02.25.18
Changes Introduced by the EPO’s Administrative Council Made It Abundantly Clear That Separation of Powers Does Not Exist for Independence of Judges
Also: IP Kat seems to have become a ‘pet’ blog of Bristows, CIPA and other elements of Team UPC
‘IP Kat‘ and Battistelli last month
Summary: IP Kat (i.e. Bristows in this case) wants us to think that the EPO keeps the Boards of Appeal alive and healthy, but in reality that’s just an illusion which Team UPC is attempting to prop up, knowing that Battistelli's attack on the Boards of Appeal dooms the UPC
YESTERDAY we wrote about Bristows using IP Kat to post ads for the EPO‘s management, possibly to help bolster the false perception they need in order to weaken the constitutional complaint and then ratify the UPC. “Have they mentioned,” one person asked, that EPO/BoA judges “can be suspended on half-salary for a minimum of two years (extension optional) at the whim of the appointing authority?” (against the EPC, i.e. core rules)
The cited document (warning: epo.org link) is worth reposting below in case the EPO removes it in the future (or makes it a lot harder to locate).
CA/D 18/15
DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL
of 17 December 2015
amending Articles 2 and 95 of the Service
Regulations for permanent employees of the
European Patent OfficeTHE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT ORGANISATION,
Having regard to the European Patent Convention, and in particular Articles 10(2)(c), 11 and 33(2)(b) thereof,
Having regard to the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European Patent Office (hereinafter referred to as “the Service Regulations”), and in particular Articles 2 and 95 thereof,
On a proposal from the President of the European Patent Office, submitted after consulting the General Consultative Committee,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
Article 2(6) of the Service Regulations shall read as follows:
“The President may extend the terms of office of all members of the bodies under paragraph 1(b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) beyond the duration defined in the applicable provisions of these Service Regulations, within the limits of the terms of office of the Staff Committee members.”
Article 2
Article 95 of the Service Regulations shall read as follows:
“Article 95
Suspension
(1) (unchanged)
(2) (unchanged)
(3) A final decision in the proceedings shall be given within the following period, as from the date of the decision to withhold remuneration:
(a) 4 months for those employees whose appointing authority is the President;
(b) 24 months for those employees whose appointing authority is the Administrative Council. This period may be extended in exceptional cases by decision of the Administrative Council.
If no decision has been given by the end of the period specified under (a) or (b), the employee shall again receive his full remuneration.
(4) (unchanged)
(5) (unchanged)”
Article 3
This decision shall enter into force on 17 December 2015. It shall have immediate effect. This immediate effect shall include suspensions decided under Article 95 of the Service Regulations and which are ongoing on the date of entry into force.
Done at Munich, 17 December 2015
For the Administrative Council
The ChairmanJesper KONGSTAD
The above is important because it shows that Battistelli was given enormous leverage over judges with help from the Administrative Council led by Kongstad, whom he viewed as a partner rather than supervisor (a gross distortion of the envisioned hierarchy of the Organisation).
IP Kat has meanwhile moved on to speaking about the German patent case about “Trommeleinheit” [Drum Unit], which we mentioned the other day. It’s at the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ)
Has anyone noticed how rarely IP Kat mentions anything about EPO scandals? Why did it not report on the failure of UPC in the UK earlier this month? Or the successful admission of the constitutional complaint last week? So much for objective reporting on European patent matters… they only say what suits them (their employers). They also badmouth those who warn about patent trolls in Europe. The comments are a lot better than the posts and the appeal boards were alluded to in this comment from yesterday (T 1045/13):
Whilst generally supporting Pfizer’s case, I must say they appear to be misrepresenting the EPO’s position on the need for providing supporting data in the application. A very recent decision of the EPO supports the contrary view: T 1045/13.
We unfortunately suffer from poor decisions due to the inability of the parties to do their jobs sufficiently and provide both sides of the argument. By ‘sufficiently’, i do not mean stand up and present any case. The presented case must be plausible across the scope of the issues at stake.
As things stand at the moment, decisions of the EPO are also of dubious quality due to work pressure and brain drain. This is something we’re constantly being reminded of. But anyway, such a subject would no longer be entertained by IP Kat. It’s run by very different people now… █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA