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

01.05.18

The EPO’s Attack on the Boards of Appeal Dooms the Unitary Patent (UPC) and Team UPC Alters Its Tactics

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ad hominem tactics are now permitted as well? Has it really come to this?

Ad hominem

Summary: The crisis of the Battistelli regime means that credibility of patent justice is significantly lowered and Team UPC finds itself scrambling for ways to salvage what’s left of the UPC (even if that means mocking the complainants)

THE EPO had a slow start this year. There’s not much report, but there is still plenty to analyse.

Yesterday we found this puff piece about the EPO. “According to a recent study published by the European Patent Office (EPO),” it said, “Europe is the leader within the 4th Industrial Revolution (4IR) technologies industry.”

“What has the EPO turned into? Where is it going?”It makes the EPO sound so benign if not helpful. Well, the EPO was retweering this the following day (this morning); maybe they participated in “placing” it in the media. We have written a great deal about how the EPO handles the media and we are certain that many of these 4IR puff pieces were created in cooperation/participation/coordination with the EPO.

Anything else in the news about the EPO? No. We’re checking these things very closely.

“Experienced examiners and patent attorneys will tutor you throughout the Oral Proceedings workshop,” the EPO wrote yesterday. “Experienced examiners are becoming fewer at EPO,” I told them. The EPO suffers extraordinary brain drain which insiders are telling us about, citing clear evidence. The EPO is unable to recruit talent.

“We will soon close the call for applications for the Judicial internships at the Boards of Appeal,” the EPO also wrote yesterday. “For the Boards of Appeal to actually start functioning,” I responded, “they need not burden of tutoring interns but full-time staff.”

“The bottom line is, the UPC may be in fatal trouble here; what happened to Corcoran is quite likely the very last straw.”This has been said repeatedly over the years, not just here but also the likes of AMBA etc.

What has the EPO turned into? Where is it going? Can it be salvaged? We hope so. And so do insiders.

There is this ongoing conversation about whether members of the Boards of Appeal can deliver a testimony. The latest twist is this:

The Service regulation have changed extensively since June 2017 but the version published on the Internet is still the old one from March 2017.

Article 19 now reads:

“Article 19 – Discretion
(1) A permanent employee or former employee shall exercise the utmost discretion with regard to all facts and information coming to his knowledge in the course of or in connection with his employment.
(2) A permanent employee or former employee shall not, without permission from the President of the Office, disclose, on any grounds whatever, information which has come to his knowledge in the course of or in connection with the performance of his duties and which has not already been made public.
(3) Paragraph 2 shall also apply in legal proceedings. In this case, permission may be refused only where the interests of the Organisation or of a Contracting State so require. It may not, however, be refused if, in the opinion of the court, this would be likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice.
(4) Paragraph 2 shall not apply to an employee or former employee giving evidence before the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization in a case concerning an employee or former employee of the Office.”

An explanation is then given of why ILO is of relevance here (the EPC notwithstanding, as that too is relevant):

So let me see if I understand this correctly.

The Service Regulations allow the President to cite vague (and ill-defined reasons) for denying his permission for a (former) to provide evidence before a court of law. (Presumably such decisions can be challenged … but only before the ILO AT.)

On the other hand the President is completely unable to deny permission in connection with the provision of evidence to the ILO AT.

Is that correct?

What could possibly be the basis for this difference? I would have thought that it would make more sense for the Regulations to instead rely upon the provisions of national laws for establishing an appropriate balance between the interests of confidentiality and those of justice.

More importantly, what basis in the EPC is there for applying non-disclosure obligations to all “information which has come to his knowledge in the course of or in connection with the performance of his duties and which has not already been made public”? Article 12 of the EPC only indicates that there is a duty not to disclose “information which by its nature is a professional secret”.

For members of the Boards of Appeal to comment upon the issue of their independence, the only “non-public” information that they would be imparting is the manner in which, in practice, the EPO implements the provisions of the EPC (and the Service Regulations, etc.) vis-à-vis the members of the Boards. Is it really credible for anyone to assert that this information would amount to a “professional secret” in the sense of Article 12 EPC? I think not!

The latest on this says:

The article is rather odd and may need a lawyer to dissect. The “on any grounds whatever” sounds rather desperate and child-like in trying to enforce what I imagine may be unenforceable. It would appear that the administration is trying to extend immunity to encompass a self-defined exclusivity.
Paragraph 3 raises an issue beyond my knowledge as to what the term “likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice” means in terms of being a court’s opinion. Surely that can only be assessed after a court case or in full knowledge of all facts. During a case a party will not be able to present their best case unless the court considers a miscarriage of justice will otherwise occur? When is a different decision a miscarriage?
Paragraph 4 doesnot say any case before the ILO but limits it to one involving an employee or former employee. Why the condition? And when did the ILO-AT last take evidence anyway – they seem to religiously refuse to hear witnesses.

Another newer comment said that “it would be interesting that a party demands that Mr Corcoran testifies in front of the BVefG” (which can stop the UPC).

it would be interesting that a party demands that Mr Corcoran testifies in front of the BVefG and presents the court with the concrete example of his own case: eg how he was treated all along: how he was denied the rigth to access documents charging him, how he was denied the right to be heared, how he was not re-instated in DG3 further than the few remaining days of his mandate in 2017 (out of which close to 3 years were lost due to an abusive and vexatious suspension), and then brought back to DG1 under Battistelli’s hierarchical supervision.

This would surely give the Court a smashing insight into a concrete case and it could thus help the BVefG to establish beyond doubt how really “independent” the BoA of the EPO are.

And wait for Battistelli to become the first French President of the UPC Court in Paris soon (the UPC treaty foresees that its first President will be a FR citizen and he is said to want to go for it).

you liked the DG3 saga ? No doubt you will love the independence of the UPC Court under Battistelli !

The bottom line is, the UPC may be in fatal trouble here; what happened to Corcoran is quite likely the very last straw.

We have meanwhile noticed that CIPA’s Stephen Jones leaves IP Kat. Good riddance? He was mostly pushing CIPA's agenda (like UPC) in that blog. “We also thank and say goodbye to Stephen Jones,” they said, “a very experienced IP lawyer and current President of CIPA.”

“UPC lobbying does not strictly depend on Kluwer Patent Blog, where much of this lobbying gets delivered by Bristows staff.”It’s going to be easier to view IP Kat not as a front for CIPA even though their most prolific writer remains an employee of Bristows. Sadly, one of the better writers in there is also leaving, albeit just temporarily. “Nicola Searle will be on sabbatical from The IPKat for the next few months,” it says. We’re not against IP Kat but against particular elements of it; IP Kat is a mixture of many writers from many backgrounds, covering different topics. Their coverage regarding UPC, for instance, has always been appalling and they delete comments that they don’t like (or that Bristows doesn’t like). The same has been happening at Kluwer Patent Blog (Bristows deleting comments about the UPC there). And speaking of which, Kluwer Patent Blog was dead again yesterday. It happened a lot lately, sometimes for as long as a whole day. Lots of UPC lobbying over there became inaccessible. Kluwer Patent Blog was still down when we checked last night. People noticed. “Kluwer down again,” wrote one reader, “apparently since this morning.” I wrote about that twice yesterday and someone also left a comment here to say: “Worlds best IP blog seems to be hacked? Nearly everywhere I get: ¨ Error establishing a database connection¨” (there were other error messages later in the day).

UPC lobbying does not strictly depend on Kluwer Patent Blog, where much of this lobbying gets delivered by Bristows staff. Yesterday we saw Managing IP speaking of “potential timeline for Germany ratifying the UPC” as if it’s only a matter of time. That won’t happen. Self-fulfilling prophecy attempts by Team UPC again? Here is the full paragraph:

Topics discussed at our recent European Patent Forum USA included the potential timeline for Germany ratifying the UPC, FRAND after Unwired Planet v Huawei, the patentability of computer-implemented inventions at the EPO, patent enforcement strategies in Europe and hot tubbing of experts in the UK

Don’t forget that IAM, supported explicitly by the EPO, received money from the EPO’s PR department/external agency to set up a similar event in the US, dedicated purely to UPC lobbying/promotion. It was grotesque. And speaking of IAM, watch what they published yesterday: “The second five IP personalitirs of 2017 named by IAM – Patel, Qualcomm, Shore, Stjerna and Xi.”

Ingve Björn Stjerna, who exposed the UPC for the undemocratic sham that it was, is among “The IAM IP personalities of 2017″ (many of the other top personalities are patent trolls, like we said yesterday). To quote the article:

Ingve Björn STJERNA – As a new year begins, the future of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) remains up in the air; not because of Brexit but due to a complaint currently before the German Constitutional Court asking it to rule that the country’s ratification of the UPC agreement would be illegal. The case was brought by IP lawyer Ingve Björn Stjerna, a long-time critic of the UPC, and has a number of strands – including alleged flaws in the vote to ratify taken in the German parliament and concerns over the independence of the UPC and its judges. In April 2017, it caused the constitutional court to ask Germany’s president to suspend implementation of ratification. Then, later in the year, it requested that interested parties should submit comments – so delaying consideration of the arguments. If the court now decides that the case should proceed it is likely that it will not be heard until the summer, at the earliest, with a decision not to be expected until months later. That would effectively torpedo the UPC in its current form, as even a ruling that membership of the system is compatible with the German constitution is unlikely to leave time for the country to ratify the agreement before the UK leaves the EU in March 2019 (currently, UPC member states also have to be EU member states). One man can move a mountain, so the saying goes: in 2018, Stjerna could well prove this to be true.

Very gentle on the UPC there, IAM. As one might expect. IAM has, over the years, been an integral part of the UPC lobby or “Team UPC” as we often call that lobby. It even spread false information in order to promote the UPC and compel readers to go along with it.

“IAM has, over the years, been an integral part of the UPC lobby or “Team UPC” as we often call that lobby. It even spread false information in order to promote the UPC and compel readers to go along with it.”And speaking of Team UPC, this week (yesterday) it kept lying about what Britain wants. In order to promote litigation it cited this front group and then said (courtesy pf Edward Nodder) that “UK IP organisations request government action on IP (including the UPC) in light of Brexit”

In the same vein, makers of cluster bombs want endless wars and makers of particular vaccinations sometimes want particular diseases to spread.

It wasn’t enough for Bristows; on the same day it used this slant about France as if UPC acceptance in France is a new thing. France has already been in it for years; it’s one of the first, being the home country of Battistelli and Barnier, both of whom pushed incredibly hard for the UPC. Bristows did the the same for Belgium (also not new), but the Unitary Patent is dead due to Germany and the UK, not France or Belgium. The dishonesty of Bristows is noteworthy, but it’s no longer surprising.

“In the same vein, makers of cluster bombs want endless wars and makers of particular vaccinations sometimes want particular diseases to spread.”Speaking of British boosters of the UPC (law firms, obviously), watch this new rant from Team UPC. It seeks to prop up a smear or promote a false moral equivalence; it’s almost ad hominem, trying to frame Dr. Stjerna as a hypocrite, as if complaining about the UPC is as bad as the UPC itself. No wonder Stjerna did not want his name known…

Here is what the UPC booster wrote: “While I’m thinking about the topic of the UPC 3rd-party submissions, I continue to be astonished that the grounds for the constitutional complaint at #BVerfG haven’t been made public [...] I know summaries have been published by (e.g.) @KluwerBlogger but it seems absurd that we have to rely on third-party summaries rather than seeing the complaint “in the flesh” [...] In the UK it’s a relatively simple matter for non-parties to court proceedings to get hold of statements of case. It seems perverse that something which is allegedly of fundamental constitutional significance in Germany, and thus a matter of public interest, should be kept secret [...] I also note heavy irony in that Stjerna – having long criticised lawmakers for alleged lack of transparency in negotiations & discussions behind the framing of the UPCA and unitary patent regulations – is apparently upset about the publication of details of his case (see image!)”

“The dishonesty of Bristows is noteworthy, but it’s no longer surprising.”So I decided to reply, but did not (obviously) managed to convince those dyed-in-the-wool UPC folks (who are paid not not understand why UPC is wrong). The reply: “[] Wrong, Roy. Try reading the thread again. I take no position on the validity of the complaint – how can I, when I’ve not seen it? That’s the point. It’s a matter of considerable public and legal interest, and therefore I’m astonished that it’s not been published [] “Compare and contrast: the grounds for the “Miller” Article 50 case were online and available for scrutiny by the public, as they should have been – and even if they hadn’t have been published, members of the UK public can easily obtain court documents [] Whereas in Germany, an allegation of a *breach of the German constitution* is kept private despite the clearly fundamental significance [] This seems odd, to put it mildly. As I noted previously, it’s also rather ironic that Mr Stjerna has (in my opinion, correctly) criticised lawmakers for a lack of transparency in the proceedings leading up to the UPC legislation… [] …and yet he has refused to publicly confirm that he is the author of the complaint and apparently he’s upset that outline details of it have been made available.”

“Maybe they anticipate that the response will be UPC tribalism,” I told him. He responded: “If by “UPC tribalism” you mean “reporting on facts in plain view”… as I say, I take no position on the complaint, but it is surely in the public interest for it to be made available for analysis both by supporters *and* by critics.”

“Having seen the antics of Team UPC for nearly a decade,” I told him, “I can relate to the low-profile complaint…”

“It should be noted that many members of Team UPC now post anonymous blog posts (we are guessing, based on numerous things in their text, that those are Bristows staff).”He just laughed it off: “LOL. “Low profile”? He has literally appealed to the highest constitutional authority in the country. If that’s low-profile, I’m a banana. [] Transparency cuts both ways. I know you’re a vocal critic of the secrecy of EPO and UPC discussions – and I’m all for transparency too. Do you only dislike secrecy when it suits your ends to do so?”

So what they basically wanted is the ability to scrutinise the complaint and person (complainant). Because they operate very much like some sects or cults. “I wouldn’t have done this like that,” I told him (keeping the complaint sealed), “but I can understand why he did.”

It should be noted that many members of Team UPC now post anonymous blog posts (we are guessing, based on numerous things in their text, that those are Bristows staff). So they want to push the UPC agenda with the mask of anonymity. Hypocrisy knows no bounds. For the record, I always posted under my name (my real name) and letters that I sent I always made publicly accessible. In contrast to the UPC gravy train…

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. Can Alice/35 U.S.C. § 101 Stop Microsoft-Connected Patent Trolls in the US?

    The latest lawsuits and inter partes reviews (IPRs) which deal with Microsoft-connected trolls and other potentially-suspicious activities



  2. TC Heartland is Still Deterring and Suppressing Patent Trolls in the United States

    Eastern Texas is being 'evacuated' in the wake of TC Heartland, which continues to be brought up by legal defense teams



  3. The ILO Tribunal: Is It Still Worthy of Our Trust?

    Trusting ILO-AT has become a lot harder in light of its handling of EPO scandals



  4. The Dangerous Adoption of Patents on Life and Nature

    In the face of pressure from patent maximalists, as well as an appointment of a patent maximalist to the top of the US patent office, lawyers/law firms which strive to extend patent scope to life itself (or nature) seem to be getting their way



  5. Stronger Patents or None at All: How the Greed of Patent Law Firms and the Patent Office Contributes to Bogus Software Patents Being Amassed

    Alice Corp. v CLS Bank continues to be the sole recent reference for handling of software patents; that being the case, it's rather disturbing that patent law firms continue to recommend patenting of software and offer lousy excuses for that (mainly because they profit at the expense of those foolish enough to believe them)



  6. Patent Strengthening Would Necessarily Mean Lowering the Number of Patents Granted After Alice/35 U.S.C. § 101

    The concept of patent strength is being distorted in all sorts of ways and acronyms like IPR still being used not to describe the process by which bad patents get eliminated but to spread propaganda like 'intellectual' 'property' 'rights'



  7. Watchtroll's Reaffirmed Hatred Towards Science and Technology, Shattering the Myth About Patent Law Firms Trying to 'Help' Innovation

    The anti-technology rhetoric (what they call derogatorily "Big Tech") of patent maximalists is ruining their old narrative which goes something along the lines of helping inventors



  8. Nearly Half of Patent Applications at the EPO Are (at Least Partly) Software Patents, According to the EPO, and Not Many Patents Are European (Foreign, Not Domestic)

    With lack of care for examiners, for European businesses and for science in general the EPO carries on unabated; its agenda seems to be steered by Team UPC, which is looking to profit from lots of foreign lawsuits across Europe (relying on low-quality patents that wouldn't pass muster in national courts)



  9. Patent Factory Europe (PFE) is a Patent Troll's Publicity Stunt, Attempting to Frame a Predator as the Small Businesses' Friend and Ally

    Patent troll "France Brevets" with its tarnished name (it's the shame of France, a major source of shame other than Battistelli) has decided to do a charm offensive which characterises it as a friend of small firms (SMEs)



  10. Alice, Which Turns Four, Has Saved Billions of Dollars Previously Wasted on 'Protection' Money (Notably Patent Trolls)

    Alice has turned 4 (just five days ago) and software patents have never looked weaker (close to impossible to enforce in high courts in the United States), lowering the incentive to pursue such patents in the first place



  11. Links 23/6/2018: Kodi 18 Alpha 2, Peppermint 9, Wine 3.11

    Links for the day



  12. Somewhat Underwhelming Reception for US Patent Number 10,000,000 (Which Actually Isn't)

    While US patent number 10,000,000 did, in fact, get issued (several days ago) there are un-ignorable reminders that a lot more patents exist and the high number says more about neglected quality than actual, objective success



  13. The United States' Supreme Court Takes the Side of Patent Maximalists, for a Change

    WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. reaches its conclusion; while it has zero effect on patent scope, it does serve to show that the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) isn’t inherently biased against patents in general



  14. Mainstream Media in Germany Covers Battistelli's Corruption at the EPO Just as He Leaves

    Mainstream German media writes about Battistelli's scandals that nobody seems eager or wishes to discuss, let alone bring up; law-centric German media covers the now-famous open letter from German law firms (Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald, and Vossius & Partner)



  15. Links 22/6/2018: PulseAudio 12.0, Krita 4.1 Beta, LabPlot 2.5, Git 2.18.0

    Links for the day



  16. “Dr Ernst Should be Forced by National Politicians to Step Down With Immediate Effect” After Battistelli's Latest EPO Scandals

    Further discussions about the horrible legacy of Battistelli and his protectors, who seem to be interested in a patent trolls-friendly patent system which devalues workers and consciously lowers the patent bar (at all costs, even violation of laws and constitutions)



  17. Links 21/6/2018: Microsoft's 'Damage Control' Amid Role in ICE Scandals, 11-Hour Azure Downtime (Again), GNOME 3.29.3, and More GNU/Linux Wins

    Links for the day



  18. Battistelli and Topić Lose Their Bogus 'Case' Against Judge Corcoran After They Defamed Him and Ruined His Career/Life

    The SLAPP action against Judge Patrick Corcoran, who has so far won all cases involving the EPO, is finally dismissed in Germany; what remains is an ugly legacy at the EPO, wherein everyone bold enough to say something about corruption at the top is having his or her life — not just career — destroyed



  19. Even Media of the Patent Microcosm Mentions the Decline in Quality of Patents at the EPO, Based on Its Very Own Stakeholders, While IAM Ignores the News

    The whole world basically accepts, based on patent examiners as well as those whom they interact with (patent agents), that patent quality at the EPO has sunk; but the EPO and IAM continue to vigorously deny that as it threatens some people's nefarious agenda



  20. Links 20/6/2018: Qt 5.11.1, Oracle Solaris 11.3 SRU 33, HHVM 3.27.0, Microsoft Helping ICE

    Links for the day



  21. Patent Extremists Are Unable to Find Federal Circuit Cases That Help Them Mislead on Alice

    Patent extremists prefer talking about Mayo but not Alice when it comes to 35 U.S.C. § 101; Broadcom is meanwhile going on a 'fishing expedition', looking to profit from patents by calling for embargo through the ITC



  22. What Use Are 10 Million Patents That Are of Low Quality in a Patent Office Controlled by the Patent 'Industry'?

    The patent maximalists are celebrating overgranting; the USPTO, failing to heed the warning from patent courts, continues issuing far too many patents and a new paper from Mark Lemley and Robin Feldman offers a dose of sobering reality



  23. The Eastern District of Texas is Where Asian Companies/Patents/Trolls Still Go After TC Heartland

    Proxies of Longhorn IP and KAIST (Katana Silicon Technologies LLC and KAIST IP US LLC, respectively) roam Texas in pursuit of money of out nothing but patents and aggressive litigation; there's also a Microsoft connection



  24. EPO Insiders Correct the Record of Benoît Battistelli’s Tyranny and Abuse of Law: “Legal Harassment and Retaliation”

    Battistelli’s record, as per EPO-FLIER 37, is a lot worse than the Office cares to tell stakeholders, who are already complaining about decline in patent quality



  25. Articles About a Unitary Patent System Are Lies and Marketing From Law Firms With 'Lawsuits Lust'

    Team UPC has grown louder with its lobbying efforts this past week; the same lies are being repeated without much of a challenge and press ownership plays a role in that



  26. The Decline in Patent Quality at the EPO Causes Frivolous Lawsuits That Only Lawyers Profit From

    The European Patent Office (EPO) will continue granting low-quality European Patents under the leadership of the Battistelli-'nominated' Frenchman, António Campinos; this is bad news for science and technology as that quite likely means a lot more lawsuits without merit (which only lawyers profit from)



  27. What Battistelli's Workers Think of His Latest EPO Propaganda

    "Modernising the EPO" is what Battistelli calls a plethora of human rights abuses and corruption



  28. Links 19/6/2018: Total War: WARHAMMER II Confirmed for GNU/Linux, DragonFlyBSD 5.2.2 Released

    Links for the day



  29. More Media Reports About Decline in Quality of European Patents (Granted by the EPO)

    What the media is saying about the letter from Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner whilst EPO communications shift attention to shallow puff pieces about how wonderful Benoît Battistelli is



  30. Beware Team UPC's Biggest Two Lies About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    Claims that a Unified Patent Court (UPC) will commence next year are nothing but a fantasy of the Liar in Chief, Benoît Battistelli, who keeps telling lies to French media (some of which he passes EPO money to, just like he passes EPO money to his other employer)


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