THE affairs of the EPO have spun out of control again, but the media isn't talking about that. The media budget (bribery and lawyers) increased, Benoît Battistelli's crimes are still being covered up, and the law at the EPO is still routinely violated. The Office keeps finding innovative and novel ways to break the law and then justify that.

"We suspect we know what publications will say what, as there are already subtle clues about the nature of the spin/deflection. It's partly orchestrated by media operatives employed by the EPO."7+ years ago the Boards of Appeal were still capable of scrutinising the Office. That's not the case anymore and it shows [1, 2].

Curiously enough, corporate media isn't interested in writing about this. It's a deliberate editorial decision. It's not like these people aren't aware, they just keep making excuses when asked about it.

Where does one turn to then? Where is the suppressed information? Well, for starters, blog comments can sometimes shed light on the situation. As noted in the video above, this morning there were a couple of new comments in IP Kat. "Not only has the opponent not (explicitly) consented to the use of VICO for oral proceedings before the EBA, but they have requested postponement of the proceedings scheduled for 28 May AND raised further objections to the composition of the EBA," one person wrote. "It shouldn't have taken all that fuss for them to realise the non-impartiality situation," another person wrote

Notice how so-called 'IP' media isn't covering this at all, instead participating in EPO propaganda. They actively lie on behalf of the EPO.

In a thread initiated by Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle) we now see 10 comments. As one commenter put it: "I found no mention of this principle anywhere in the wording of G1/21 of 17 May 2021. Might that be because it is too delicate to go anywhere near? Is “partiality” a convenient carpet under which to sweep the elephant currently stomping around the room?"

Another comment said: "It would be nice to know how the individual members of the EBA in charge of this referral have been selected. One should assume that in the recent weeks and months the point at issue has been amply discussed internally of the Boards of Appeal, so that most members personal opinion might have been well known. Is there any mechanism in place to avoid any purposive selection of the members appointed in a case and if so, is it possible for outsiders to check whether it has been properly applied here?"

Notice the reply: "Hand selected by the VP3/PresofBoA." Comment by "Straightforward decisions."

Another tidbit: "To claim that the two members of the Presidium, Mrs R and Mr E, were only consulted and therefore cannot be suspected of bias is a mockery."

As of yesterday, no further comments are permitted in this thread, but there's lot of good stuff in this thread and we're certain Team Campinos monitors this 'dissent' closely. After all, stacked courts are also used to authorise all sorts of other controversial decisions, sometimes regarding European software patents.

We're still monitoring the media closely (over RSS feeds for the most part), as we truly expect the propaganda machine to go up a gear ahead of Friday. We suspect we know what publications will say what, as there are already subtle clues about the nature of the spin/deflection. It's partly orchestrated by media operatives employed by the EPO. ⬆