LAST week we wrote many articles about the EPO because it was a rather jaw-dropping week which further defended allegations that the Administrative Council is in the pocket of Battistelli rather than its overseer.
News from the 148th Meeting of the Administrative Council
The decision-making process in the Council has reached a new, absurd, depth.
CA/15/16 (self-insurance for health-care costs) was accepted without discussion.
CA/52/16 (standards of conduct and investigations) and CA/53/16 (review of the disciplinary procedures) were removed from the agenda and postponed to the next meeting without any comments or discussion.
The Council then focused on CA/43/16 (reform of the Boards of Appeal) and CA/29/16 (post-service employment restrictions). On the first day a lengthy discussion took place, with interventions of twenty delegations mostly opposing the proposals and the fact that they were presented as a package. At the end of the day, the Chairman suggested that the Board 28 should prepare, together with the President and its team, a new version of both documents for the next day. New versions, CA/43/16 Rev.1 and CA/29/16 Add.1 Rev.1, were indeed adopted as a package almost without any discussion, with 35 votes in favour, only one vote against (NL) and two abstentions (HR, IT). We are speechless about the delegations’ complete change of mind overnight, their cavalier attitude towards law making (overnight haste work) and their contempt for consultative processes.
It is not clear to what extent the resolution adopted in the March Council and the recent Enlarged Board of Appeal decision were discussed in the confidential session. It appears that the Council delegates chose to ignore Mr Battistelli’s total disregard for their resolution, as well as his interference in the procedure before the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
SUEPO Central
I said the amendments don't do everything you might want, but they do address some of the concerns. They pick up some of CIPA's suggestions, but not all of them. So they're an improvement, but not perfect.
I took one of your concerns as an example: that the Rules of Procedure would be drafted by the BOAC. If that was ever proposed, then it is several months out of date.
Recall that last November BB [Battistelli] said that the Office (i.e. BB) would propose the RoP. Everyone said that was unacceptable. The AC told him to think again.
In February this year, BB made revised proposals. I don't know exactly what they said about the RoP, but there was a big falling out between BB and the AC. The AC decided that Board B28 would tell BB what to say about the reform of the Boards of Appeal.
At the start of the latest AC meeting, therefore, CA/43/16 said that the new President of the Boards of Appeal would propose the RoP to the BOAC, and that he would be advised in this by the Presidium. Thus, the RoP would not be drafted by the BOAC, but within the Boards of Appeal, as at present.
CIPA requested that users should be consulted as well, preferably by having observer status on the BOAC. The amendment CA/43/16 Rev.1 made during the AC meeting doesn't go that far, but it does say that the BOAC should consult users, particularly about the RoP.