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


Battistelli’s Attacks on Judge Corcoran Threaten Not Only the EPC But Also UPC

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Michelangelo's slave sculpture
Michelangelo’s slave sculpture

Summary: Lack of independence, or judges’ ‘bondage’ to Battistelli, isn’t just a violation of the most fundamental rules (and spirit) of the institution but also a clear barrier to a system which extends breadth of impact to enforcement/litigation

THE situation at the EPO sort of resumes where it stopped before Christmas, with Judge Corcoran ending up on the other side of the fence (Battistelli’s). DG1 is under the direct control of Team Battistelli.

“I think you work with an out of date Codex (the employee contract),” one person wrote today in response to claims that DG3 is unable to complain about Battistelli, e.g. in a German court. The comment emphasises that “the relevant article is now Art. 19? And it has very limited exceptions in sub-clauses.”

This person wasn’t alone. Another one said:

Please refer to Article 41 of the EPO Service Regulations.

Many BoA members were “permanent employees” prior to appointment and remain so afterwards.
There is room for argument about those who worked elsewhere prior to appointment.
But if they are not recognised as “permanent employees” then their employment situation is even more precarious as they would not enjoy the protection of Article 41 (3) of the Service Regulations.

… would it not rather prove the point that the Boards of Appeal are not truly independent if the President could forbid them from providing evidence on this subject in a court of law.

It is rumoured that some members of the Boards wanted to participate in an interview about the current situation with an IP magazine.
According to Article 20 of the Service Regulations the President should have to give his permission but “Permission for publication of
a work by a member of a Board may only be refused with the agreement
of the authority referred to in Rule 12(1) of the Implementing Regulations
to the EPC 2000.”

It is said that when a signal of disapproval came from the 10th floor those involved ran for cover and did not risk a confrontation by referring the matter to the “the authority referred to in Rule 12(1) of the Implementing Regulations”.

All rumours and hearsay and no documentation I know.
But such is the state of affairs at the EPO these days.

“Apart from the absurdity of requiring Board members to seek permission from the President to comment on the issue of their independence, there is something else that I find strange about the application of the Service Regulations to the Boards,” said the next comment, which is pretty informative:

If there is anything to the hearsay, then I can only comment that this is a very sad state of affairs indeed.

Apart from the absurdity of requiring Board members to seek permission from the President to comment on the issue of their independence, there is something else that I find strange about the application of the Service Regulations to the Boards. That is, is it not strange that the Boards of Appeal should be bound by Regulations, the drafting of which is de facto controlled by the President – especially if those Regulations could be shown to compromise the independence of the Boards of Appeal?

However, there may be a way out. This is because it seems to me that one could argue that, where Article 20(1) conflicts with Article 15(2) (“Members of the Boards shall, both in the performance of their duties and otherwise, conduct themselves in such a manner as not to detract from confidence in their independence”), it is the provisions of the latter that should prevail. This is because it is surely more important to maintain confidence in the independence of the Boards than it is for the President to have control over “non-public” information regarding the practicalities of how the Office is managed.

Whichever way the cookie crumbles, it would certainly make for an interesting situation if a court (such as the BVerfG), or a party to court proceedings, were to make a formal request for a member of the Boards of Appeal to provide expert evidence on the extent to which independence of the Boards is guaranteed (both in theory and in practice) under the EPC and associated rules and regulations. No doubt the President would object but this would at least bring the issue to a head (and, hopefully, to a resolution).

Workers of the Office, which now includes Corcoran, cannot speak out against Battistelli (except anonymously). Not even staff representatives are courageous enough to speak out as often as they used to (SUEPO’s site has not been updated for weeks; it was finally updated with a couple of links earlier today).

“What’s worth noting is that even UPC boosters (who actively lobby for it) aren’t happy with Battistelli’s ‘reforms’, which some believe are intended to usher in the UPC.”Today, linking to its ‘magazine’ (quarterly publication), the EPO said: “A team of eight at the EPO in Vienna ensure that customers have access to the patent information they need, in the format they require.”

They actually use the word “customers” and they make it sound as though these “customers” are very happy. But they’re not. See this long new thread from a UPC proponent, who is also a “customer” of the EPO. “Hi #EPO watchers,” he wrote. “Just heard of new internal instructions for Examiners to issue Summons if there are *any* outstanding objections after 1st A94(3) comm. Can anyone confirm? [] my colleague tells me this is from an “EPO-wide memo” (so not confined to a particular division) but it is for “internal distribution only” and so the Examiner couldn’t give exact wording (?!). Agree, this is all rather concerning. [] I think one of (many) troubling things about this, and other recent “reforms”, is that it takes as its base assumption the idea that the Examiner is correct – while simultaneously depriving the Examiner of the time and opportunity to consider their position in detail.”

What’s worth noting is that even UPC boosters (who actively lobby for it) aren’t happy with Battistelli’s ‘reforms’, which some believe are intended to usher in the UPC.

“When asked by Ars, the EPO’s spokesperson mentioned the imminent arrival of the unitary patent system as an important reason for revising the EPO’s internal rules…”

Dr. Glyn Moody

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 20/3/2018: GStreamer 1.14.0, Freespire 3.0, Endless OS 3.3.13

    Links for the day

  2. BIO, MDMA and PhRMA Are Pushing the PTAB-Hostile STRONGER Patents Act While IAM and Patently-O Continue to Bash PTAB

    The patent microcosm, which compares the Board to the above (crude analogy from Judge Rader and other patent extremists), is still trying to kill inter partes reviews (IPRs), in effect overlooking its own hypocrisy on the matter (they don’t want patent justice, they just want to metaphorically ‘shoot down’ the judges)

  3. 35 U.S.C. § 101 is Still Effectively Tackling Software Patents in the US, But Patent Law Firms Lie/Distort to 'Sell' These Anyway

    The assertion that software patents are still worth pursuing in 2018 is based on carefully-constructed spin which mis-frames several court decisions and underplays/downplays/ignores pretty much everything that does not suit the narrative

  4. Battistelli's EPO Became Extremely Reliant on China for Distraction and on Endless Supply of Applications (Supply Which Doesn't Exist)

    Discussion about the EPO granting machine (or patent-printing machine) and figures the way EPO management would rather the public won't ever see them; the concept that China means redemption for this patent system is as laughable as always

  5. The US International Trade Commission (USITC) Against Comcast, Courtesy of the Intellectual Ventures-Connected Rovi

    The USITC/ITC, which mostly serves to impose embargoes (sometimes in shocking defiance of PTAB decisions), is being invoked by a firm connected to the world’s largest patent troll, Intellectual Ventures

  6. Tinder/Match Group Uses Software Patents to Sue a Rival, Obviously Choosing to Sue in Texas

    Software patents are being used for leverage, but only those which were likely granted before Alice and only in courts at districts somewhere around Texas

  7. Links 19/3/2018: Linux 4.16 RC6, Atom 1.25, antiX 17.1, GNU Mcron 1.1

    Links for the day

  8. From PTAB Bashing to Federal Circuit (CAFC) Bashing: How the Patent 'Industry' Sells Software Patents

    The latest tactics of the patent microcosm are just about as distasteful as last month's (or last year's), with focus shifting to the courts and few broadly-misinterpreted patent cases (mainly Finjan, Berkheimer, and Aatrix)

  9. Patent Maximalists Keep Coming Up With New Terms and Buzzwords to Bypass the Practical Ban on Software Patents

    The fightback against Section 101 and the US Supreme Court (notably Alice) seems to concentrate on old and new buzzwords, such as "Software as a Medical Device" ("SaMD") or "Fourth Industrial Revolution" ("4IR"), which the EPO recently paid European media to spread and promote

  10. News About Patents is Often Just Advertisements Composed Directly or Indirectly by Companies That Sell Patents and Patent Services

    Infomercials are still dominant among news about patents, in effect drowning out the signal (real journalism) and instead pushing agenda that is detached from reality, pertinent facts, objective assessment, public interest and so on

  11. Blocks and Paywalls Won't Protect the Patent Trolls' Lobby From Scrutiny/Fact-Checking

    Joff Wild and Benoît Battistelli have much in common, including patent maximalism and chronic resistance to facts (or fact-checking)

  12. China Has Become Very Aggressive With Patents

    China now targets other Asian countries/firms -- more so than Western firms -- with patent lawsuits; we expect this to get worse in years to come

  13. UPC/Battistelli Booster IAM Blames Brexit Rather Than EPO Abuses

    While the EPO is collapsing due to mismanagement the boosters of Team Battistelli would rather deflect and speak about Brexit, which is itself partly motivated by such mismanagement

  14. European Commission Again Urged to Tackle Abuses at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Rina Ronja Kari is the latest MEP attempting to compel the Commission to actually do something about the EPO other than turning a blind eye

  15. Links 18/3/2018: Wine 3.4, Wine-Staging 3.4, KDE Connect 1.8 for Android

    Links for the day

  16. TXED Courts Are Causing Businesses to Leave the District, Notably For Fear That Having Any Operations Based There is a Legal Liability

    A discussion about the infamous abundance of patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas (TXED/EDTX) and what this will mean for businesses that have branches or any form of operations there (making them subjected to lawsuits in that district even after TC Heartland)

  17. PTAB Hatred is So Intense Among the Patent 'Industry' That Even Scammers Are Hailed as Champions If They Target PTAB

    The patent microcosm is so eager to stop the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that it's supporting sham deals (or "scams") and exploits/distorts the voice of the new USPTO Director to come up with PTAB-hostile catchphrases

  18. The Patent 'Industry' is Increasingly Mocking CAFC and Its Judges Because It Doesn't Like the Decisions

    Judgmental patent maximalists are still respecting high courts only when it suits them; whenever the outcome is not desirable they're willing to attack the legitimacy of the courts and the competence of judges, even resorting to racist ad hominem attacks if necessary

  19. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Carries on Enforcing § 101, Invalidating Software Patents and Upsetting the Patent 'Industry' in the Process

    A quick report on where PTAB stands at the moment, some time ahead of the Oil States decision (soon to come from the US Supreme Court)

  20. Luxembourg Can Become a Hub of Patent Trolls If the EPO Carries on With Its 'Reforms', Even Without the UPC

    With or without the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which is the wet dream of patent trolls and their legal representatives, the EPO's terrible policies have landed a lot of low-quality patents on the hands of patent trolls (many of which operate through city-states that exist for tax evasion -- a fiscal environment ripe for shells)

  21. The Patent 'Printing Machine' of the EPO Will Spawn Many Lawsuits and Extortions (Threats of Lawsuits), in Effect Taxing Europe

    The money-obsessed, money-printing patent office, where the assembly line mentality has been adopted and patent-printing management is in charge, is devaluing or diluting the pool of European Patents, more so with restrictions (monetary barriers) to challenging bad patents

  22. Links 17/3/2018: Varnish 6, Wine 3.4

    Links for the day

  23. Deleted EPO Tweets and Promotion of Software Patents Amid Complaints About Abuse and Demise of Patent Quality

    Another ordinary day at the EPO with repressions of workforce, promotion of patents that aren't even allowed, and Team UPC failing to get its act together

  24. Guest Post: Suspected “Whitewashing” Operations by Željko Topić in Croatia

    Articles about EPO Vice-President Željko Topić are disappearing and sources indicate that it’s a result of yet more SLAPP from him

  25. Monumental Effort to Highlight Decline in Quality of European Patents (a Quarter of Examiners Sign Petition in Spite of Fear), Yet Barely Any Press Coverage

    he media in Europe continues to be largely apathetic towards the EPO crisis, instead relaying a bunch of press releases and doctored figures from the EPO; only blogs that closely follow EPO scandals bothered mentioning the new petition

  26. Careful Not to Conflate UPC Critics With AfD or Anti-EU Elements

    The tyrannical Unified Patent Court (UPC) is being spun as something that only fascists would oppose after the right-wing, anti-EU politicians in Germany express strong opposition to it

  27. Links 15/3/2018: Qt Creator 4.6 RC, Microsoft Openwashing

    Links for the day

  28. PTAB Continues to Increase Capacity Ahead of Oil States; Patent Maximalists Utterly Upset

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sees the number of filings up to an almost all-time high and efforts to undermine PTAB are failing pretty badly -- a trend which will be further cemented quite soon when the US Supreme Court (quite likely) backs the processes of PTAB

  29. Patent Maximalists Are Still Trying to Create a Patent Bubble in India

    Litigation maximalists and patent zealots continue to taunt India, looking for an opportunity to sue over just about anything including abstract ideas because that's what they derive income from

  30. EPO Staff Has Just Warned the National Delegates That EPO's Decline (in Terms of Patent Quality and Staff Welfare) Would Be Beneficial to Patent Trolls

    The staff of the EPO increasingly recognises the grave dangers of low-quality patents -- an issue we've written about (also in relation to the EPO) for many years


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


Recent Posts