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

09.20.20

High-Profile and Invalid (Invalidated) European Patents Harm the Presumption of Validity of European Patents

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

King of the Hill/Copaxone: Another one for you, son! But dad, that's too much! No such thing as too many patents

Summary: The EPO’s ‘printing machine’ (over-producing patent monopolies) is harming the legal certainty associated with such patents, helping nobody but deep-pocketed monopolists and law firms

THE quality of European Patents (patents granted by the EPO) has collapsed under the watch of Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos. EPO staff would gladly attest to that experience, albeit discreetly (fear of retaliation). They know best what’s going on, unlike the politicians who occupy top roles in this rogue institution.

“The lawyers don’t really care; they profit from all those applications, lawsuits and even appeal/opposition motions. The bigger the mess, the more money they net, pocketing the budgets of what otherwise would have been the salary of technical people.”Some days ago another European Patent perished. It was a high-profile patent impacting a bunch of large firms so the lobbying site “Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review” ([1] below) along with Generics Bulletin wrote about it. The latter said: “Mylan has celebrated a reversal from the European Patent Office that has seen a key patent protecting Teva’s higher-strength 40mg/ml thrice-weekly version of Copaxone deemed invalid and revoked across Europe. Meanwhile, Teva has commented on the possibility of an appeal.”

There was also a press release (“Mylan and Development Partner, Synthon, Win Significant European Patent Office Ruling Related to Copaxone® 40mg/mL”) and there’s this upcoming chat wanting to “review how the EPO case law has developed since the EPO Board of Appeal revoked Bristol-Myers Squib’s dasatinib patent in 2017…”

Notice the pattern; in recent years, based on many case outcomes that we’ve tracked (and habitually included in Daily Links), the European Patents which go to court oftentimes perish. And it’s worth bearing in mind that some of the very worst European Patents will never even land in court (not at the higher levels).

The lawyers don’t really care; they profit from all those applications, lawsuits and even appeal/opposition motions. The bigger the mess, the more money they net, pocketing the budgets of what otherwise would have been the salary of technical people. Here’s what they do:

…discuss if and how innovators should adjust their filing and drafting strategy in light of the EPO’s post-dasatinib approach to plausibility.

They simply try to work around the rules to still get a bunch of imaginary/invalid patents (IPs). Later they wonder why interest in the EPO is decreasing. A piece of paper with no legal validity (or certainty once it goes to court) isn’t worth much.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. EPO revokes Copaxone patent, clears path for Mylan

    The European Patent Office (EPO) has invalidated and revoked a patent related to Teva’s multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone (glatiramer acetate injection), in a win for Mylan.

Epitaph for (Death of) Patent-Centric Media: Litigation Giant Bird & Bird Nowadays Doing Ads as ‘Podcasts’ in Think Tank Site ‘Managing IP’

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:14 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Recent (on Bird & Bird harassing Free software developers): Miriam Ballhausen and Debian Money, DebConf Online, Insulting a Volunteer at a Time of Grief

Just don't hesitate

Summary: Publishers don’t hesitate and openly revel in taking bribes as if it’s a badge of honour or importance, allowing themselves to be profoundly corrupted in pursuit of quick cash; we discuss what’s happening in sites that pretend to cover patent news (but actually drive agenda of litigation giants, to the detriment of actual innovators)

THE state of patent blogs is frustrating. Those that are left (still online and also active) may be very few and they’re mostly propaganda of private firms, litigation and pharma giants like Bird & Bird and AstraZeneca, respectively.

“The media in this domain has certainly been taken over. It has become really rogue, with lobbyists and patent trolls seeking to control the narrative.”How is the public expected to receive honest, balanced news when sites that cover particular topics are dominated by the thugs and parasitic elements of the industry? Parasites and thugs disguised as “professionals”, protecting criminals from their victims. Some “occupation” you got there…

The media in this domain has certainly been taken over. It has become really rogue, with lobbyists and patent trolls seeking to control the narrative. The EFF barely speaks about patents any longer (check the sponsors, the real bosses of the EFF) and the FSF is self-censoring on the matter. We showed some examples earlier this year.

“Like Facebook and Twitter, they actively distort the image of reality itself. That’s the business model.”Software developers in Europe rarely write about software patents anymore (too busy with coding, i.e. real work); instead, litigation people at IP Kat (what’s left of it) promote “Artificial Intelligence, Software and Patents: Towards a Post-COVID Changing Game” (using a health crisis and “Hey Hi” hype to push for illegal patents this past Friday). Hours ago there was also promotion of “Webinar on Patentability of AI- and Software-Based Inventions” with “guidance on best practices for protecting software-related innovations” (that’s the pattern we also find in IP Kat and its ‘sanitised’ comments section; the site is quite literally hijacked by litigation people, who have also just pushed EPO ads, as recently as Friday). Like Facebook and Twitter, they actively distort the image of reality itself. That’s the business model.

“And the other day they hit an all-time low by pushing ads disguised as “Podcast”.”But if that’s not bad enough, consider what IAM is doing behind its paywall, pushing distortions of reality on behalf of its patent trolls (sponsors). It’s just as bad in Managing IP, which offers bogus awards in exchange for sponsorships and still publishes a bunch of spam in ‘article’ form (“sponsored by” the authors, e.g. Jakob Pade Frederiksen some days ago and this push for “Hey Hi” patents).

“Are the ‘tweets’ about this also sponsored? Where does this corruption end? No wonder trust in publishers/media continues to erode; they deserve this distrust!”Are they even trying to come across as a news site? If so, they aren’t doing a terribly good job. And the other day they hit an all-time low by pushing ads disguised as “Podcast”. To their credit they admit this upfront when they say this: “In the first of three Bird & Bird-sponsored podcasts, Americas editor Patrick Wingrove spoke to Richard Vary, partner at Bird & Bird [...] We would like to thank Bird & Bird for making this podcast possible and for lending the necessary expertise in this matter.”

Are the ‘tweets’ about this also sponsored? Where does this corruption end? No wonder trust in publishers/media continues to erode; they deserve this distrust! It’s AstroTurfing. ‘Bird’ sites (Twitter, Bird & Bird) as marketing fronts… singing the sponsor’s tune.

UrracasSo a so-called ‘news’ site takes money from a litigation firm and then pushes propaganda for that firm ever so blatantly, adding to a pool of sponsored (by the authors) ‘articles’.

“It’s a complete and utter laughing stock and we’re hardly shocked not a single journalist investigates and reports on EPO corruption. The few publications that did so half a decade ago received bribes/threats from the Mafioso of the EPO.”News regarding patents was already appalling in terms of quality and sites were deliberately misleading before COVID (how many so-called ‘news’ sites claimed that the UPC was “coming soon” for the past 5 years?); now it’s even worse. It’s a complete and utter laughing stock and we’re hardly shocked not a single journalist investigates and reports on EPO corruption. The few publications that did so half a decade ago received bribes/threats from the Mafioso of the EPO. Where are they now? Where’s the old IP Kat for that matter? All the EPO critics left the blog and IAM is 100% EPO propaganda (whenever covering EPO affairs). As for Managing IP? Just a PR agency/think tank. They’ve quit pretending — or they do it ever so shallowly — that one can smell it from a mile (sometimes there are disclosures too, but not always).

I’ve been waiting for years for some investigative journalists to publish their findings on the EPO; they said they were working on it (they told me so personally), but the articles were never published. Then again, seeing what happened at the BBC, one can guess what may have happened [1, 2].

09.18.20

More EPO Disclosures: An Explanation of How an EPO Survey Plots to Dismantle the EPO’s Staff

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:43 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Days ago (essential for context): António Campinos is Believed to be “Dismantling” the EPO

Summary: Dismantling the Office for the benefit of a bunch of private companies (taking over various duties of EPO staff) seems like the management’s goal; included in image form (and text) below is today’s publication. There’s a PDF with text (not OCR) but it contains metadata.

More about the survey whose purpose is to make it seem like staff gave input (trick questions):

staff survey 2020 page-p1

staff survey 2020 page-p2

staff survey 2020 page-p3

staff survey 2020 page-p4

staff survey 2020 page-p5

staff survey 2020 page-p6

staff survey 2020 page-p7

staff survey 2020 page-p8

staff survey 2020 page-p9

staff survey 2020 page-p10

staff survey 2020 page-p11

staff survey 2020 page-p12

staff survey 2020 page-p13

staff survey 2020 page-p14

staff survey 2020 page-p15

staff survey 2020 page-p16

staff survey 2020 page-p17

staff survey 2020 page-p18

staff survey 2020 page-p19

staff survey 2020 page-p20

staff survey 2020 page-p21

The text:


Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee       
Le Comité Central du Personnel  
        Munich 18.09.2020
        sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1
                                          USER GUIDE TO THE SURVEY
                                                                    (A contribution by your staff reps)
  The document is not perfect, was neither meant to be perfect, still it is a contribution we owe you, our colleagues as your staff reps since consultation on
                                                                   the survey was not done, and time was short
Contents
Topic 1 - Q1-3: Current Situation (CRISIS) ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Topic 2 - Q4: Future teleworking preferences (NEW NORMAL) .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Topic 3 - Q5: Locations (NEW NORMAL)......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Topic 4 - Q6: Your preferences – Teleworking (NEW NORMAL through present perceptions) ................................................................................................... 5
Topic 5 - Q7: Working from other EPO sites (NEW NORMAL) ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Topic 6 - Q8: Working time (NEW NORMAL).................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Topic 7 - Q9: Use of buildings and office premises (NEW NORMAL)............................................................................................................................................. 7
Topic 8 - Q10: Your preference – use of office workspaces (PRESENT PREFENCES) ..................................................................................................................... 8
Topic 9 - Q11: Impact (Experience from teleworking in the CRISIS)............................................................................................................................................ 10
Topic 10 - Q12-15: Future impact (NEW NORMAL) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Topic 11 - Q16-17: Culture, values and future aspirations. (NEW NORMAL).............................................................................................................................. 13
Topic 12: Scenarios (VERY NEW NORMAL) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
   Reflections on the introductory text:......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
   Comments/Questions we may have when considering the scenario most suitable for us: ..................................................................................................... 15
   Supplemented table of scenarios .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
   Additional information regarding some financial aspects of teleworking in the home country............................................................................................... 20

1

   
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Topic 1 - Q1-3: Current Situation (CRISIS) An honest, well considered answer helps to assess the current situation. Maybe in some areas colleagues have all the tools to work effectively, but on other areas colleagues might have to deal with the “bare minimum”. GENERAL REMARK: New Normal (most topics coming hereafter except for °9, and mostly °8) is not the time during the COVID-crisis; it is the time after that crisis. This means that future shall not be determined by misusing the limitations or the necessities of the current situation – much more it shall be shaped by using the benefits of the “old” Normal and the options on flexibility which, frankly speaking, has been possible even before COVID came, but Management was not “innovative” enough to promote such options to the extent imposed by COVID. 2
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Topic 2 - Q4: Future teleworking preferences (NEW NORMAL) Question 4 is about how many days per week you would telework. We strongly advise you to clarify in the free text field (4.i) on what assumption your answer is based, e. g. keeping a single office. Question 5 is about how many days per month you would telework. Topic 3 - Q5: Locations (NEW NORMAL) A) The immediate interest of the office for asking this question is to determine which proportion of building occupancy may be scrapped. An answer expressing an interest inworking abroad is firstly an implicit declaration of non-interest in having an office room in the buildings of the EPO. B) As for other topics in this survey, you may desire a change from your current working environment that depend on your present circumstances, any these may evolve over time. The EPO may, however, implement permanent changes that reduce your benefits. And should there be any possibility to re-improve your situation later, it will be entirely at the discretion of the management. C) Various sources have expressed that salaries from abroad are exempt from taxation. It is true that the EPC foresees this. However, anyone having experience with taxation and/or reading the press, will notice that some states may not always follow the law. Quite often fiscal authorities will ignore actual rules and put the burden of proof on you to defend before a tribunal. Especially so, if you will be one of the extremely few people to whom tax exemption applies. Do you really trust your (a) country that it does not try and claim tax first, letting you spend time effort and money to make your case? a. You may have also other revenues. Even a single Euro not tied to your wage may lead a fiscal authority to first tax all your revenue and let you work to defend yourself. At worst for the state, there is money at the disposal of the state until you manage to claim it back. 3
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 b. The host countries behave well because they directly benefit from the EPO’s presence. But elsewhere, who will defend your interests? There won’t be any EPO fiscal experts in your home country. And if the EPO is substantially dematerialized, not even the EPO will be able to help you. D) Question 5 could have been asked about your interest to work from any of the non-host countries that are members of the EPC. Why ask questions 5a) and 5b)? • Why do you have to specify the country you would prefer to work from? (Question 5a)? Could this be related to planning of cost savings for the EPO? The cost of living being lower in a number of EPC member states compared to the host states of the EPO, claiming an interest for such countries will incite the office to rapidly select a path of proposing a solution that will be centred on saving costs at the expense of staff. o The cost saving may well not only consist of deleting allowances such as expatriation and education costs but may well also consist of adapting your salary to the purchasing power of the country you select. ▪ As an example, Facebook has announced that any staff relocating to a cheaper location will be paid correspondingly lower wages and be tracked through their online activity to verify this. If this trend generalizes in the industry there is little chance this won’t happen at the EPO at some point in time. • Why ask if the country would be your home country (Question 5b)? The President has transparently communicated on the 14.09.2020 thoughts of a link between working from a home country and the loss of the expatriation allowance. Although this may be viewed as making sense, some staff may desire to work from their host country only temporarily e.g. for taking care of aging and/or ill parents (see also under topic 12 hereunder). Beware that even a short-term relocation to the home country followed by a more durable return could result in the definitive loss of expatriation allowance, but also any other privilege that goes along with it. • Question 5c is incomplete: if you would wish to work for 6 months from another EPC member state, would it be in one bloc or more than one? Beware that some obligations may incur in that state that could be fiscal (even if not directly tied with your wage, e.g. filing a tax declaration), financial (e.g. the obligation to subscribe to certain insurances, e.g. health insurance) or legal, as soon as you exceed a duration of presence (this differs between member states or may change within the state in question). Being aware of obligations in a country where you reside only part of the year may be tricky. The burden will be on you, not on the EPO. • Question 5d is of private nature. Why ask this question at all? It may very hypothetically help EPO’s management to formulate solutions, but more likely it will primarily serve to argue that the reduction of benefits to staff result from their willingness to drop one set of advantages for others. Again, the expected benefits may be temporary. The losses will be permanent. 4
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Topic 4 - Q6: Your preferences – Teleworking (NEW NORMAL through present perceptions) Questions 6a and 6b These questions are tricky, as if alternatives would not exist. The questions as not expressed to determine how you would want to exchange one benefit for another (at budget neutrality for the EPO or even a marginal gain), but rather explore which benefit you would dump permanently, altogether. Why would attending the EPO premises for four weeks be at staff’s expense, if the savings for the EPO during the rest of the year exceed such costs? Regarding questions 6d and 6e the options of retaining a partial expatriation allowance over a long period of time seems unlikely. The questions make no mention of a duration. These are rather directed to examine how many people are willing to give up benefits and work somewhere else instead of remaining essentially at the place of employment or duty station. • The concept of duty station is not defined therein. • Keep in mind that if you were to accept to work from abroad, the EPO will undoubtably ask you to permanently renounce the ability to request any privilege incurred from your previous activity in the host country. But most of all, working form a country having a reduced purchasing power may well reduce your ability to invest in your own country as your wage will be over proportionally reduced. • If the travel expenses are being borne by the employee her/himself then how is a possible discrimination justified in terms of travel expenses between one employee teleworking from Belgium and another teleworking from Portugal? The costs must be at least an order of magnitude apart. Topic 5 - Q7: Working from other EPO sites (NEW NORMAL) Question 7: opportunity to work from another EPO site: might be used to close sites, if a certain percentage of staff expresses their readiness to move to another site, even if they are only theoretically interested or consider such an option only for a limited period of time. 5
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Question 7a): this one continues refining the upper question by letting staff say if they are ready to move permanently or for a limited period. If most Vienna or Berlin people say that they would like to move permanently, Administration could close the sites. Question 7b): this question further leads staff into the trap to select possible advantages from moving to another site, even if only theoretically, thus giving Administration the reasons for closing sites, if not enough staff appear to remain working there. Question 7c): free text question gives staff opportunity to further elaborate on their answers to the previous questions. This part is considered, in light of the nature of questions 7a and 7b and the possibility of drawing unwanted conclusions from them, essential to be filled in. Altogether, if staff does not wish sites to be closed, staff shall answer Q7: Not interested at all, then Q7a and Q7b do not need to be answered and on Q7c the elaboration could be: I am perfectly happy to stay where I am, because of: good work/life balance, close to family, whatever. At least for Vienna and Berlin this shall be the better choice; for Munich and The Hague we presently not see any reason to be afraid. In any case, remaining cautious at all times is required. The Hague is structurally different from the Munich main site. Topic 6 - Q8: Working time (NEW NORMAL) The staff representation welcomes flexible working hours. Staff has to be aware that with full flexibility the responsibility not to exceed the 40 hours/week working time lies in the hands of staff and the office is not bound any more. Usually fully flexible working times are understood by employers as making possible a higher production. This is already recognized at the PTHW agreements, for which were raising the target is an accepted possibility. In response to the Covid crisis flexibility was introduced, and no control established because the administration was required to do so by the unprecedented situation Surprisingly (or not?) our colleagues have good will and are honest. Sickness rate did not increase but decreased. Business continued despite difficulties amazingly at sometimes high (health) costs. 6
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Maybe one reason was the (not avoidable) “investment” in trust? Will that trust remain if one or two examples of abuse get known to the administration? Will not full control (how many hours is your screen time?) - you can hardly work if screen is off in full paperless mode - be the downside of the teleworking package in the long run for your health? Topic 7 - Q9: Use of buildings and office premises (NEW NORMAL) The general/main point is: What is the concept and the quality of the EPO premises under New Normal? Subpoints: - Individual/shared office or even unpersonal/temporary workplace: it Is not clear what kind of office will be provided to a colleague changing site for a certain period or even after a certain period going back to the initial site - Services in the premises: what kind of canteen(s)/coffee corners/Health &Safety/ printing/physical helpdesk/etc. will be provided? - types of spaces inside the buildings: how will the office space be under New Normal? Does it go towards having more social spaces, including AMICALE facilities and social meeting hubs? Will it comprise “anonymous working desks” without the personal touch? Will there be still training rooms? It is about the definition of the EPO’s SOCIAL/MEETING, WORKING and LEARNING environment. - different sites: will the buildings on all sites have the same quality? Or a different quality? Will the sites become even more different in their quality and space offer? - changes on actual buildings and services - the sociological impact of restructuring the office premises: how will staff be included in the development of new/adapted office spaces? It is known in urban design and architecture that people who will be the user of the future space need to be included such that the acceptancy of the new spaces is the highest. A high acceptance of new spaces/environment is known to increase the productivity and creativity of people. 7
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Topic 8 - Q10: Your preference – use of office workspaces (PRESENT PREFENCES) - For the whole section: the key aspect “long-term” is missing; do not limit your consideration to the last few months’ experience, try to imagine 5 or 10 or more years of work for the EPO as a “mobile” worker with many of your colleagues being “mobile”, so that you would no longer know or meet physically the members of your team / your technical area. How are going to connect, share experience and trustfully cooperate with your peers, many of whom will be newly recruited / transferred colleagues? If you are even considering “full” mobility, e.g. working from external workplaces: how do you think the duty of care of the employer may be argued on issues like liability, health and safety? - 10c is missing for some reason. - Differences between 10a and 10b are difficult to realize, in each case it is assumed that a separate A/B selection needs to be made: o In 10a, the question is merely whether you’re mobile or not, whether inside the office or not, see A: “when working at the EPO premises” and the explicit location options in B. ▪ Thus, in the affirmative case A, the old speak equivalent would be a shared/collaborative space office or cubicle or nothing if mobile exclusively outside (see also scenarios- last topic). Our advice to staff would be to (try to!) reconcile that with the promise of being “able to move between options as your personal life situation changes”. In other words, once buildings have been sold and/or office space reconfigured, there is no “recovery point”. ▪ In the non-mobile option B, the “single workplace” can be apparently a single (or multi-person?) office or that comfy room at home. It is not entirely clear, even looking at 10b, whether that “single workplace” could not also be a fixed co-working space (e.g. if home is too small/noisy). It is also not clear whether an office is available at the EPO at all if the” single workplace” is at home (or a co-working space). Since only stationarity is at issue, our advice would be that choosing this option B would not forfeit the staff member’s office. Again, the promise of “mobility between options” (see under A and optional section 12) should allow a later change of mind, so this would be the prudent path to follow. 8
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 ▪ Even if you think you are “mobile”, you might consider preference “B”; the option under “B” should read “home and/or at EPO premises”, not just “home OR EPO premises” as it is unfair to exclude the “PTHW” option. This question thus excludes inappropriately the option of being “mobile” in the sense of “PTHW”; mind that office space will not be offered again once given up. o In 10b, the question is rather where you would preferably like to work in our understanding, irrespective of whether mobile or not. ▪ Thus, in case A, you have either an individual designated workplace if you chose B in 10a, or a shared one, if you chose A in 10a, hence the somewhat unclear terminology individual/shared. If yes, this requires clarification to avoid misunderstandings as reported in the thread below. Again, this would be the prudent option, mutatis mutandis. ▪ Thus, in case B, you waive all rights to an office at the EPO, i.e. neither individual, nor shared/collaborative space office, nor cubicle. Nothing. This is, in our opinion, a very dangerous option if many colleagues choose it, since it would be the carte blanche for generous reconfiguration of office space and most likely the odd real estate deal. Obviously not recommended. Section 12 also details in the scenarios table what’s in store salary- and taxation-wise. ▪ This question is manipulative, because the option of a classic individual workplace (office) at the EPO premises seems to be removed a priori from all options; there is no “individual/shared” workplace, as there is either a shared workplace (cubicle, shared desk...) or an individual workplace; both preferences, “A” and “B” express your (alleged) “preference” for the loss of your own individual workplace; rather than answering 10b you might be better served (and more authentic!) by commenting under 10c only (“as I am working X days per week at the EPO premises, I am using an individual workplace/office at the EPO premises)”. 9
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Topic 9 - Q11: Impact (Experience from teleworking in the CRISIS) In section 9, we are invited to reflect on how the Covid-triggered move into massive teleworking has impacted our daily work. It invites us to look back at this unprecedented start of 2020 and indicate how different aspects of our work have been impacted. Don’t forget to consider the impact you felt being remote from your immediate colleagues, your friends at work, your Amicale clubs and social environment. Be mindful of the impact it had on your family life, possibly with home schooling for your children, closed off from your families in your home countries. All of this also impacts our daily work, whether we like it or not – and should also be considered in looking back and “scoring” how different aspects of our daily activities evolved recently. Please bear in mind the timing of this survey. By now, the first wave is over, we have all settled into our new routines. This kind of a survey could have been done before Corona – it could have been done at the onset of the lockdown situations all over Europe, it could have been done once a vaccine is available and we can gradually resume ‘back to normal’. It’s not: the timing might have been picked on purpose, to skew your reflection to the desired result. However, there is space provided still to reflect and maybe disclaim, that any thought you have at the moment might change even within a very short timeframe. Give yourself the space to change your mind and get out of the crisis before you make decisions that have an effect on the rest of your (work and family) life. Look at how the questions are asked, how the possible options are formulated .... Topic 10 - Q12-15: Future impact (NEW NORMAL) 10
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Greater flexibility and more teleworking sounds great, but there are no long-term studies on this topic. So, the answer requires a look into a crystal ball. Please answer carefully. Nobody knows how to successfully manage teams remotely yet. For sure nobody knows what additional skills, means or support would be most helpful. If one has ideas, they are welcome. What is missing is the long-term aspects of such decisions, it is a fortiori dangerous to answer, “spontaneously”, as . Countless publications nowadays deal with teleworking. Since the prudent approach is at issue here, we would like to recommend the following publication in the Guardian. Regarding points 12a and e to i the following should be kept in mind: Starting EPO work right after recruitment / academy in one’s home country would most likely amount to poor personal contact at any EPO site. This could entail psychological problems. These could be exacerbated if the authorization of working from the host country is left to team-leaders (“give me 250 files a year and I will allow you to return immediately to Lisboa / Bordeaux / Dubrovnik ...”). Comments on various aspects pertinent to all questions in this section: • Consultations between (future) examining division members are a cornerstone of the Collaborative Quality Improvements (CQI). These consultations require some additional time, which is not granted. With teleworking (per Skype or email), they may take even more time. • Teleworking from the home country for extended periods is foreseen to lead to loss of the expatriation allowance. This would bring a lot of dangers concerning remuneration/conditions and quality. While collaboration could alleviate this a bit, of course it would be much better if the colleagues knew each other personally, as it is the norm at (pre-COVID) present. • Deficits in collaboration/consultation could deteriorate the quality of assessing inventive step (Art. 56 EPC), which is largely absent of quality checks. Quality, however, cannot be the only element to consider, because it is too easy (not to be confused with “rightfully”) to set it aside by bringing up peripheral “paper wrapping” quality criteria that could be met despite a highly scattered staff population teleworking. 11
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 • The situation is different to IT firms who have geographically distributed developers; hence it is doubtful that extensive (e.g. several months per year), let alone permanent teleworking can be done such that the quality of our work is maintained. • There is no proof that yet one more decrease of remuneration will not lead to a decrease in quality of work and loss of long- term fidelity to the EPO as an employer. It even remains yet to be seen if those that have joined the EPO in the last five years will still want to stay for another 20 years or more. There is an asymmetry: remote working is only an option for performing the work, whereas quality is the essential feature of our deliverable and hence income. Without a minimum of quality, the premise for the existence of the patenting system vanishes. Once quality is reduced for financial gains to a point where adverse effects settle in, it becomes, at best, much more costly to re-establish the previous quality (and add-in a long delay) and at worst the loss of quality is irreversible. In continuation of this thread: let’s imagine that teleworking from other countries becomes the norm and the buildings of the EPO are sold. Then, if it turns out that applicants are disappointed with the patents they get and reduce their budgets for filing, how would the EPO be able to re-introduce working on-site? With whom? Everything comes with a price, let’s not forget that. • One foreseeable consequence of low paid remotely working staff is that a number of them do not stay at the office for long and that this creates a loss of expertise. It is undoubtable that all other patent offices have a much higher turn-over of staff. It is quite clear then, that the EPO should be very cautious with changes that bring us closer to the working conditions of other patent offices that do not perform as well as we do. • The equipment offered for home office use varies greatly with the commitment (predominantly/exclusively on the office premises, predominantly/exclusively home office, 50:50), thus moderate home office below 50% would entail merely a head- set for home use (thus at best one monitor at each of home and office) but ≥50% home office allows for the nominal two monitors in the office plus the new curved large-screen monitor in the office. However, it might well happen, in the ≥50% case, that the single office turns into a shared office. 12
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Topic 11 - Q16-17: Culture, values and future aspirations. (NEW NORMAL) If I we would have been consulted, we would have recommended to remove this section. Values are all positive concepts but abstract and not well defined therefore subjective interpretation plays a big role in the answer. Most of the concepts are difficult to be connected to teleworking. Therefore, the results are easy to be manipulated. Open question: office culture: not clear concept -> Open to anything -> easy to be manipulated too. Probably we colleagues are trying to be honest and put certain gradation, but this might help to manipulate the conclusions of the questionnaire. Conclusion: All the questions under this topic are vague. The questions are suggestive and the answers very subjective, difficult to draw conclusions from. Enables the assessing person to have any conclusion drawn from it, and therefore any answer here must be given with care. 13
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Topic 12: Scenarios (VERY NEW NORMAL) Reflections on the introductory text: “As an extra and optional exploratory question five possible teleworking and remote working scenarios have been developed and are going to be shown over the next few pages. You will be asked to select your preferred choice at the end.” A proper reflection on the scenarios and their implications on the long term before choosing is important, because it will influence the decisions of the administration on the scenarios to follow for the years to come. Before answering, try to imagine the situation after 5y, 10y or more - is a connection with the work environment still possible with scenarios 4 and 5? it is a fortiori dangerous to answer, “spontaneously”, as suggested by the Administration “These purely hypothetical scenarios represent a few of the many possible different combinations of elements that could be envisaged in a future teleworking scheme.” Other scenarios or more refined or better fitting ones can of course be envisaged. Comments, questions and remarks at the end of this point should be encouraged. We should also ask colleagues to send us their remarks and comments. “From the first to last option, the scenarios reflect an increasing level of flexibility of workplace and they could all co-exist together. Please read the scenarios carefully and choose which one most fits your current preference and personal situation today.” Scenarios 4 and 5 are fundamentally different from 1-3 in that there is no individual, assigned workplace anymore at the EPO site - this will inevitably alienate colleagues from the EPO work environment and drive colleagues further into full home-office (full disconnection?) Do not look only at your personal situation today, but also at the long-term implications and the implications for your family, colleagues and the future of the work at the Office! Thus, if you are looking for a nice little house in the country for your kids, keep 14
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 in mind that they will grow up and most likely not want to stay “out in the boonies”. You have to be able to picture yourself alone with your spouse in that place. “Bear in mind that in a real situation you would be able to move between options as your personal life situation changes. For these scenarios education and childcare allowance are not considered to be an expatriation related benefit.” This is sounding positive, but we have to be careful in our choices and implications, since the devil is in the details of the implementation, which naturally is not known (to us) yet. That said, it can still be used as important tool in our favour, since going from office to teleworking is easily possible whereas the reverse is not. Furthermore, it is written in black and white. “By offering these hypothetical scenarios the Office seeks to understand what is important for staff.” Is it to understand or to interpret actually? “Any future scheme is subject to the normal consultation processes and legal assessment.” Sounds very “reassuring” we can guarantee you that we will be involved and keeping you posted on any developments. “You can comment on your choice after the final question.” Yes please, do so in order to help yourself not being misinterpreted. Afterall topic 12 is to be considered together with topic 8. The most prudent options (least long-term unforeseeable consequences) seem here and in questions 10a, 10b scenario 1 (topic 12) and questions 10a-B and 10b-A (section 8). Comments/Questions we may have when considering the scenario most suitable for us: 1. Tax issues and consequences are not listed in the five scenarios, and these are clearly important for scenarios 4 and 5 2. The new prescribed minimum attendance of 4x1 week per year (20 working days) is far too low. We should suggest increasing it to at least 6x1 week per year (30 working days) to keep some degree of cohesion in the teams (does the Office reimburse (part of) the travel and accommodation costs?) 15
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 3. Education and childcare issues are kept separate and independent. That is good, but we have to see if there are indirect consequences for them in the different scenarios 4. What about legal issues? (Seat agreements, UPC, Insurances....) 5. Long term implications of the different scenarios? 6. Office space and location: will it be possible to work from other EPO sites, or national Patent Offices? 7. Why is only working on the office premises apparently no option? When mainly working 3 or more days from somewhere else instead of the office premises, one seems to lose the designated workplace. Even if various scenarios exist, how easy will it be to switch between them? This should not be left to the sole discretion of the Office. (Example to point G: An employee chooses scenario 5, because (s)he needs to take care of her/his parents in, e.g., Spain. (S)he therefore asks to be put in scenario 5. Later, these parents are no more, and the employee wants to return to scenario 2. Meanwhile, the Office has sold a few buildings and all rooms are occupied. Trapped in one scenario for ever?) 8. It remains to be clarified with the administration, what exactly “not considered to be an expatriation related benefit” means, since without further information it can be read both ways: abolished or maintained. While the latter interpretation appears more likely, especially in view of the present attempt to change childcare and education allowance, the former cannot be ruled out. 9. Will there be an adaptation of salaries to the actual place of work (e.g. the specific village you’re teleworking from), alluded to in scenarios 4 and 5 by way of payment or not of expatriation benefits, may happen in future developments. An important item which needs to be clarified. In that case, applying the principle of equal treatment of equal facts, a salary adaptation could also be envisioned within the country of the place of employment, just as Berlin enjoys remuneration different from that of Munich. Food for clarification... 16
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 This adaptation can be substantial, as seen in the following table, which shows the change with respect to MU/TH scales: AT FR IT ES UK CH LU CY FI GR IR PT SK -3,84 % 6,03 % -14,54 % -17,14 % -15,30 % 54,76 % -8,74 % -27,81 % 7,34 % -26,01 % 7,85 % -21,64 % -28,49 % 10. Working full time in the same country of the respective NPO, at the same time doing the same work of the examiners of the NPO. Still earning a salary much higher (at least in many cases) than that of the examiners of the NPO. While all the NPOs are in the Administrative Council of the EPO. How long would this stay untouched? Whatever changes we agree to, these should include guarantee that we work and are retired in line with our original EPO “contract” where teleworking will not open doors (be an excuse) to further transformations and deterioration of our employment package. 11. Assuming we adopt a fulltime telework scenario, we leave behind a structure of teams and directorates and fields in which we work with a certain balance. Changing this balance transforms the job... e.g. areas, main languages of the work, depending on different sites, different managers, different colleagues, different practices of different areas... This could easily introduce negative effects into our work life. Will teleworking imply this type of reorganization, or will the backbone stay in place? 17
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Supplemented table of scenarios Scenario 0. Office 1. Office Worker 2. Partial Telework 3. Partial telework 4. Full Telework (partially 5. Full Telework (fully Away from PoE) Worker (No (occasional telework) (live locally, work (live locally, work away from PoE) telework) mainly at the Office) mainly from home) Principle I work at the I work predominantly I work significantly I work I work partly from my home I live and work from any location I choose within the EPC. I have no travel Office from Office premises. I from my home near predominantly from near my PoE and partly in costs since I do not travel. I receive no compensation for the rent I pay exclusively. I bear the travel costs. I my PoE. I bear the my home near my another EPC location. I bear for my home office, the electricity or the Internet connection. I am also bear the travel receive no travel costs. I receive PoE. I bear the the travel costs. I receive no not insured for accidents at home. costs, as compensation for the no compensation for travel costs. I compensation for the rent I always. I am rent I pay for my the rent I pay for my receive no pay for my home office, the insured in case home office, the home office, the compensation for electricity or the Internet connection. of accidents electricity or the electricity or the the rent I pay for I am also not insured for accidents at home. to/from/at Internet connection. I Internet connection. I my home office, the work. am also not insured am also not insured electricity or the for accidents at home. for accidents at home. Internet connection. I am also not insured for accidents at home. Also known Pre PTHW PTHW 1 or 2 d/week PTHW more than 2 PTHW & Corona PTHW and Telework Telework as d/week Exception Extent of I don't Telework I telework up to 30 Typically, I telework 1 I telework the I telework essentially full time I telework essentially full time Telework dpy, either at home or 2 days per week, majority of the time (near PoE?) or in any including 30 dpy in (<3 d/week) other EPC country another EPC country. including up to 30 dpy in another EPC country. Days at Office I am always at I am nearly always I am regularly at the I attend the Office I attend the Office sometimes and in any case for I attend the Office sometimes and in any case for at least the (not yet) the Office working on the Office Office. I spend more premises at least at prescribed minimum of 4 x 1 week/year at my own expense (travel, hotel) premises. than half my time (the minimum) of least the (not yet) prescribed minimum of 4 x 1 working on the Office 60 dpy. week/year at my own expense (travel, hotel) premises. 18
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Office Space I may or may I have my own I have my own Unless I attend the I do not have a designated workspace. I choose I do not have a designated workspace. I choose an available temporary not keep my designated workspace designated workspace Office premises an available temporary workspace or office as workspace Office space, in an individual/hared in an individual/hared more than a set needed. or office as needed. I accept that these workspaces, including the who knows. It office. office. threshold amount I accept that these workspaces, including the keyboards, are may depend on (e.g. 10 months per keyboards, not cleaned daily. how people year) I do not have are not cleaned daily. may telework. my own designated workspace or office as needed. I accept that these workspaces, including the keyboards, are not cleaned on a dayiy basis. Residence I live near my I live near my PoE. I live near my PoE. I live in the state of I live in the state of I am free to live where I wish in any EPC country. PoE. my PoE, but not my PoE for part of the necessarily near my year and I am free to love elsewhere for part of PoE. the year. Expat I enjoy full I enjoy full I enjoy full I enjoy full I enjoy expatriation benefits for I have neither Expatriation Benefits, nor home leave. benefits expatriation expatriation benefits. expatriation benefits. expatriation the period I am living in the State of benefits. benefits. my PoE but not for the part that I am away. My home leave is reduced (to possibly zero). Taxation I know that I I know that I may be I know that I may be I know that I may I know that I have to make a tax declaration I know that I have to make a tax declaration to the country in which I live Issues may be required to make a tax required to make a tax be required to to the country in which I live for more than 183 for required to declaration to the declaration to the make a tax days reach respective year, even if the tax I owe is more than 183 days reach respective year, even if the tax I owe is 0€. make a tax country in which I live, country in which I live, declaration to the 0€. This may be the country of my PoE or the This may declaration to even if the tax I owe is even if the tax I owe is country in which I country from which I telework. be the country of my PoE or the country from which I telework. I am the country in 0€. 0€. live, even if the tax I I am responsible for making the correct tax responsible which I live, owe is 0€. Since I declaration(s) in (all) the appropriate countries for making the correct tax declaration(s) in (all) the appropriate countries even if the tax I am not in another even if the tax I owe is 0€. even owe is 0€. country for more if the tax I owe is 0€. than 183 days per year that is unchanged. 19
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 Additional information regarding some financial aspects of teleworking in the home country further to point 9 (not exhaustive rather meant to be food for thought) • It is true that the current PPI exempts the salaries from tax in all member states (MS) and based on the current PPI there is no reason to fear taxation of the salaries in the MS. The reason that salaries of international organisations (IO) are generally exempt from national tax in the host country is because the host country should not overly unilaterally benefit from the mere fact that the other MS transferred sovereign rights to the IO (in tour case the patenting activity) and staff from the other MS must work in the host country. Some unilateral benefit is unavoidable. Mr. Battistelli conducted an IFO study showing that the mere presence of the EPO generates € 2bn additional turnover in Germany. If Germany could tax our salaries, it would further heavily benefit from the mere presence of the international organisation. • This is different for pensions. Pensioners can go back to their home country and thus the MS can tax their pension. This is also reflected in the PPI. • If everyone were to work form the home country, it would be a game changer: By taxing the salaries at national level, the member states (MS) would benefit much more from the IO than they currently do. The consideration that the host country would overly benefit from the mere presence of the IO is void. Hence if working from the home country on a permanent basis were a possibility, it is a question of (very, very little) time until the right to tax our salaries will be shifted to the MS, as it is common practice for the pensioners. This would have only winners, except staff. • Moreover, there is no justification to pay MU/TH scales. This has sometimes considerable impact (see above). • A vital part of the Noblemaire principle is to pay the international civil servants more than in the most expensive member state (for our MS that would be CH), to entice the officer to move away from his home country (and compensate him for being away from his home country). This would be moot if everybody stayed where he was. The 20
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Munich 18.09.2020 Le Comité Central du Personnel sc20138cp - 0.2.1/1.3.1 PPI is not forever, and the Administrative Council has been quite flexible in the past. Moreover, DE and NL at least are always very keen on collecting taxes. 21

09.17.20

Germany Would Violate 3 International Agreements With the Unitary Patent, Says FFII

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents, Petitions at 7:04 am by Guest Editorial Team

Original by FFII

German Reichstag

Summary: Open Letter to the Bundesrat: “Germany will violate 3 international agreements with the Unitary Patent”

Dear Members of the Bundesrat,

Tomorrow Friday 17 September 2020, the Bundesrat will be asked to ratify the Unitary Patent and its Court (UPCA) (point 55 on the agenda). We would like to raise 4 objections regarding this ratification, as it carries the risk of violating multiple international agreements:

1. Software patents will be made enforceable without a debate

FFII eV represents the voice of 3000 software companies and independent software developers across Europe. Our software companies oppose the UPCA, as it will validate software patents through the caselaw of such a court, using the “technical effect” or “as such” loopholes, as confirmed by the European Commission in its 2012 Memo about the UPC. Software patents have negative effects on job creation, as small software companies don’t have the resources to defend themselves in court. Software patents are also opposed by a majority of companies in our sector, as more and more litigating companies (also called “patent trolls”) are trying to extract money.

We would like to see the UPCA being renegotiated, so that the European Court of Justice (CJEU) will have a say on software patents, as the legal basis is of the Unitary Patent is Art118 TFEU “creation of European intellectual property rights”. In 2012, the UK was allergic to the CJEU and asked for the removal of Art6-8, which would have given competence to the CJEU to decide on patent law. The patent industry also wanted their own court, and a monopoly on the interpretation of patent law. Experts are also divided on the question of whether the CJEU will be able to rule on patentable subject matter, as the UPCA has been designed to avoid the CJEU judges.

2. The UK is still listed as a “negotiating state” of the Agreement according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)

The United Kingdom is still listed as a country part of the Agreement, and the Ministry of Justice has resorted to very creative legal tricks in order to get the Treaty “into force”.

In June, the Ministry of Justice was saying the ratification by the UK was a requirement to get the Treaty into force:

“The fact that Great Britain broke the Convention as a result of Brexit does not prevent its implementation: the Regulations for entry into force of the Convention and its rules should ensure that all three are involved in the contract States, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Great Britain, already participate in the judicial system at the start of the Unified Patent Court. […]

Regardless of the fact that UK approval currently exists a departure from Great Britain has no influence on the applicability of the entry into force regulations in any case because these are to be interpreted in such a way that if one of these three states can not be foreseen by anyone, the entire entry into force for the does not hinder remaining participants.

On the 21st of July, the UK has de-ratified the UPCA on the 21st of July, by sending a Note Verbale to the Council of the European Union.

The UK is still a “Negotiating State” in the sense of Article 2(e) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The UK has not given its agreement for the international treaties whose texts it took part in drawing up and adopting (the UPCA and the two associated protocols) to enter into force. Thus, in addition to entry into force now being contrary to a literal reading of the relevant provisions of the Agreement and Protocols, there would appear to be no basis for entry into force under Article 24 VCLT.

As the UK is still listed as one of the countries in the UPCA Treaty as a seat of the Court for Pharmaceuticals, the Bundesrat MUST send back the UPCA to the European Commission for renegotiation. Germany cannot re-interpret the UPCA in order to unilaterally temporary redirect the workload of the London court to Paris and Munich.

3. Lack of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Art6 “a Tribunal established by law”

3a. Rules of Procedure not made by legislators

Despite the Brexit problem, the German Ministry of Justice should have presented to you, together with the bill, an analysis of the UPCA’s compliance with the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights). The UPCA is not compliant with the ECHR, as its rules of procedure are mabe by an obscure Administrative Committee, and this is in violation with Art6 ECHR, “a tribunal established by law“, where the ECHR’s jurisprudence requires that Parliament(s) [you] should have been involved in the drafting and ratification of those rules of procedure of the court.

Any democrat will understand that this jurisprudence is in place in order to avoid the creation of rogue tribunals, put in place by the executive power. This lack of compliance has been raised in the first constitutional complaint and mentioned in the 20th March 2020 decision of the Constitutional Court, but the Court did not rule on this point.

In Coëme Vs Belgium (22 juin 2000), the court said:

According to the case-law, the object of the term “established by law” in Article 6 of the Convention is to ensure “that the judicial organisation in a democratic society [does] not depend on the discretion of the Executive, but that it [is] regulated by law emanating from Parliament” (see Zand v. Austria, application no. 7360/76, Commission’s report of 12 October 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 15, pp. 70 and 80). Nor, in countries where the law is codified, can organisation of the judicial system be left to the discretion of the judicial authorities, although this does not mean that the courts do not have some latitude to interpret the relevant national legislation.

ECHR, Coëme e.a./Belgique, 22 juin 2000, Req. n ° 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 et 33210/96, §98

You can also find similar jurisprudence in other decisions:

ECHR, Pandjikidzé e.a./Géorgie, 27 oct 2009, Req. n° 30323/02 , §§ 104 et 105

ECHR, Savino e.a./Italie, 28 apr 2009, Req. n° 17214/05, 20329/05, 42113/04, §94

ECHR, Previti/Italie, 8 déc 2009, Req. n° 45291/06, §213

ECHR, Laventis/Lettonie, 28 nov 2002, Req. n° 58442/00, §114

ECHR, Zeynalov/Azerbaïdjan, 30 may 2013, Req. n° 31848/07, §30

ECHR, Momčilović/Serbie, 2 ape 2013, Req. n° 23103/07, §29

ECHR, Oleksandr Volkov/Ukraine, 9 jan 2013, Req. n° 21722/11, §151.

ECHR jurisprudence on Art6 “A tribunal established by law”

3b. Litigation will be more expensive for a single case

After the UPCA has been negotiated in 2012, this obscure Administrative Committee took the freedom to decide on the court fees. Those court fees are important for the “access to justice” and a very sensitive topic for SMEs. Those court fees will result in a 3x increase in the costs of litigation, for a simple case, and compared to the actual situation in Germany. This Administrative Committee took the freedom to decide on expensive court fees that will bare access to the Court, advised by an “expert committee” where no SME was represented, but where multinationals were (Nokia and BASF). We believe this is also in violation of the ECHR art6 “a tribunal established by law”, as this Administrative Committee does not have the power to legislate. It should have been your role as a legislator to decide what those amounts should have been.

4. UPCA is violating the “rule of law” (TFEU Art2), the EPO cannot be brought to court for maladministration

The UPCA is also violating the “rule of law” principle, enshrined in the German Constitution, and in the Article 2 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The European Patent Office (EPO) cannot be brought to Court for maladministration, and there are currently 4 pending cases in front of the German Constitutional Court for violation of such principle. The Court is expected to publish a decision on those complaints before the end of this year, which might have some profound impact on the architecture of the patent system in Europe. The German Ministry of Justice does not seem to want to wait for this important decision.

If those points are not seriously addressed, we will consider asking the Court to look again at the issue by filling a second Constitutional Complaint.

Best regards,

HENRION Benjamin

President of FFII eV

[Meme] António Campinos Fools Nobody at the EPO Anymore

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Back in June: António Campinos is Just an Empty Suit: 2 Years in the Office and Only 3% Approval Rate (Worse Than Battistelli)

 I don't need a mask because it slipped off already

Summary: António Campinos, President of the EPO, is failing to hide who or what he really is; he’s not even trying anymore

EPO Gradually Becomes a Set of Private Corporations (Some Aren’t Even European and Work Against Europeans)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Europe’s grand heist

Free building

Summary: The sale of the EPO, piece-wise so to speak, is accelerating under the leadership of the new President, who also helps cover up serious financial misconduct by Benoît Battistelli, who arranged this job for him

THE latest disclosure from SUEPO reveals that the EPO may be “dismantled” in a sense. It is already being outsourced to a bunch of private (for-profit and sometimes foreign, with a long criminal record and human rights violations [1, 2]) companies, especially under António Campinos (who did the same at EUIPO), including companies that come from the Third Reich. We’ve actually lost count of those companies. Every other month or so the EPO outsources another function to another external company and there are already plans to lay off many members of staff at the EPO. Even justice itself is being outsourced; truly chilling!

“Not a single word is said about the illegality of this move. As if violating the EPC is nowadays just “normal”…”This new article by J A Kemp LLP celebrates illegal practices by EPO, as announced some days ago. “By contrast, Zoom does allow for simultaneous interpretation to be provided on distinct audio channels,” Mondaq states (probably reprinting this for a fee). While it may seem like a step in the right direction (not Microsoft exclusivity), it is still illegal, it’s still proprietary software, it is still surveillance (eavesdropping and back doors) and it is controlled by a foreign country/continent. Those are companies with European Patents and as Jaron Lanier once put it: “We cannot have a society in which, if two people wish to communicate, the only way that can happen is if it’s financed by a third person who wishes to manipulate them.”

From J A Kemp LLP’s article in Mondaq:

The EPO announced today that it will be testing Zoom as a platform for “oral proceedings involving multiple opponents and/or requiring simultaneous interpretation”. Up until now, the EPO has been using Skype as the platform for video conference oral proceedings. However, a limitation of Skype is that it does not allow for multiple distinct audio channels, which would be necessary for cases where simultaneous interpretation is required. By contrast, Zoom does allow for simultaneous interpretation to be provided on distinct audio channels.

While it remains the case that EPO opposition oral proceedings can only proceed by video conference with the consent of all parties, the introduction of Zoom as a platform means that nearly all oppositions are now eligible for video conference oral proceedings.

Not a single word is said about the illegality of this move. As if violating the EPC is nowadays just “normal”…

09.16.20

António Campinos is Believed to be “Dismantling” the EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:05 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Exploiting COVID-19 to shut down a lot of things

A building

Summary: It looks like the EPO is gradually abolishing much of itself; staff is understandably stressed about the matter

THE FOLLOWING document was circulated among EPO staff earlier today. It’s about António Campinos making secret plans, as he so often does. Staff plays no role in the decisions.

“We invite thoughts and input from readers.”“Campinos is pushing towards the destruction of the EPO,” one reader told us. “May be to replace it with a new normal UPC?”

“I am scared of what thus mafia is preparing for the employees and users of the EPO.” (Yes, many refer to them as “mafia”)

Some buildingsHere is what SUEPO (the union) wrote to staff this morning: “Mr Campinos has mandated the company Willis Towers Watson to perform an extensive survey among EPO staff focused this time on “Shaping the New Normal”. The staff representation was excluded from the preparation of the survey. This raises the suspicion that the survey may have hidden intents. Whoever drafts the questions alone, already knows the answers he wants to get. We can only warn staff to be very wary of the questions in this survey and to pay attention to their double meaning in view of a decentralisation exercise.

“In this paper you will find a “translation” of the announcement of Mr Campinos, “Shaping our future”.”

The above (first) paragraph is from the accompanying publication.

We’ve warped the publication into HTML as follows (with no added comment or emphasis, which we may add separately, in later and standalone posts):

16.09.2020
su20010mp – 0.2.1/1.1/5.3

New Normal Survey
“Shaping your future” translated

Mr Campinos has mandated the company Willis Tower Watson to perform an extensive survey among EPO staff focused this time on “Shaping the New Normal”. The staff representation was excluded from the preparation of the survey. This raises the suspicion that the survey may have hidden intents. Whoever drafts the questions alone, already knows the answers he wants to get. We can only warn staff to be very wary of the questions in this survey and to pay attention to their double meaning in view of a decentralisation exercise.

Here is a “translation” of the announcement of Mr Campinos:

What Mr Campinos says What Mr Campinos means
Shaping our future Pushing a political agenda
With many of us having returned to the Office recently, I want to wish you all a very warm welcome back after our summer break. The canteen providers are leaving, sport facilities are closed and Amicale events are still forbidden. The EPO house rules are stricter than Bavarian regulations. It has become unattractive to come back to the Office premises.
So far we have proved extremely capable of adapting to those changes and continuing to deliver excellent results. Our staff have remained safe and business has continued, despite some the difficulties caused by homeworking. Thanks for giving great production figures during a pandemic at the expense of your health and family life. In return, the new salary method will cut your purchasing power and the childcare allowance will be abolished.
This is a time, in the EPO’s story of dealing with coronavirus, when we are beginning to develop measures that will ensure our long-term role as one of the foremost IP offices operating in a changed world. For that, we need your help. In the last survey, you asked for a deterministic and a fairer career system fostering quality. Actually, your answers are just needed to pretend that you support the political agenda of the administration.
In the last few months a task force has been reflecting on what a New Normal might look like for the EPO and how it affects our ways of working for the year 2021 and beyond. Management has been devising its plans behind closed doors and rejected the requests for participation of staff representatives. The draft is ready since July. Formal consultation of staff is the last checkbox to be ticked.
It will tackle subjects that affect you directly, as EPO staff members, such as future teleworking (different schemes, locations and durations and the relationship between long-term teleworking and expatriation benefits, and the impact of extended teleworking and flexibility on performing your day-to-day tasks), options to work at different EPO sites and the future use of buildings and Office premises.
The agenda is to cut costs in an organisation which makes 400 M€ benefits per year. Management has made you feel comfortable teleworking in another country. What was free for you in the last months, will now come at a price on your benefits. The generalisation of shared offices and the selling of buildings are part of the plan. Even the closure of an entire place of employment like Vienna and Berlin is now possible. With staff working from home there is no reason why they cannot be “transferred” (at least on paper) to Munich or The Hague without management being accused of forcing relocation.
It’s a tool to help us figure out how we can maintain the collaborative spirit we have nurtured over the last couple of years, particularly while on our journey to achieving the vision we put down in the Strategic Plan and in facing coronavirus so far. Your input will help us to understand how we can continue that journey as a true community of EPO professionals, regardless of where exactly or how we are working. The collaborative spirit is the one management has developed with the member states by providing them with our IT tools for free. The future is the European Patent Network and decentralisation. Uber and Deliveroo also have a “true community of professionals”. You too can become part of such a “collaborative” community. In the long term, your National Intellectual Property Office will be your “hotspot” with the appropriate employment package of your country.

Our future is determined by the choices we make, don’t make, or leave for others to make for us. Choose wisely. Don’t give Mr Campinos a blank check to dismantle our organisation.

SUEPO Munich

Personal interpretations of the above are set aside for another article and likely another day. We invite thoughts and input from readers. We just strive to inform in a time of deception.

Programmers’ Day Should be Reason to Abolish Software Patents, Not Celebrate These

Posted in Deception, Patents at 5:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“On “Programmer’s [sic] day”,” Benjamin Henrion told us yesterday, this account “tweets about the first software patent…”

A happy spin

Summary: Even in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 era, which was well overdue, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) romanticists have decided to offend programmers; “this one is really insulting,” Henrion (FFII) responded. “Not sure programmers can celebrate. Software patents are an insult to our profession…”

« 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