Everybody demoted and disempowered except Team Campinos (below)

Summary: As the EPO continues its bold journey towards dictatorship (where presidencies are passed between friends and 'circles' are former colleagues or close confidants) Techrights urges those who have power to speak out -- e.g. EPO judges and Directors -- to do something before it's too late

THE European Patent Office's (EPO) Presidency, Team Campinos/Battistelli (more or less the same people, same views, similar policies and identical nationality) is expanding with friends and family (some of the above are spouses and grossly under-qualified). Meanwhile, as a direct result of this institutional corruption, everybody else suffers.

A decade and a half ago I merely protested against software patents in Europe; I was a Computer Science graduate at the time and was working on software (computer vision) towards a doctorate degree. Even back then I argued with some professors about software patents, which they insisted were possible to obtain in the UK (contrary to the EPC). The EPO no longer cares what the EPC says; it grants patents on algorithms based on semantic nonsense like "technical effect" and buzzwords like "AI" (hey hi). It's also granting patents on life/nature in defiance of Parliament (as if the EPO is positioned above the EU itself and decides European policies behind closed doors, based on autocrats and their friends, recruited based on connections/nepotism). This utterly sick situation severely harms Europe's competitiveness. Even the US is already leaving software patents behind (USPTO grapples with 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101).

As recently as yesterday Kluwer Patent Blog, a major patent maximalist, published yet another article about European Patents that perish. Litigation by American giants, using European Patents, turns out to be abusive, thuggish, frivolous. What do their lawsuits target? Generics, i.e. life savers. And "the District Court decided there was no infringement, not even by equivalence." Here's more:

Pemetrexed, yet again: last Wednesday the District Court of The Hague decided on Eli Lilly’s claim that Fresenius infringed its ‘pemetrexed disodium’ patent with a generic product that does not contain pemetrexed disodium. Going against the current, and after a deep diver in the prosecution file, the District Court decided there was no infringement, not even by equivalence.

The basic facts of the widespread Pemetrexed litigation will be well-known to most readers by now. Eli Lilly’s patent (EP 1 313 508) has a Swiss form claim relating to the “use of pemetrexed disodium” in combination with vitamin B12 for inhibiting tumor growth. Different generic companies do not use pemetrexed disodium in their product, but another form of pemetrexed (e.g. pemetrexed diacid, as in Fresenius’ product). Do these generic products fall within the scope of Lilly’s ‘pemetrexed disodium’ claim?

That question was put before numerous European patent judges over the past years.

This attack on a generic product is one of many; the UPC would only exacerbate things (if anything like it ever became a reality, which we doubt). There are lives at stake here. Yes, people would die if these generics were removed from the market and producers of such generic medicine already lose a lot of money in these failed court battles; intimidating and weakening them with weak 'cases' is perhaps the goal as Eli Lilly has very deep pockets, unlike theirs. This isn't about justice; it's bullying.

EPO managers with consciousness ought to do something about it. Attending protests, which will probably come soon, is one option. Leaking material to us is another. Following our latest EPO leak one reader noted, "what a coincidence BIT also means Bureau International du Travail, in other words ILO. You may want to see the scrubbed names [and] therefore here [is] a complete version..."

ILO might receive some appeals from them one day (e.g. if they get laid off^* without actually committing any offense).

"I need to carefully think if (or when) these names become relevant," I responded to this reader. "Their subordinates might not like them, but they can form an alliance of convenience against the bad direction the Office has taken. Many would be former examiners."

I've compared the names listed at the top (Team Campinos) to the ones below; spectacularly there's no overlap, so in other words the people who are in effect being cautioned (or pushed one foot out the door) are those not in the 'circle' of Campinos. Coincidence? It's hard not to compare this to Donald Trump's self-assimilation tactics in the White House. Here's the full letter:

New BIT organisation and staff changes

02.05.2019

Implementation of new BIT organisation - several changes of PDs and Directors

Dear colleagues,

The new Business IT organisation came into life on 1 May 2019. BIT comes with a very different structure, a new leadership team and a very ambitious plan, as reflected in the draft SP2023 that you may have had the opportunity to browse. A leadership team, however, is only the tip of the iceberg: a fully functional BIT requires everyone's contribution and engagement. As we said at the beginning of the year, we will leave nobody behind on this journey.

With the implementation of the new BIT organisation as of 1 May, we would like to inform you about the following staff changes:

Under the direct responsibility of PD 4.6 Diego Eguidazu Alonso (CIO):

Mr Alain Lambert as Principal Advisor; Mr John Selkirk as Director IT Operations; Ms Catherine Eder as Director ad personam in charge of Change Management.

Under the direct responsibility of PD 4.5 Angel Aledo Lopez (CTO):

Mr John Bambridge as Principal Advisor; Mr Jean-Marc Janyszek as Director IT Architecture; Mr Yvan de la Fuente as Director IT Patent Granting Process; Mr Domenico Golzio as Director ad personam.

In the Directorate IT Operations (D 4.6.3):

Mr Michel Fombellida Lopez as Director ad personam in the Dept End User Computing (Dept 4.6.3.4); Mr Ian Wood as Director ad personam in the Dept Change and Release Management (Dept 4.6.3.2).

In the Directorate IT Search and Patent Granting Process (D 4.5.3):

Mr Miguel Albrecht as Director in charge of his current directorate (Dept 4.5.3.8); Mr Aloïse Fuchs as Director ad personam in the Dept Business Partners (Dept 4 .5.3.1); Mr Sytse De Jonge as Director ad personam in the Dept Business Partners; Mr Salvatore Chiarizia as Director ad personam in the Dept Business Partners; Mr Auke Hoekstra as Director ad personam in the Dept Patent Grant Products (Dept 4 .5.3.6); Mr Graham Day as Director ad personam in the Dept Patent Grant Products.

In the Directorate IT Architecture (D 4.5.1):

Mr Marc Guilleaume as Director ad personam in the Dept Business Analysis (Dept 4.5.1.1); Mr Giovanni Calamida as Director ad personam in the Dept Business Analysis.

In the Directorate IT Cooperation (D 4.5.2):

Mr Robert Gemmell as Director ad personam in the Dept National Patent Offices Business Partners (Dept 4.5.2.1); Mr Yves Grandjean as Director ad personam in the Dept National Patent Offices Business Partners; Mr Paul Schwander as Director ad personam in the Dept National Patent Offices Business Partners.

In the Directorate Corporate IT (D 4.6.1):

Mr Christian Baetzner as Director ad personam in the Dept Document and Content Management (Dept 4.6.1.3); Mr Giuseppe Falco as Director ad personam in the Dept SAP Centre of Excellence (Dept 4.6.1.1).

In the Directorate IT Planning (D 4.6.2):

Mr Lodewijk De Kock as Director ad personam in the Dept Risk Management (Dept 4.6.2.2); Mr Christophe Lintz as Director ad personam in the Dept IT Budgeting and Controlling (Dept 4.6.2.5).

The ad interim for the Director IT Cooperation (D 4.5.2) will be covered by the Chief Technology Officer until further notice.

The Chief Information Officer will ensure the ad interim function for the Director IT Planning (D 4.6.2) and the Director Corporate IT (D 4.6.1) until further notice.

We would like to thank all of our colleagues mentioned above for having accepted these new challenges and wish them all the best in their new functions.

Nellie Simon Vice-President DG 4

Steve Rowan Vice-President DG 1

Back

02.05.19 | Author: Nellie Simon - Vice-President DG 4, Steve Rowan - Vice-President DG 1

The above people are in effect being demoted; in Zagreb we saw Battistelli's 'bulldog' using similar tactics. He had assigned/relocated people whom he did not like to imaginary/temporary/volatile positions with questionable job titles before rendering them obsolete (making the redundancy seem impersonal). Battistelli later used the same tactics to drive out people inside the EPO (people who opposed him). Recall Lionel Baranes and others. Remember how Battistelli rigged the presidency's succession process against Cuno Tarfusser. The EPO of the past decade or so makes Europe look just about as corrupt as China or Russia (which are notorious for similar things). ⬆ ____ ^* The "hoax" financial study (the CSC called it that) suggests they plan major cuts -- and ones that aren't needed. They even hire lawyers in preparation for something to that effect. It certainly looks like the EPO is nowadays preparing to lay off staff, maybe even sympathetic (to examiners' gripes) Directors.