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

02.16.19

EPO Grants Fake European Patents — Including Software Patents — and European Courts Keep Rejecting These

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Everything under the sun becomes a European Patent

Snow under the sun

Summary: The demise of the legitimacy or perceived validity of European Patents is measurable and the system isn’t the same anymore; the EPO makes no effort to change this for the better, either

THE New® and Improved™ President of the European Patent Office (EPO), António Campinos, has done absolutely nothing to curtail patent trolls and improve patent quality. Nothing whatsoever. He arguably made things even worse, exacerbating quality as brain drain persisted and quotas were raised.

“…the EPO is disguising software patents as “medical”, knowing these are not patent-eligible but looking for excuses to grant such fake patents (as if they’re “life-saving”).”Another day passes and we have yet another example of EPO management promoting software patents in defiance of its governing principles/document. As we noted last week (and yes, it’s happening again), the EPO is disguising software patents as “medical”, knowing these are not patent-eligible but looking for excuses to grant such fake patents (as if they’re “life-saving”).

The latest tweet about it isn’t as vague as the previous one because they’ve just added “CII” when they wrote: “We will be looking at computer-implemented inventions in #MedTech and discussing the value of patents for SMEs at this event in Sweden…”

They still use “SMEs” to pretend it’s all about the “small guy”, not just “health”.

“We have discussed the challenges of drafting and prosecuting patent applications for AI inventions,” the EPO then wrote, in effect propping up software patents in Europe (see our older writings about this ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) hype).

This is the typical 2-3 EPO tweets per day that directly or indirectly promote software patents. It’s even worse now than it was under Battistelli.

“This is the typical 2-3 EPO tweets per day that directly or indirectly promote software patents. It’s even worse now than it was under Battistelli.”D Young & Co LLP’s Anton Baker now celebrates the granting of bogus European software patents under the guise of “AI”; this deviation from the law is rebranded “certainty” (“Patenting AI: certainty at last from the EPO?”); that’s is quite a joke! There’s no certainty in actual courts; rather the opposite. Lexology’s paywall obscures most of this nonsense, but it starts as follows: “In recent years the importance of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has grown relentlessly as its application has spread…”

No, a lot of things that used these techniques for a number of decades just rebranded accordingly, mostly for marketing gain and patenting loopholes. This article is from a firm which describes itself as “European intellectual property firm, dedicated to protecting and enforcing our clients’ IP rights.” That’s just Team UPC’s mentality. It’s that familiar mindset of patent maximalism with increasing litigation in mind.

“A lot of these patents would be rendered invalid by courts (if challenged there).”We said we would no longer cover US affairs unless software patents make a comeback. Thankfully, that’s not happening. Bogus software patents continue to perish in the US and Charles Bieneman has several new examples of US courts rejecting software patents [1, 2]. We’ve come across several more.

A lot of these patents would be rendered invalid by courts (if challenged there). Joost Duijm has in fact just written this article about a European Patent that’s on shaky ground in the domain of medicine; A German court rejected this European Patent, whereas a Dutch court reaches another decision. Only lawyers benefit from this questionable presumption of validity and return to court. To quote:

On 16 January 2019, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the Dutch part of Eli Lilly and Company’s patent EP 1 313 508 is valid. The judgment was handed down in an invalidation action brought by Sandoz International GmbH.

[...]

At the end of the decision, the Dutch Court explicitly refers to the German decision by the Bundespatentgericht (BPG). The Dutch Court says that it is aware of the fact that it comes to a different outcome than the BPG. The Dutch Court suggests that this might be because the Bundespatentgericht based its decision on (partly) different (combined) prior art than the art in the Dutch proceedings, and because the debate at the BPG also seems to have been different on other points.

What will happen to all those software patents if or when they land in court? Florian Müller recently wrote about Blackberry‘s exploitation of highly dubious European Patents on software. Yesterday he carried on by writing: “Today the Seventh Civil Chamber (Presiding Judge: Dr. Matthias Zigann) held a first hearing in a BlackBerry v. WhatsApp & Facebook case that is part of a set of eight Munich patent infringement actions–over five different patents–against Facebook and its WhatsApp and Instagram subsidaries. The patent-in-suit discussed today: EP1746790 on a “method of sharing an Instant Messaging history.” It’s undoubtedly a pure software patent, and Judge Dr. Zigann noted, diplomatically, that such patents are “at the margins of the scope of patent-eligible subject matter.” However, the focus of first hearings in Munich is on claim construction and infringement analysis (so the parties can prepare accordingly for the second hearing, which is normally a decisive trial), not on validity.”

“So the EPO has an extensive art collection, yet it can’t be bothered with prior art or with the EPC before granting outrageous patents that cause a lot of damage.”BlackBerry, probably inspired by the likes of Qualcomm, wants a German injunction; so software parent grants are now causing ridiculous embargoes (or attempts at embargoes) over rather basic implementations that are neither novel nor original. Blackberry lacks a real business strategy; as Benjamin Henrion has just put it: “Blackberry vs NTP was the lawsuit that created the “patent troll” term back in 2006, now failed Blackberry is turning into a troll, what a surprise.”

He then mentions Nokia, which Microsoft turned into a troll.

Müller has complained to me that corporate media isn’t covering the case. The EPO certainly wouldn’t want this noticed; watch what it published late on Friday as its weekly “highlight”: it’s this ridiculous fluff: (warning: epo.org link)

The EPO’s art collection comprises some 800 works. Founded in 1980 and dedicated to emerging art, the collection aims to provide a link to society and, at the same time, to enhance the workplace for EPO staff and reflect its multicultural nature.

So the EPO has an extensive art collection, yet it can’t be bothered with prior art or with the EPC before granting outrageous patents that cause a lot of damage.

Nobody But Patent Trolls and Litigators Will Benefit From the Corruption of the European Patent Office

Posted in EFF, Europe, Patents at 11:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

They profit from the chaos they are creating, abusing the authority given to them

EPO on a plane

Summary: IAM, EPO leadership, Iancu and the rest of these raiders are enabling corruption and facilitating or supporting a racket; that money they collect comes at the expense of future victims of their “clients” or “customers” (that’s what they call applicants, to whom they grant dubious monopolies as a matter of urgency)

THE DIRECTION the European Patent Office (EPO) has taken since António Campinos inherited Office is no different from Battistelli’s. One Frenchman just inherited another’s task. He inherited a policy that he has no problems with; he has also inherited all the worst elements of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), notably software patents which we will deal with separately in our next post.

“The EFF, as it turns out, belatedly realises Iancu was all along trouble.”About a week ago the management of the EPO made it obvious that it works for overseas patent trolls; European businesses aren’t a priority. As patent maximalists have just put it : “The EPO and the Licensing Executives Society International have signed a memorandum of understanding with the intention of enabling innovators to make better use of the EPO system [...] The president of the EPO, António Campinos, and the president of the Licensing Executives Society International (LESI), François Painchaud, have signed a memorandum of understanding on bilateral cooperation at LESI’s Winter Planning Meeting in Miami.”

“Licensing” just means taxing and those who are doing this represent patent mills rather than innovators. On that same trip there were other revealing activities attributed to Campinos; he also met Andrei Iancu on that visit. Aseet Patel wrote in Watchtroll 2 days ago that “Andrei Iancu has led the charge to improve predictability of patent-eligible subject matter.” Rather the opposite; he promotes granting fake patents that are predictably bunk, reducing the legal certainty associated with US patents.

Over the weekend we’ve surveyed some of the latest software patents to be thrown out by US courts or get wrongly granted by the Office. This gross disparity shows that the USPTO departed from the rule of law (like EPO under Battistelli). The EFF, as it turns out, belatedly realises Iancu was all along trouble.

“The patent trolls’ lobby (IAM) responded to the EFF by speaking for trolls, heckling trolls’ exposers, and generally being strident as usual.”Authored by Joe Mullin under “Patent Trolls” (after had spent nearly a decade covering the subject) was this article (“Entrepreneurs Tell USPTO Director Iancu: Patent Trolls Aren’t Just ‘Monster Stories’”) on which he later expanded: “For 10 years as a journalist, I listened to entrepreneurs, big & small, complain of patent troll extortion. @uspto director Iancu is wrong to deny the harms that PAEs (trolls) cause. Proud to publish this letter from 24 biz owners who wouldn’t stay quiet…”

The EFF said: “The director of the @uspto has said patent trolls are nothing more than “monster stories.” Today, we’re publishing a letter signed by 24 small businesses that makes clear patent trolls are all too real.”

From the corresponding post:

Patent trolls aren’t a myth. They aren’t a bedtime story. Ask a software developer—they’re likely to know someone who has been sued or otherwise threatened by one, if they haven’t been themselves.

Unfortunately, the new director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is in a serious state of denial about patent trolls and the hurt they cause to technologists everywhere. Today a number of small business owners and start-up founders have submitted a letter [PDF] to USPTO Director Andre Iancu telling him that patent trolls remain a real threat to U.S. businesses. Signatories range from mid-sized companies like Foursquare and Life360 to one-person software enterprises like Ken Cooper’s. The letter explains the harm, cost, and stress that patent trolls cause businesses.

Patent trolls aren’t a thing that happens once in a while or an exception to the rule. Over the past two decades, troll litigation has become the rule. There are different ways to measure exactly what a “troll” is, but by one recent measurement, a staggering 85 percent of recently filed patent lawsuits in the tech sector were filed by trolls.

That’s almost 9 out of 10 lawsuits being filed by an entity with no real product or service. Because the Patent Office issues so many low-quality software patents, the vast majority of these suits are brought by entities that played no role in the development of the real-world technology they attack. Instead, trolls use vague and overbroad patents to sue the innovators who create products and services. This is how we end up with patent trolls suing people for running an online contest or making a podcast.

This is unfortunately what also happened at the EPO.

The patent trolls lobby (IAM) responded to the EFF by speaking for trolls, heckling trolls’ exposers, and generally being strident as usual. It wrote a bunch of tweets like this: “The @unifiedpatents report the EFF links to states that 60% of high-tech litigation was instituted by PAEs last year. The EFF chooses to claim that 85% was instituted by Trolls, which is actually the percentage Unified allocated to all NPEs. Maybe @joemullin could explain why.”

IAM is literally funded by patent trolls and also by the EPO’s PR firm. IAM is almost literally an extension of the EPO’s PR department and it’s also lobbying Iancu, who spoke alongside Battistelli at IAM events.

“The EPO’s President and Iancu really don’t seem to get it. They’re consciously aiding trolls.”Josh from CCIA ended up feeding the troll (or the patent trolls’ lobby) [1, 2, 3] by stating: “But a number of individual inventors operate as trolls. (Eg, Landmark Technology, which Unified classes as an NPE – individual inventors and which accounts for a significant chunk of that category all by itself.) [...] And the individual trolls tend to be far more prolific than actual individual inventors when it comes to lawsuits. So, while some portion of that 25% may be the kind of inventors you describe, the clear likelihood is that the majority are trolls. To me, Joe’s piece holds. [...] If an individual inventor doesn’t practice their patent and seeks to enforce it, aren’t they definitionally an NPE?” (they are, by definition)

The EPO’s President and Iancu really don’t seem to get it. They’re consciously aiding trolls. A day ago the EPO wrote (linking to its “SME” nonsense, pretending to exist in the name/interests of the “small guy”): Negotiation is the preferred way to solve potential infringement issues; litigation is regarded as a last resort.”

“Negotiation” is sometimes merely a euphemism for blackmail and extortion, I’ve told them — something that the EPO facilitates with low-quality and incorrect grants for patent trolls. These prey the most (or most effectively) on SMEs that aren’t able to afford a legal fight (day in court), so they end up settling over patents they know to be bogus.

There’s meanwhile this new article by Toby Hopkin and Mark Roberts (J A Kemp) in which they speak of PCT. They say that “granted EP patent may be used to streamline prosecution before other national patent offices of interest,” but what if this European Patent is a fake one? Only blackmailing patent trolls benefit. This goes back to Battistelli with his notorious “Early Certainty” (preliminary decisions before facts are even known). To quote:

In 2014, the EPO launched the Early Certainty initiative to speed up the patent granting process. This initiative has resulted in speedier establishment of search reports and a shorter examination procedure. As can be seen from the chart, the result is that the number of EP patents granted since the launch of the initiative has increased far more quickly than the number of patent applications filed. This is confirmed by our experience, in which a quicker turnaround time has been noticeable, with an increasing number of applications proceeding to grant directly after a response to the search report is filed.

While options exist to slow down prosecution if desired, this increased prosecution speed opens up a new possibility for an international filing strategy. The strategy proposed below shows that a granted EP patent can be secured before the 30/31m deadline for further PCT national phasing, especially where a positive WO-ISA is issued by the EPO.

The granted EP patent may be used to streamline prosecution before other national patent offices of interest, especially if a national patent office is part of a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) agreement. For example, the IP5 PPH covers the five biggest patent offices, namely China, Japan, Korea, the United States and the EPO.

We’ve already written a great deal about the problems associated with “Early Certainty” and PPH. They’re basically rushed ‘judgments’ or leap towards conclusions before facts are even assessed. We’ve already seen how that’s misused for raids and embargoes, including at the EPO. Later it turns out that the underlying EPs are bogus.

02.14.19

Outline/Index of the Alexandre Benalla/Battistelli Scandal

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Alexandre Benallas selfie

Summary: Our writings about the scandals implicating Benalla and the European Patent Office (EPO)

“EPO Lawlessness Again”

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

According to Florian Müller, an activist against software patents in Europe and a famous software developer

Mark Kokes
This man is gone, but his toxic legacy lives on

Summary: Blackberry uses bogus European Patents (on software) for lawsuits; “all of them pure software patents. Patents on programs for computers as such,” as Müller puts it

THE European Patent Office (EPO) can never get itself to obey the law. In that regard it is at least consistent and António Campinos is no exception but perpetuation.

“This is the kind of scenario we’ve long warned about (since 2006). Europe is being infiltrated by armies of patent bullies, who nonchalantly leverage software patents.”Referring to software patents by another/any other name, yesterday the EPO wrote: “There has been a very steep rise in the number of European patent applications related to autonomous driving.”

The EPO then uttered or name-dropped 3 buzzwords/hype waves in one tweet; all mean software patents which the EPO’s granting authority is not allowed to grant (4IR, AI, blockchain). To quote: “How do you see the impact of the technologies of the fourth industrial revolution (e.g. #AI, #blockchain, etc.) on the functioning of the patent system?”

We got accustomed to such tweets. There are several likes these (software patents advocacy) every day.

It has meanwhile turned out, based on RPX, that Blackberry leverages ridiculous software patents, granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), against companies like Facebook (we covered this before) and now there’s this new find from Mr. Gross: “New owner of Blackberry patents sues Apple for infringement; USB charging features: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13230734 … Complaint identifies licensing deals with LG, Samsung and Huawei, only Apple is holdout!”

Florian Müller has meanwhile just published this post about what BlackBerry does in Europe: “BlackBerry suing Facebook and its WhatsApp and Instagram subsidiaries over five European software patents in Munich”

As the former director of the European NoSoftwarePatents campaign I always find it shocking what kinds of patents the European Patent Office (EPO) grants despite the exclusion of “programs for computers as such” from the scope of patentable inventions according to Article 52 of the European Patent Convention (EPC).

Post-grant reviews often do away with those patents, but rarely ever on the basis of Art. 52 EPC per se. What typically happens is that the Federal Patent Court of Germany or other courts of competent jurisdiction categorize some claim limitations as “non-technical” and purposely ignore them in their novelty or inventiveness analysis. Whatever little remains then is often anticipated by, or at the very least obvious over, the prior art. But, unfortunately, efficiency gains (reduced data volumes, increased processing speeds, economic use of screen space etc.) often serve as an excuse for circumventing Art. 52 EPC.

Tomorrow the Munich I Regional Court will hold a first hearing in one of eight BlackBerry v. Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram cases over a total of five different patents–all of them pure software patents. Patents on “programs for computers as such.”

“EPO lawlessness again,” Müller dubbed it in a message to me. “This week I just became aware of a series of software patent lawsuits brought by BlackBerry against Facebook/WhatsApp in Munich (five software patents in total). Those patents are totally ridiculous. No “further technical effect” or anything like that. It’s unbelievable what kind of crap the EPO granted. Interestingly, the patent-in-suit that will be discussed tomorrow was filed in 2005, the year that the EU Parliament rejected the proposed software patents directive… I’ll blog about it because I haven’t been able to find ANY report on those Munich cases (just on the U.S. litigation between BlackBerry and Facebook) on the Internet. Mainstream media…”

This is the kind of scenario we’ve long warned about (since 2006). Europe is being infiltrated by armies of patent bullies, who nonchalantly leverage software patents. IBM even lobbies for these Europe, contrary to Red Hat which opposed such patents and is being bought by IBM.

Unitary Patent (UPC) is All About Imposing Patent Maximalists’ Ideology of Greed and Self Interest on Courts in the Name of ‘Unification’ or ‘Consistency’ or ‘Community’

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Recent: Concerns About Stephan Harbarth’s Unitary Patent (UPC) Vested Interests and His Entrance Into the Constitutional Court That Decides on UPC

The three Frenchmen
Michel Barnier and another couple of pro-UPC Frenchmen

Summary: Pushers of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) are upset that they don’t always get their way when independent judges get to decide; as it turns out, many European Patents are just fake patents, more so under António Campinos (shown above with other prominent UPC boosters)

YESTERDAY at Kluwer Patent Blog, a longtime booster of the UPC (because of this site’s ownership), John Collins and Sumer Dayal published this long post that said “[t]he “plausibility” requirement reflects UK case law’s harmonisation with the practice and decisions of European Patent Office (EPO). On the other hand, the Full Court clarified that “classical insufficiency” is the relevant test in Australia.”

These people just hope to override courts, as usual, or compel them to act as one, across nations and continents, based on criteria set by lobbyists of the litigation ‘industry’. Here’s more:

The “plausibility” requirement reflects UK case law’s harmonisation with the practice and decisions of European Patent Office (EPO). On the other hand, the Full Court clarified that “classical insufficiency” is the relevant test in Australia.

[...]

The UK Supreme Court noted that the UK would be the only EPC jurisdiction (up to that time) to find the relevant claims to be insufficient. Lord Sumption considered that it would be “unfortunate” if courts in other EPC jurisdictions came to different conclusions, but noted that much depended on “how far the factual and technical evidence before the foreign court was the same“.

The harmonisation of sufficiency law would certainly be of assistance to the commercial interests lying behind second medical use patents. However, the approach of the UK Courts, as evidenced by the decision of the UK Supreme Court, continues to be skewed towards finding reasons to invalidate patents, rather than to uphold them.

That term, “harmonisation” among others (harmony being the theme), has long been misused by Team UPC, predating the time it was even known as “UPC”. They called it “Community”, too, exploiting the goodwill or feel-good buzz.

“…these people will never rest until patent maximalism reigns supreme at all levels, including the Supreme Court.”ResearchAndMarkets also promoted a lawyers’ event “for the Pharmaceutical Industry” on Tuesday, with the UPC mentioned in it too [1, 2]. These are paid press releases. We saw similar press releases from ResearchAndMarkets in the recent past and these too mentioned the UPC.

“Corruption seems to be everywhere patent maximalism is to be found.”Isobel Finnie (Haseltine Lake LLP) then used the buzzwords “Biotech Innovators” to promote an “UK IPO – EPO Operation” for patent maximalists when she wrote (trying to needlessly rush examination like the European Patent Office (EPO) does):

Unfortunately, due to backlogs at the UK IPO, applicants in the field of biotechnology have had to wait longer than 6 months to receive the UK IPO’s search results. To tackle this backlog and to ensure that the UK IPO can continue to issue search reports quickly, the UK IPO announced on 1 February 2019 that they have signed a co operative searching agreement with the European Patent Office (EPO). Under this agreement, the EPO will perform 200-300 searches per year for UK applications relating to biotech inventions. The agreement will last for at least two years and is based on similar co-operation agreements which already exist between the EPO and other EPC contracting states including Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco and San Marino.

This is positive news for biotech innovators because all applicants using the UK IPO can expect to receive the valuable information they are seeking in a useful time frame.

Although UK applicants cannot chose whether their UK application is searched by the EPO, the search report will indicate which authority has performed the search and applicants whose searches are performed by the EPO may be entitled to the following additional benefits.

Firstly, where the EPO has completed the search for a UK application, a later filed European application claiming priority from the UK application could be eligible for a refund of up to 100% of the European search fee. Similarly, a later filed PCT application claiming priority from the UK application could be eligible for a refund of up to 84% of the international search fee where the EPO is the International Search Authoring (ISA). In view of the fact that the search fee for a UK application is currently only £150 – compared to €1,300 for a European application and €1,775 for an international search by the EPO – this could result in significant cost savings for applicants.

We are watching these things closely; there’s an effort by law firms to destroy the courts' independence; these people will never rest until patent maximalism reigns supreme at all levels, including the Supreme Court. We see the same thing in the US, where 35 U.S.C. § 101 (US Supreme Court/Alice) is now under attack by the new Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), appointed by Trump after he had worked with his firm. Corruption seems to be everywhere patent maximalism is to be found.

Battistelli’s Bodyguard, Part V: Mediapart Explains the ‘Raid’ Attempt, Reporters Without Borders Involved

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The EPO too has a culture of silencing/intimidating critics

Summary: Mediapart, an investigative site that unearths a lot of incriminating things about Battistelli’s former bodyguard Alexandre Benalla, was the target of a raid attempt some weeks ago

THIS is the last part of a series of 5 English translations of French publications regarding the Benalla affair. Benalla had worked clandestinely at the European Patent Office (EPO) before the so-called ‘Benallagate’ broke out.

The above video accompanies this publication, for which we have the following English translation.

After the attempted search, our live press conference from Mediapart

Find the video of our press conference held live from Mediapart on Monday afternoon, following the attempted search this Monday morning, as part of an investigation opened by the prosecutor’s office into, among other things, the invasion of Alexandre Benalla’s privacy.

This Monday morning, at 11:10 am, two prosecutors accompanied by three police officers wanted to search Mediapart’s premises as part of an investigation opened by the prosecutor’s office for (among other things) violating Alexandre Benalla’s privacy, following our revelations last Thursday.

This investigation, which concerns the recordings revealed by Mediapart, is likely to compromise the confidentiality of the sources of our newspaper. That is why we refused this search, an unprecedented – and particularly serious – act in Mediapart’s history (see our article here).

Watch a video of our press conference with Edwy Plenel, our lawyer Emmanuel Tordjman and our journalists working on the Benalla, Marine Turchi, Antton Rouget and Fabrice Arfi case (as well as Christophe Deloire of Reporters Without Borders -RSF-), which took place at 4pm at our offices.

Previously in the Benalla affair in relation to the EPO:

  1. Alexandre Benalla, Macron’s Violent Bodyguard, Was Also Battistelli’s Bodyguard
  2. It Wasn’t Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)
  3. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO
  4. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli’s Epic Abuses)
  5. The Man Whose Actions Could Potentially Land Team Battistelli in Jail
  6. French Media Confirms Alexandre Benalla Just One of Six Battistelli Bodyguards, Employed at the Cost of €8,000-€10,000 Per Month (for Benalla Alone!)
  7. Corrupt Battistelli Paid a Fortune (EPO Budget) for Outlaw/Rogue ‘Bodyguards’ From Firm Linked to Russian Oligarch Iskander Makhmudov

Something tells us this isn’t the end of it. Will media delve deeper into Benalla’s affairs at the EPO? Will somebody be held accountable for it? Will António Campinos ever mention it? Battistelli totally refuses to talk to the media about it.

02.13.19

Battistelli’s Bodyguard, Part IV: Suspected Offenses of Forgery and Possible Falsification

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Falsification scandals have been common at the European Patent Office as well

Mediapart selfie
Source: En pleine présidentielle, Benalla dégaine son arme pour un selfie

Summary: In a very underworld fashion, Benalla continues to break the law and create yet more scandals

THIS is the fourth part of a series of 5 English translations of French publications regarding the Benalla affair. Benalla had worked clandestinely at the European Patent Office (EPO) before the so-called ‘Benallagate’ broke out.

This article from 4 weeks ago deals with diplomatic passports granted to the armed-and-dangerous Benalla:

Alexandre Benalla in custody in the investigation of his diplomatic passports

The investigation was also extended to the offences of “forgery” and “use of forgery” after a report by the Presidency of the Republic.

Alexandre Benalla was taken into custody on the morning of Thursday 17 January in the investigation into the use of his diplomatic passports after his dismissal from the Elysée this summer, the Paris prosecutor’s office said, confirming information from the Le Parisien.

This investigation, opened on 29 December, in particular for “breach of trust”, “unauthorised use of a document proving professional status” and “carrying on an activity in conditions likely to create confusion in the mind of the public with the exercise of a public function”, was also extended on Wednesday 16 January to the offences of “forgery”, “use of forgery” and “improper obtaining of an administrative document” after a report from the Presidency of the Republic, the public prosecutor specified.

President Emmanuel Macron’s former collaborator has already been at the origin of a political storm last summer, after being identified on videos violently arresting demonstrators in Paris on May 1, 2018, while he was present alongside the police as an “observer”. For these facts, he has been charged twice.

Suspicions of falsification

The Benalla affair had bounced back in December, after the revelations of Mediapart and Le Monde that the former Elysée employee still had diplomatic passports despite his dismissal and that he was travelling on business with African leaders. This information led to the opening of a new preliminary investigation at the end of December, and the resumption of the work of the Senate committee investigating this case since July.

On Wednesday, before this committee, the director of the cabinet of President Patrick Strzoda said that after his dismissal from the Elysée, Mr Benalla had used diplomatic passports some 20 times between 1 August and 31 December 2018.

Mr. Strzoda also reported that Mr. Benalla had been in possession of two service passports, the first issued in 2016, “well before” his arrival at the Elysée, the second on 28 June 2018. Both were invalidated on 31 July 2018.

The Director of Mr. Macron’s Private Office added that the request for the second service passport had been made by Alexander Benalla to the Ministry of the Interior by a letter headed by the Chief of Staff of the Elysée, but “typed” and unsigned. In other words, “we suspect that Mr. Benalla made a forgery,” Mr. Strzoda said, before stating that the case had been brought to court.

These statements contradict the statement made by Alexandre Benalla at his own sworn hearing on 19 September that he had left the diplomatic passports in his Elysée office after his dismissal. The former head of mission is to be heard again by the Senate’s committee of inquiry on Monday 21 January.

Previously in the Benalla affair in relation to the EPO:

  1. Alexandre Benalla, Macron’s Violent Bodyguard, Was Also Battistelli’s Bodyguard
  2. It Wasn’t Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)
  3. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO
  4. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli’s Epic Abuses)
  5. The Man Whose Actions Could Potentially Land Team Battistelli in Jail
  6. French Media Confirms Alexandre Benalla Just One of Six Battistelli Bodyguards, Employed at the Cost of €8,000-€10,000 Per Month (for Benalla Alone!)
  7. Corrupt Battistelli Paid a Fortune (EPO Budget) for Outlaw/Rogue ‘Bodyguards’ From Firm Linked to Russian Oligarch Iskander Makhmudov

The final part will be published by week’s end. It will include a video.

Battistelli’s Bodyguard, Part III: Mars, France Close Protection (Benalla’s Family), and Russian Oligarchy

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Emmanuel Macron told Benalla, “you’re going to eat them,” according to Benalla

Benoît Battistelli

Summary: An article which examines the business background of Benalla, the outrageous salaries, the severance indemnity pay, and contract with a Russian oligarch close to Vladimir Putin

THIS is the third installment of a 5-part series regarding the Benalla affair. Benalla had worked clandestinely at the European Patent Office (EPO) before the so-called ‘Benallagate’ broke out.

Today’s translation reveals transcripts from conversations Benalla was having about Macron with Vincent Crase, former head of security for the LREM party. It also explores business aspects of the operation. In spite of the scandal, Benalla is still employed with a monthly salary of 12,474 euros.

“Macron is like a madman”: Mediapart publishes recordings of Alexander Benalla

Mediapart publishes an enquiry on the former collaborator of the Elysée, based on unpublished audio recordings.

The Benalla case continues… The investigation website Mediapart is publishing, on Thursday 31 January, a new enquiry based on numerous documents, including unpublished audio excerpts.

“You’re going to eat them. You’re stronger than them.”

According to the revelations of our colleagues, Alexandre Benalla maintained important links with the Elysée for several months after his indictment. Mediapart publishes excerpts from a discussion held on 26 July between Emmanuel Macron’s former collaborator and the former head of security for the LREM party, Vincent Crase.

We hear Alexandre Benalla claiming the personal support of the Head of State on several occasions. The latter, he said, had sent him a support text message – which the Elysée denies. “He (Emmanuel Macron) does more than support us….. He’s like a madman[...]. And he said like that, he said, he said, he said to me: “You’re going to eat them. You’re stronger than them,” Benalla told Crase.

In the excerpts from this discussion, Alexandre Benalla does not at any time show any concern about the press revelations about him. He even uses a light tone, and seems to enjoy what is happening to him.

“It’s a good experience….. At 26, if you will, there are not many people living… who provoke two parliamentary committees of enquiry, who block the functioning of Parliament…”

“I’m going to put together a list for the Europeans.”

This discussion between Alexandre Benalla and Vincent Crase is all the more surprising as the two men, both indicted in the case of the May 1st violence, met on July 26th in clear violation of judicial control which prohibits them from any contact, recalls Mediapart.

And yet, Alexandre Benalla’s serenity is “total”, our colleagues write. The former collaborator claims to have the whole Elysée behind him. While Vincent Crase asks him who supports him, Emmanuel Macron’s former adviser answers:

“By the president, Mrs. (Brigitte Macron), Ismael (Emelien), who advises me on media and company.”

Ismael Emelien is not the only point of contact from Benalla to the Elysée,” adds Mediapart. He also continued to regularly visit Ludovic Chaker, a chargé de mission to the Chief of Staff of the President of the Republic. Our colleagues mentioned in particular a dinner in a Parisian restaurant on November 13, 2018. “He came by because Chaker and I had sent him a selfie,” says Nicolas Bays, an ex-member of parliament who was there that day.

“We often asked about him, at that time he had just been taken out of the Elysée for his coup de force on the Place de la Contrescarpe. Alexandre told me: “Nicolas, you’ll see, I’ll bounce back, I’ll get them all, I’ll put together a list for the Europeans, I’ll talk about security, immigration, they won’t be able to come and get me on these subjects. I told him he was unconscious, he couldn’t do that to the boss.”

A contract with a Russian oligarch

In his investigation, Mediapart also reveals that Alexander Benalla is personally involved in a security contract with a Russian oligarch close to Vladimir Putin, who is also suspected of having links with the mafia. And that he lied about it on January 21 before the Senate committee of enquiry, which questioned him.

According to Mediapart, the former collaborator of the President met several times with the oligarch’s representative in France, businessman Jean-Louis Haguenauer, in the winter of 2017.

After the revelations of the May 1st affair, Alexandre Benalla is concerned about the repercussions it could have on the Mars security company, which belongs to Vincent Crase. In one of the excerpts published by Mediapart, we hear him warn the latter:

“Here you have to cut the branch. You have to change port to do what we planned to do and transfer… [...] You have to get out of the box.”

Finally, in mid-October, the two men set up another company, France Close Protection, run by a relative of Benalla and housed in the same domiciliation centre as Mars. In November, Alexandre Benalla is registered as an employee, reports Mediapart. And he already receives a first salary of 12,474 euros, while he was receiving a severance indemnity pay after leaving the Elysée.

Previously in the Benalla affair in relation to the EPO:

  1. Alexandre Benalla, Macron’s Violent Bodyguard, Was Also Battistelli’s Bodyguard
  2. It Wasn’t Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)
  3. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO
  4. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli’s Epic Abuses)
  5. The Man Whose Actions Could Potentially Land Team Battistelli in Jail
  6. French Media Confirms Alexandre Benalla Just One of Six Battistelli Bodyguards, Employed at the Cost of €8,000-€10,000 Per Month (for Benalla Alone!)
  7. Corrupt Battistelli Paid a Fortune (EPO Budget) for Outlaw/Rogue ‘Bodyguards’ From Firm Linked to Russian Oligarch Iskander Makhmudov

The next part will likely be published some time tomorrow.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts