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

01.03.18

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“I think you work with an out of date Codex (the employee contract),” one person wrote today in response to claims that DG3 is unable to complain about Battistelli, e.g. in a German court.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 16/12/2018: DXVK 0.94, WordPress 5.0.1, Fuchsia SDK

    Links for the day



  2. Immunity of the European Patent Office Has Helped Shield Dangerous Thugs From Justice

    The Topić case is set to resume in Croatia as Topić runs out of diplomatic immunity he long enjoyed (and exploited) at the European Patent Office



  3. Patent Law Firms' War on Facts and Constant Lying About Unitary Patent

    The Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC) has failed; this, however, is no excuse for constantly lying and it's a problem more people ought to speak about because it stigmatises lawyers as self-serving liars, not a legitimate source of honest legal advice



  4. EPO Chief Economist Yann Ménière Keynote Speaker at Patent Trolls-Funded Event Set Up by the Patent Trolls' Lobby

    The EPO continues to align itself not only with the interests of patent trolls (even those from another continent) but also with the trolls themselves, causing great embarrassment and confusion over the goals/motivations of the Office



  5. The European Patent Organisation (EPO) Loses Legitimacy If (or When) Christoph Ernst Becomes Subservient to António Campinos

    The structural deficiencies of the EPO, where separation of powers does not quite exist, is further pronounced by the imminent role of Christoph Ernst, who gets 'demoted' from pseudo-boss of Campinos to a mere assistant of his



  6. Links 15/12/2018: Cockpit 184, Vivaldi 2.2, Krita 4.1.7 Released

    Links for the day



  7. Links 13/12/2018: IRS Migration, GNOME 3.31.3 Released

    Links for the day



  8. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions Still Uncontroversial Unless One Asks the Patent Maximalists

    Contrary to what the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has claimed, PTAB is liked by companies that actually create things and opposition to PTAB comes from power brokers of the Koch brothers, law firms, and trolls (including those who foolishly repeat them)



  9. Latest Talk From IBM’s Manny Schecter Shows That IBM Hasn't Changed and After the Red Hat Takeover It'll Continue to Promote Software Patents

    IBM's hardheaded attitude and patent aggression unaffected by its strategic acquisition of a company that at least claimed to oppose software patents (whilst at the same time pursuing them)



  10. The European Patent Troll Wants as Much Litigation as Possible

    Patent quality is a concept no longer recognisable at the European Patent Office; all that the management understands is speed and PACE, which it conflates with quality in order to register as much cash as possible before the whole thing comes crashing down (bubbles always implode at the end)



  11. António Campinos Turns His 'Boss' Into His Lapdog, Just Like Battistelli and Kongstad

    The European Patent Organisation expects us to believe that Josef Kratochvíl will keep the Office honest while his predecessor, the German who failed to do anything about Battistelli's abuses, becomes officially subservient to António Campinos



  12. Links 12/12/2018: Mesa 18.3.1 Released, CNCF Takes Control of etcd

    Links for the day



  13. EPO Trust, Leadership and Commitment

    "Trust, leadership and commitment" is the latest publication from EPO insiders, who in the absence of free speech and freedom of association for the union/representation are an essential spotlight on EPO abuses



  14. Links 11/12/2018: Tails 3.11, New Firefox, FreeBSD 12.0

    Links for the day



  15. Number of Filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Highest in Almost Two Years

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs), which [cref 113718 typically invalidate software patents by citing 35 U.S.C. § 101], are withstanding negative rhetoric and hostility from Iancu



  16. With 'Brexit' in a Lot of Headlines Team UPC Takes the Unitary Patent Lies up a Notch

    Misinformation continues to run like water; people are expected to believe that the UPC, an inherently EU-centric construct, can magically come to fruition in the UK (or in Europe as a whole)



  17. The EPO Not Only Abandoned the EPC But Also the Biotech Directive

    Last week's decision (T1063/18, EPO Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04) shows that there's still a long way to go before the Office and the Organisation as a whole fulfil their obligation to those who birthed the Organisation in the first placeLast week's decision (T1063/18, EPO Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04) shows that there's still a long way to go before the Office and the Organisation as a whole fulfil their obligation to those who birthed the Organisation in the first place



  18. Patents on Abstract Things and on Life (or Patents Which Threaten Lives) Merely Threaten the Very Legitimacy of Patent Offices, Including EPO

    Patent Hubris and maximalism pose a threat or a major risk to the very system that they claim to be championing; by reducing the barrier to entry (i.e. introducing low-quality or socially detrimental patents) they merely embolden ardent critics who demand patent systems as a whole be abolished; the EPO is nowadays a leading example of it



  19. Links 10/12/2018: Linux 4.20 RC6 and Git 2.20

    Links for the day



  20. US Courts Make the United States' Patent System Sane Again

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and other factors are making the patent system in the US a lot more sane



  21. Today's USPTO Grants a Lot of Fake Patents, Software Patents That Courts Would Invalidate

    The 35 U.S.C. § 101 effect is very much real; patents on abstract/nonphysical ideas get invalidated en masse (in courts/PTAB) and Director Andrei Iancu refuses to pay attention as if he's above the law and court rulings don't apply to him



  22. A Month After Microsoft Claimed Patent 'Truce' Its Patent Trolls Keep Attacking Microsoft's Rivals

    Microsoft's legal department relies on its vultures (to whom it passes money and patents) to sue its rivals; but other than that, Microsoft is a wonderful company!



  23. Good News: US Supreme Court Rejects Efforts to Revisit Alice, Most Software Patents to Remain Worthless

    35 U.S.C. § 101 will likely remain in tact for a long time to come; courts have come to grips with the status quo, as even the Federal Circuit approves the large majority of invalidations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) panels, initiated by inter partes reviews (IPRs)



  24. Florian Müller's Article About SEPs and the EPO

    Report from the court in Munich, where the EPO is based



  25. EPO Vice-President Željko Topić in New Article About Corruption in Croatia

    The Croatian newspaper 7Dnevno has an outline of what Željko Topić has done in Croatia and in the EPO in Munich; it argues that this seriously erodes Croatia's national brand/identity



  26. The Quality of European Patents Continues to Deteriorate Under António Campinos and Software Patents Are Advocated Every Day

    The EPC in the European Patent Office and 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the USPTO annul most if not all software patents; under António Campinos, however, software patents are being granted in Europe and the USPTO exploits similar tricks



  27. Team UPC is Still Spreading False Rumours in an Effort to Trick Politicians and Pressure Judges

    Abuses at the European Patent Office, political turmoil and an obvious legislative coup by a self-serving occupation that produces nothing have already doomed the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC); so now we deal with complete fabrications from Team UPC as they're struggling to make something out of nothing, anonymously smearing opposition to the UPC and anonymously making stuff up



  28. Patents on Life and Patents That Kill the Poor Would Only Delegitimise the European Patent Office

    After Mayo, Myriad and other SCOTUS cases (the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 101) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is reluctant to grant patents on life; the European Patent Office (EPO), however, goes in the opposite direction, even in defiance of the European Patent Convention



  29. EPO 'Untapped Potential'

    "Campinos is diligently looking for ways to further increase the Office’s output without increasing the number of examiners," says the EPO-FLIER team



  30. Links 9/12/2018: New Linux Stable Releases (Notably Linux 4.19.8), RC Coming, and Unifont 11.0.03

    Links for the day


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