflection.

Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) remains all about Battistelli and this self-centered autocrat will soon be able to lawfully punish the person who is alleged to have said the truth about him (also lawfully)

THE NUMBER of comments we now see (and receive) about Patrick Corcoran, courtesy of several different sources, makes it clear that he will see his contract officially ending in a few hours. He will still be at the EPO, but it’s not clear how long for. Insiders expect Battistelli to use the new vicinity to fire him, possibly when nobody is looking. Watch or recall just when he was officially notified: (we’ve heard it elsewhere too)

Depressed EPO staff

DECEMBER 29, 2017 AT 12:58 PM

as feared, Mr Corcoran received notification of his transfer to DG1 on 22 December 2017, the last working day of the year.

The Boards are thus truly independent, Thema abgeschlossen.

Thorsten Bausch, for whom the above comment was posted, has just revisited the whole matter. Hours ago he wrote:

I also hope that legal peace will be restored in regard to the much reported case of Mr. Corcoran, of which there is an excellent and up to date summary on wikipedia.

[...]

I wish the EPO and particularly its Administrative Council (AC) Glasnost. At least in my opinion, the Administrative Council is the “window” of the public into the EPO and vice versa. According to the European Patent Convention, the Administrative Council is the one and only control instance of the European Patent Office (if one leaves matters of constitutional law on a side for the moment). This means, however, that the AC should take its role as a control instance seriously, and certainly much more seriously than in the past, and visibly interfere where things go wrong rather than cover them up. Due to its unique position, the Administrative Council also is accountable (and should be held accountable) for the EPO’s policy and the EPO’s management to the public.

However, all of this requires that the AC communicates with the public directly, not through an EPO management filter, and openly. In particular, the AC should have its own website, independent from the EPO, where it publishes and explains its decisions so that the public is able to understand and discuss them. The AC should also be directly approachable by the public and by EPO staff members who feel unfairly treated by their management. Perhaps an Ombudsman would do the EPO good.

[...]

Mathieu Klos from JuVe reported that Mr. Corcoran has been reinstated but not reappointed. Assuming this is true, the question still remains what exactly “reinstated” means. If it were to mean that he was reinstated just for the 10 remaining days of his regular tenure as Board of Appeal member (which ends on 31/12/2017, i.e. today), but not for the time period that he lost due to its illegal removal from the office – according to the ILO AT decisions -, then I doubt very much that such a decision would restore legal peace. I sincerely hope that the AC found a better and fairer solution than this one. We will see.

[...]

In my opinion at least, it would be very advisable to enter into a fresh discussion in 2018 on whether the EPO really has the right structure to satisfy the needs of its stakeholders, who (among other things) want and need an independent, efficient, competent, but above all fair judicial body to decide on European Patents and applications. The concept of fairness includes that the parties are given an effective right to be heard, including the possibility to file appropriate requests also in the appeal instance, depending on and in response to the procedural situation. Fairness to the parties should never be sacrificed to procedural efficiency; otherwise we would need no boards of appeal at all.

In addition, it also seems to me that we should have a discussion about Art. 13 EPC and whether the ILO Administrative Tribunal really is the best forum to safeguard elementary staff rights. At least in my opinion there are substantiated doubts in this regard, which may justify a discussion whether a judicial reform of the EPO should also include this aspect.

Bausch previously wrote about the UPC, so he must be aware that these structural deficiencies, on top of the abuses against Corcoran, will almost certainly doom the UPC in Germany. Nevertheless, says the first (and so far sole) comment, Battistelli is hoping to become king again, taking the crown of the UPC, having already been EPO Chairman and then President. To quote:

Depressed EPO staff

[...]

FYI internally we all know that if decision R 19/12 was NEVER translated into FR and EN this was on direct instructions of Battistelli fuming that the Boards dared to issue it at the first place (this alone is unacceptable since it deprives the public to access an important piece of legal information in the 3 official EPO languages).

Now the worse part: Battistelli is said (from reliable sources) to prepare himself for the position of : first President of UPC Court in Paris (since the treaty foresees that the first President will be a French citizen)

So if after 6 years of total mis-management of the EPO on all accounts, countries involved in IP matters such as Germany, England, Italy, CH, BENELUX and the Scandinavian, do not put a FINAL END to this circus, expect him back soon for more funny stuff…

With this said let us keep hope in better days AFTER he is gone, since the next 6 months will be deplorable ones for sure

As various reliable sources have already indicated, Battistelli’s ‘musical chairs’ with Campinos may suggest that this is indeed his plan. We wrote about this before, e.g. in:

In addition, Battistelli maintains a political career in France despite it not being permitted considering his current role at the EPO. We therefore urge readers to contact his French bosses and colleagues. We posted contact details this morning.

“He has already plastered his face all over the EPO’s Web site — clearly a symptom of narcissism (NPD) if not full-blown megalomania.”We shall now return to helping transparency at the EPO. We go backwards in time and attempt to document the conflict between peasants staff and king President.

The Battistelli saga won’t be over at the end of June because Campinos was Battistelli’s choice and Battistelli has plans going forwards (for himself, in both France and Europe). Don’t expect the scandals to suddenly end in July and for Battistelli’s name to no longer be brought up. He has already plastered his face all over the EPO’s Web site — clearly a symptom of narcissism (NPD) if not full-blown megalomania.

Patent Trolls ‘Business’ After TC Heartland: It’s Very Tough!

Posted in America, EFF, Patents at 12:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

TC Heartland v. Kraft
Reference: TC Heartland v Kraft

Summary: The latest activities inside and outside the courts show that TC Heartland became a considerable barrier to trolling and aggressive tactics of trolls have shifted to (or been aimed at) their critics

THE USPTO‘s evolving attitude towards software patents (post-Alice) is noteworthy. Section 101 is making a real difference. After TC Heartland (covered here many times before, e.g. [1, 2]) companies try to find ‘artistic’ ways to push patent litigation to crooked court districts. They often rely on software patents granted before Alice; that’s where PTAB comes handy.

The other day we saw this docket report about an attempt to bypass TC Heartland and shift lawsuit venue based on the location of a rented server (many servers are located in Texas for various business reasons). To quote:

The court granted defendant’s alternative motion to transfer for improper venue because a rented server did not qualify as defendant’s regular and established place of business.

This won’t work. TC Heartland was quite clear about this. When companies (or trolls) rely on outdated and low-quality software patents it’s not surprising that they try moving litigation to Texas. For instance, this new press release says that some company “expanded its core merchant processing services to include enterprise-grade, patent-protected software and intellectual property…”

Well, “patent-protected software” means not much after Alice; copyrights do, but not patents…

It seems as though their only hope now is judges like Gilstrap, who famously disregards the Supreme Court, not just on Alice but also TC Heartland.

People recall (citing this outline) how Michelle Lee got bullied out of her job by the patent microcosm and the patent trolls’ lobby, adding the reference to TC Heartland and alluding to trolls as “NPEs” while mentioning China. To quote: “2017 has been a year of headlines. From Michelle Lee stepping down as the Director of USPTO to the law changing decision in TC Heartland. From NPEs divesting their interests in diverse business models to China’s relatively new IP Priorities, and lot more”

Well, “China’s relatively new IP Priorities” are a recipe for patent trolling. In China, as it turns out, it’s now Shenzhen (as well as Beijing and Shanghai) that facilitates the litigation ‘business’ (patent trolls). As Chinese media put it the other day:

Southern Chinese city of Shenzhen Tuesday set up a financial court and an intellectual property (IP) court.

[...]

In 2016, courts in Shenzhen adjudicated on 14,887 IP cases of first instance, or one 10th of the nation’s total. In the first eleven months, Shenzhen courts handled 23,639 financial dispute cases of first instance, twice the number in the same period last year.

Maybe they just wish to become the next Texas. Good luck with that. It’s self-harming.

In the US, by contrast, trolls are a dying breed. William Bozeman, for example, was mentioned by the Conservative media the other day. It’s in relation to his patent battle against the Federal Reserve System, which paints Bozeman as nothing but a troll. Here are some portions from the Washington Times:

William Bozeman, an independent inventor with a colorful history, says he used to have a good relationship with the Federal Reserve System and even helped improve its fraud detection efforts.

[...]

The Fed described Mr. Bozeman as an opportunist, trying to demand money for technology he didn’t invent.

Mr. Bozeman said he is being bullied by the secretive central bank and that the Fed is trying to run up his legal bills by filing all the complaints in an effort to make him go away.

If he never implemented this thing on his own, then it makes him an opportunist. There are various companies out there, especially in Texas area, which do nothing but litigation. They aren’t doing well. Dominion Harbor is a patent troll which felt so hurt by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) that earlier this year it ran an anti-EFF series (not just a single article). Nowadays it promotes other parasites and says: “We’re not running out of good ideas. We just need to get better at implementing them…”

Dominion Harbor never implemented anything whatsoever, so this statement is laughable. Patent trolls feel the pinch and publicly attack the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) as well as yours truly (they did a whole podcast about me, in which they lied endlessly about me). But don’t worry about the EFF; they’re doing just fine. They’ve just done an annual roundup of their activity and wrote:

This year was once again active in terms of patent law and policy. Throughout it all, EFF worked to protect end user and innovator rights. We pushed for a rule that would end the Eastern District of Texas’ unwarranted dominance as a forum for patent litigation. We also defended processes at the Patent Office that give it the opportunity to correct mistakes (many, many mistakes) made in issuing patents. And we fought to prevent new patent owner tactics that would increase consumer costs.

We are very supportive of the work the EFF does on the patent front these days. We habitually see “Electronic Frontier Foundation” in publications like VentureBeat and TechDirt (reposted again some days ago [1, 2]) and the public sentiment too is changing. If it carries on like this, not only will the Supreme Court acknowledge that patent trolls are a problem (some Justices already call them “trolls”) but will also weed them out in future rulings.

As a closing word, I’d like to disclose that I received a nasty letter from a highly notorious patent troll. I might publish it some time in the near future. As Ray Niro has already demonstrated, heavy-duty trolls have no qualm about attacking their critics, even if these critics are bloggers. They drag the critics to court. The EFF has been sued quite a few times by now for merely criticising particular patents.

PTAB Update: Invalidations Carry on, Patents on Life Tackled, Patent Trolls Worry, and Allergan is in Trouble

Posted in America, Patents at 11:12 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Allergan logo

Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) maintains a high pace and good reputation, even in the face of never-ending attacks from the patent microcosm and controversial dodging attempts from the likes of Allergan

THE PTAB-aided USPTO has effectively cut down the number of software patents and sent out the message/signal that such patents are no longer worth pursuing, especially not in courts. PTAB is very popular among technology firms because it helps protect them from lawsuits of trolls and other types of nuisance litigation.

PTAB has become a hot topic very quickly. As one site put it the other day:

A recent Federal Circuit case illustrates perils of trying to show that patent claims are non-obvious by arguing that references would not have been combined. In Bosch Automotive Service Solutions. LLC v. Matal, No. 2015-1928 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2017) (non-precedential), the court affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of unpatentability, in an Inter Partes Review proceeding, of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,904,796 (and, while not discussed in this post, also vacating the PTAB’s denial of the patent owner’s motion to amend certain claims). The court agreed with the PTAB that there was a sufficient motivation to combine references to achieve a single tool for activating tire sensors where different references taught each of the various functionalities now claimed in a single tool.

This party line is also promoted by proponents of patents on life (yes, on life! A whole site dedicated to that ’cause’). “In the IPR judgment, the Board found one set of Bosch’s proposed claims to be indefinite and one set to be obvious,” it said.

PTAB is limiting if not cracking down on patents on life, not just software patents. From its report on the subject:

Petitioner Visionsense Corp. is challenging the ’190 patent on four grounds as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (ground 1) or as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (grounds 2, 3, and 4). View the petition here. Administrative Patent Judges Hyun J. Jung (author), Michael L. Woods, and Amanda F. Wieker issued a decision instituting inter partes review of whether claims 1–3 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Little, Flower I, and Flower II; whether claims 1–3 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Flower I, Flower II, and Little or Goldstein; and whether claims 1–3 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jibu, Flower I, and Little or Goldstein.

More of the usual PTAB bashing at Watchtroll (it’s very much routine there) could be seen several days ago. These people are worried. Trolls are worried.

David Pridham, who heads the patent troll Dominion Harbor, joked or dismissed PTAB the other day, claiming that it is “ignoring legal precedent since 2012! What a joke.”

This isn’t actually true. Then again, truth does not matter to Pridham, who libeled me using kindergarten-level insults. The more these people bash PTAB, the more convinced we should become that PTAB cracks down on the right things. “PTAB can no longer place the burden of establishing the patentability of amended claims on the patent owner,” [sic] wrote another site of the patent microcosm a few days ago, alluding to Chief Judge Ruschke with his statements (covered here at the time). They’re looking hard for ways around PTAB’s scrutiny.

On November 21, 2017, PTAB Chief Judge Ruschke issued a memorandum entitled “Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products.” As we reported at the time, the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products determined that the PTAB can no longer place the burden of establishing the patentability of amended claims on the patent owner in IPR proceedings. However, that en banc Court was highly fractured, with five separate opinions joined by differing collections of judges. Therefore, most of the opinion could be described as “cogitations,” as Judge O’Malley had put it.

The end of software patents in the US is getting ever more irreversible and real; it’s hard to overturn PTAB decisions on the matter, but the PTAB-bashing Anticipat tries to sell its products/services around such prospects. Four days ago it said:

PTAB: Increasingly difficult to overturn abstract idea rejections on appeal

[...]

The latest data from Anticipat show that the effects of #AliceStorm are beginning to stabilize at the PTAB. At a webinar over the summer, we presented data on the reversal rates of abstract idea rejections. Month-to-month, we presented on a highly volatile, but overall low reversal rate for abstract ideas of about 17%. Now with several more months of data, the reversal rate appears to have stabilized around a lower overall reversal rate of 16%. See chart below.

We mentioned this earlier in the month. It’s pretty significant when one inverts the numbers as it indicates that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reaffirms USPTO rejections of abstract patents/applications ~83% of the time.

Anticipat hasn’t got much to contribute; it’s a waste of one’s money. As for other attempts to thwart PTAB? Those too are futile. “Transfer of Allergan’s Patents to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe,” as Watchtroll recalled the other day (it published annual summaries), turns out to be an utter failure. As we pointed out in recent weeks/months, the tribal immunity ploy/scam is falling apart [1, 2, 3] and Allergan itself is falling apart, too. Published a few days ago was this report:

Allergan announced that it lost its patent appeal in its attempt to protect its Combigan eye drug from generic competition posed by Novartis’ Sandoz division.

According to Allergan, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’ earlier decision that the Sandoz generic rival did not infringe two of Allergan’s patents and reversed a decision on a third patent in favor of Novartis.

Eastern District of Texas again. And the loss may have a profound effect/ramifications for the company. Maybe it will even go out of business in the not-so-distant future. PTAB can soon proceed to invalidating some of those patents it’s trying to ‘hide’ behind the Mohawks.

Michael Frakes and Melissa Wasserman Complain About Low Patent Quality While Watchtroll Lobbies to Lower It Further

Posted in America, Patents at 8:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

New paper from Michael Frakes speaks of the USPTO‘s incentive to grant patents irrespective of merit (e.g. quality/prior art)

Michael D. Frakes

Summary: A new paper, composed by Michael D. Frakes and Melissa F. Wasserman, explains that the way things are working in the United States may mean that patent examiners have an incentive to grant low-quality patents — the very thing the patent microcosm wants as it leads to increase in litigation rather than innovation

THE year is ending today and we have broadened our scope for observing news about software patents. Expect more next year than in the past year.

A couple of weeks ago this scholarly paper was published, but we have not noticed it until more recently (when the media mentioned it). We thought it’s worth propagating the outline as follows:

Problem

There is general agreement that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issues too many invalid patents—those patents issued on an existing technology or on an obvious technological advancement—that are unnecessarily reducing consumer welfare, stunting productive research, and discouraging innovation. However, there has until recently been little to no compelling empirical evidence that any particular feature of the patent application system causes the Patent Office to allow the granting of invalid patents, making it difficult to fully reform the patent system.

Proposal

Frakes and Wasserman build upon new empirical evidence to propose three changes to the patent system that would reduce the issuance of invalid patents: (1) restructuring the Patent Office’s fee schedule to minimize the risk that fee collections will be insufficient to cover its operational costs, while also diminishing its financial incentive to grant patents when collections are insufficient; (2) limiting the number of repeat applications that applicants can file for the same invention; and (3) increasing the time examiners spend reviewing patent applications.

Abstract

There is general agreement that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is issuing too many invalid patents that are unnecessarily reducing consumer welfare, stunting productive research, and discouraging innovation. In this paper, Frakes and Wasserman build upon new empirical evidence to propose three changes to the patent system that would reduce the issuance of invalid patents: (1) restructuring the Patent Office’s fee schedule to minimize the risk that fee collections will be insufficient to cover its operational costs, while also diminishing its financial incentive to grant patents when collections are insufficient; (2) limiting the number of repeat applications that applicants can file for the same invention; and (3) increasing the time examiners spend reviewing patent applications.

The EPO has, in recent years, been seduced into a similar trap. What is it that should be measured? What is the yardstick of growth? Is growth even necessarily desirable? This is about monopolies.

As longtime readers may know (some people have been reading the site for over a decade), we are not against patents. We are against software patents. We are pro-software copyrights (or copyleft). So the other day when we saw a British site stating that “Quiptel’s technology and software patents will now drive the company’s primary business focus” we were rather miffed. Why does Quiptel keep bragging about software patents? We have shown other examples in recent weeks. These patents are bunk and nothing to brag about.

“As longtime readers may know (some people have been reading the site for over a decade), we are not against patents. We are against software patents.”Always remember that some of the heaviest lobbying for software patents comes from Watchtroll. So we have decided to watch it a little more closely in the coming year. Towards the end of the year this site/front group had mostly summaries/meta (e.g. [1, 2, 3]), but it also said: “In recent years, life as an IP strategist admittedly has been turbulent. Pivotal judicial decisions, the America Invents Act, and their application in the USPTO and the courts have been widely viewed as reducing the value of patents in the United States.”

No, the America Invents Act (AIA) brought PTAB, which actually improved patent quality and increased the value of remaining — not collective — patents. The more bogus patents get granted, the lower the value of the whole on an individual basis. We explained this repeatedly in the context of European Patents (EPs) and the EPO.

“The more bogus patents get granted, the lower the value of the whole on an individual basis.”As we shall show later today, Watchtroll carries on with PTAB bashing, courtesy of the patent microcosm’s echo chamber (people who profit from lawsuits). Here is Watchtroll boosting Paul Morinville, one of the most radical among PTAB bashers. Isn’t it incredible that some law firms and even IBM are willing to associate with such people?

By contrast, Juristat offered a more objective annual review and Mark Summerfield down under has shared some statistics and thoughts. Here’s what he wrote yesterday:

The coming year promises to be another interesting – and potentially turbulent – one for the Australian patent system. Public consultations have already taken place in relation to proposed changes to patent (and other IP) laws in response to the Productivity Commission’s (PC) review of Australia’s IP arrangements. These changes include potential substantive amendments to the law of inventive step, while draft legislation has already been published in relation to other PC recommendations, including abolition of the innovation patent. It is likely that some, if not all, of these legislative changes will be passed during 2018.

This does — among other things — end software patents. They were never quite blessed by the system anyway, but now there are even stricter regulations in place (or rules in the Australian patent office) to prevent patenting of software. Australia seems to have gotten more serious about patent quality rather than quantity.

Christoph Ernst Does Not Boss Benoît Battistelli Like He’s Supposed to, But Battistelli’s Bosses/Colleagues in France Can be Contacted

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“An earthquake would be needed for the Administrative Council, where each of the 35 member states has one vote, not to support my major proposals.”Autocrat Battistelli, who is alleged to be 'buying' the votes of small member states

Summary: The ongoing abuses of Battistelli merit collective action because the latest developments indicate that it may be about to escalate further

THE CHAIRMAN, Christoph Ernst (‘Herrnst’), is supposed to supervise Battistelli at the EPO, but as we expected all along, he quickly became Battistelli’s de facto protector. Starting tomorrow, Judge Corcoran will be under Battistelli’s control; he is alleged to have contacted officials in France. “Of course no publication in Journal Officiel,” said this new comment yesterday, “but I know my source and Mr Corcoran is back in DG1 under hierarchical supervision of Battistelli…”

This is seriously problematic and we think that it’s about time people send E-mails to people with actual leverage over the autocrat. New Year’s eve seems like a good point for New Year’s resolutions and holding Battistelli accountable is a well overdue cause.

One of our readers did some of the research and found out who can be contacted, along with some relevant information. To quote verbatim:

I would like to thank you for all the excellent work you have done this year, again. You are nearly the only independent source of information on EPO related matters. 2017 has been decisive in the “perception” of how despotic, incompetent, ruthless, corrupt etc. the management of Team Battistelli is.

However a public perception of the problematic doesn’t bring directly a solution to recover a full-functioning EPO. Team Battistelli is like cancer: stronger healing protocols, similar to chemotherapy and surgery, will be unavoidable, And it is not clear that this office may ever return to a normal state of affairs.

If you have time you may watch the videos of the town council meetings in St Germain en Laye where M. Battistelli is a town councilor and deputy mayor (in charge of culture!). It is remarkable to see that the otherwise big mouth has nearly nothing to say in a democratic context!

You may have a look here. When watching the videos, I was impressed (I really mean it) by the polite and friendly tone of the Mayor and generally of the town councilors. What a disparity with the perceived constant lack of education exhibited by Team Battistelli. Yes another world is possible.

Battistelli boredCertainly not all town councilors are aware that the person in the last row is de facto a criminal not sitting behind bars because he claims and enjoys (diplomatic) immunity. He was elected 6th deputy mayor in charge of culture during a vote held on 19.10.2017 in a session of the town council. Watch the ballot count. The election was far from being unanimous. Many blank and spoilt ballots. I guess that the councilors from another political side didn’t vote for him. I firmly believe that transparency is of the utmost importance and that the councilors should be aware of the existence of Techrights.

An e-mail would suffice. The addresses of the town councilors have this form: name.surname@saintgermainenlaye.fr
Here a comprehensive list classified by political groups. To be noted: Mr. Battistelli belongs to group n°. 1 “Union pour St Germain”.

The E-mails extracted from the above page are as follows (in case someone wishes to write to them, preferably in French):

arnaud.pericard@saintgermainenlaye.fr
ecretariat.elus@saintgermainenlaye.fr
anne.gommier@saintgermainenlaye.fr
monique.dumont@saintgermainenlaye.fr
patrick.lazard@saintgermainenlaye.fr
pierre.degeorge@saintgermainenlaye.fr
angeline.silly@saintgermainenlaye.fr
pierre.camasses@saintgermainenlaye.fr
pascal.leveque@saintgermainenlaye.fr
didier.rouxel@saintgermainenlaye.fr
agnes.cerighelli@saintgermainenlaye.fr
armelle.rouly@saintgermainenlaye.fr

We aren’t going to suggest/put forth template text or anything like that; but since their contact details are in the public domain, making mass communications simpler is perfectly legitimate an action.

12.30.17

Raw: Željko Topić’s “Poorly Veiled Attempt to Intimidate Staff” of the EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Original/full: Strike registration and the dreaded strike registration tool! [PDF]

EPO intimidation

Summary: A look back at the strategy used to threaten, spy on, punish, penalise and intimidate people who wish to exercise their right to strike

Raw: International Labour Organisation on Incredible (and Unsuitable/Inadequate) Promotions at the European Patent Office

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Applicable also to the controversial promotion of Élodie Bergot, spouse of Battistelli’s longtime confidant (Gilles Requena), from A2 to a A5 post. Her husband, Requena, leaped from A3 to A5.

Original/full: 114th Session of the ILOAT [PDF]

SUEPO on promotions

Summary: Comments on Judgment No. 3191 (via), which deals with promotions at the European Patent Office (EPO) based on the whims of the EPO’s President rather than a suitable vetting process

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »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

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts