09.24.16

Patent Quality and Patent Scope the Unspeakable Taboo at the EPO, as Both Are Guillotined by Benoît Battistelli for the Sake of Money

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The Battistelli ‘revolution’ is just a gory mess

Reference: Joseph-Ignace Guillotin

Summary: The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world’s best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli

THE extremely unpopular Battistelli regime at the EPO has turned the entire institution (or Organisation, not just the Office) into a laughing stock. We used to think it paled in comparison to the USPTO (about a couple of years ago), but after publishing more than a thousand articles about the EPO it seems evident that the EPO sets the standards for abuse at international bodies (worse by far than WIPO and broader in terms of scale). Right now there are attempts to blame low-level staff for this.

Due to Team Battistelli, the Office is rapidly losing public support. It took more than 40 years to gain credibility and Battistelli ruins it all in just a few years if not as little as months. He even harms the very function of the Office by killing patent scope and patent quality. Dr. Glyn Moody retweeted Stephen Curry regarding an article we mentioned the other day in relation to the EPO; the situation with regard to patent scope has gotten him upset enough to say “this is yet another reason why we need to abolish patents…” (we presume he meant as a whole because these patents serve to discredit the system’s goals).

Yesterday the EPO was trying to associate itself with aerospace, even though the EPO is run by a right-wing politician who knows zilch about science and detests people who are scientists. He treats the Office like a crude production line and it shows. At the same time the EPO is inherently rotten from the top down (the rot comes/starts from the head) and it is all crooked when it comes to bidding and tenders. Watch the latest nonsense from the EPO. They try to give an impression of transparency and accountability when in fact, as one comment put it today (emphasis is ours):

US becoming an EPO memberstate says…

BB [Battistelli] appoints A. Keyak [sic] a US national based in Washington as a “EPO Delegate to the United States” furthermore he gets carte blanche to establish a network within the Office to support him in his future role.

It is clear that DG5 again has not read the EPO Serv. Regs, as to who can be appointed by the EPO and at what distance he has to reside from the EPO buildings,… home working on a permanent basis from Washington and not being a national of one of the EPO Member states is clearly something for the IU or are some Chinese, Japanese delegates to come as well? … furthermore should the AC not be informed about BB’s industry lobbyist activities behind the scenes for attracting foreign investments to France.

Keyack’s bizarre role was last mentioned yesterday and we wrote a lot more about him before [1, 2]. How on Earth does Battistelli keep his job in the face of all those scandals? The answer is, total lack of accountability; what used to exist of it (or left of it) has been deliberately shut down by Battistelli, with a supine, cowardly Administrative Council consenting to it.

Judging by the latest propaganda from the EPO, it’s all business as usual. Watch the latest publicity stunt which they promoted in Twitter, their Web site (warning: may be trackable) and even the European authorities’ platform. To quote the last of these (pertaining to patent scope or patents on seeds and plants):

The Community Plant Variety Office was pleased to host a workshop with many officials of the European Patent Office (EPO) in Angers on 21 and 22 September.

[...]

Martin Ekvad, President of the CPVO and Heli Pihlajamaa, Director Patent Law at the EPO, welcomed the fruitful and very useful workshop for both organisations and look forward to further cooperation.

The organisation and participation of the two organisations in conferences, courses, workshops and other meetings of mutual interest with the aim of maintaining high quality decisions in both institutions will complement this cooperation.

So the EPO is lobbying in Parliament and the Commission (recall what happened and who attended Battistelli’s hugely expensive lobbying event) while at the same time claiming immunity from both and denying the rules as they were put together in the EPC (e.g. exclusion of software patents^*).

Here is Barker Brettell LLP speaking about how the EPO is entering a phase of turbulence by basically making a mockery out of the patent examination process, rushing it all as if speed can be attained without compromising quality. To quote this new article: “The European Patent Office (EPO) brought in new guidelines on 1st July 2016 which aim to simplify [sic] the opposition procedure and deliver decisions faster. Here we report on the impact of the new guidelines. Full details of the changes and a useful animation can be obtained via the EPO website.

“The opposition procedure provides third parties with the opportunity [sic] to challenge the validity of European patents centrally, by filing an opposition within nine months of grant. After the opposition deadline has passed a third party must undertake separate national invalidity proceedings, which can be more costly, complex and time consuming. As such, the opposition procedure is popular and approximately four per cent of all granted patents are opposed. According to the EPO annual report (2015) 31 per cent of opposed patents were revoked, 38 per cent were maintained in amended form and 31 per cent survived unamended.”

Given the systematic marginalisation of the appeals process by Battistelli, this has got to be some kind of a joke. It’s clear that Battistelli just wants to rubberstamp everything very quickly, leaving little or no opportunity for in-depth reassessment. It’s truly a recipe for disaster and possibly the end of the EPO as we know it. Some time soon we shall provide more details from the inside, shedding more light on how terrible things have gotten. █
____
^* CEN and CENELEC would like to help poison Europe with FRAND, based on this recent publication. They want to advance patents you cannot work around and must pay for, even when they’re likely invalid in Europe.

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Bristows LLP’s Hatred/Disdain of UK/EU Democracy Demonstrated; Says “Not Only Will the Pressure for UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement Continue, But a Decision is Wanted Within Weeks.”

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Team UPC has no sense of shame or humility because it wants more money and power

Summary: Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives

THEY JUST NEVER give up, do they? Perseverance is therefore required from both sides.

Team UPC, a small group of self-serving patent law firms, is trying to steal democracy and hijack the law in a truly undemocratic if not antidemocratic move. They brainwash public officials, throw incentives at them, and then pressure Battistelli's British photo op mate, Lucy.

“Team UPC, a small group of self-serving patent law firms, is trying to steal democracy and hijack the law in a truly undemocratic if not antidemocratic move.”IP Kat (whose staff/writers include Bristows LLP staff who exploited the platform for UPC lobbying for a number of years now) published this piece in the afternoon. It must be like the hundredth so-called ‘analysis’ of Brexit and the UPC (we put analysis in scare quotes because these are typically composed by Team UPC or think tanks/pressure/interest groups like CIPA).

As we have demonstrated here many times in the past, the UPC is extremely undesirable to the vast majority of European businesses and after a Brexit referendum it is dead and buried, no doubt about it at all. Unless… Team UPC can pull some dirty tricks that they have up their sleeves, hence our eternal vigilance.

“So,” says IP Kat, “while it may be legally possible for the UK to overcome the requirements of Opinion 1/09 by a new agreement, it could still be very politically sticky to sell a treaty which proposes the ongoing supremacy of EU law over the UK – even within the relatively limited context of patent disputes before the UPC.”

“They brainwash public officials, throw incentives at them, and then pressure Battistelli’s British photo op mate, Lucy.”In other words, any attempt to ratify the UPC right now would be extremely antidemocratic and flirting with “corrupt”.

Meanwhile, as pointed out to us by one reader, one of the latest so-called ‘analyses’ of the UPC and Brexit came from Edward Nodder from Bristows LLP (attempting to rebrand as “Bristows UPC” in order to capitalise on change/transitions induced by their own lobbying). The wording is extremely revealing and it piggybacks Battistelli cronies like Margot Fröhlinger [1, 2, 3, 4]. The villainous Bristows (Team UPC) dare say “that not only will the pressure for UK ratification of the UPC Agreement continue, but [...] a decision is wanted within weeks.”

So they play dirty. Bristows has, all along, been a major contributor to this dirty play.

“Nodder did not dare point out that not a single person at AIPPI (which he wrote about) believed the UPC would happen (based on a quick straw poll at the event).”To quote further: “Despite universal agreement that the UPC would be better with UK participation, there is an unwillingness, in some quarters at least, to wait for the UK. Dr Froehlinger said that under the EU principles of sincere cooperation, the UK should either ratify or withdraw from the UPC Agreement. She said that under streamlined procedures other countries could make modest amendments to the existing Agreement and re-ratify quickly – within months – and hence go ahead without the UK. Thierry Sueur believed the unitary patent and UPC system to be important for innovation and growth in Europe. In such a new regime London would lose the pharmaceutical branch of the UPC’s central division, but Dr Froehlinger would not be drawn upon whether the political negotiations on the fate of this branch (which city or cities would host it) would involve only France and Germany, or other countries, nor would she speculate on how long such negotiations might take.”

Nodder did not dare point out that not a single person at AIPPI (which he wrote about) believed the UPC would happen (based on a quick straw poll at the event). Bristows are enemies of European interests and they will definitely continue to fight for the UPC. It’s their project (along with few other law firms and EPO facilitators). It’s our project to ensure they do not succeed as it would undermine Europe for very few people’s enrichment and power hoard. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Released Late on a Friday, EPO Social ‘Study’ (Battistelli-Commissioned Propaganda) Attempts to Blame Staff for Everything

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

On the same night as this, maybe for similar reasons:

FBI dumps 189 pages of heavily redacted Clinton witness interviews under the cover of Friday evening #FBIFriday https://t.co/w4zA0IKBl5

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) September 24, 2016

Summary: The longstanding propaganda campaign (framing staff as happy or framing unhappy staff as a disgruntled minority) is out and the timing of the release is suspicious to say the least

THE ABOVE SCREENSHOTS, taken from the first phase of a propaganda campaign (to culminate with a so-called 'conference' intended to influence the Administrative Council), would not be exactly shocking to EPO staff. It’s part of an effort by Battistelli to dismiss and discredit any claims that he abuses staff, strategically at a point when the Administrative Council brings up the subject. It is an infamous politician’s trick (see what the US government did on the very same day as the debut of the film “Snowden” and simultaneous calls for Presidential pardon).

“The quick summary: Blame the staff for all the problems.”Lots of EPO coverage is planned for this weekend and we decided to begin by getting this propaganda out of the way. It wasn’t — as far as we are aware — expected to come out last night, which makes one wonder. If this propaganda about the social climate was released prematurely late on a Friday, then maybe they try to bury or distract from something. Are they trying to suppress discussion about it? Has Team Battistelli lost its mind again? Why did the social study appear on the intranet at such strategic timing (when few would even notice the release)? Why has nobody covered it yet? Journalists are obviously away for the weekend (see what the FBI has just done, as Wikileaks pointed out 19 hours ago). It’s a big document, no doubt, and staff might be taking it home for the weekend. The Financial Study and Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment have appeared also.

The quick summary: Blame the staff for all the problems. Expect us to say more about it in the near future. The above is just somewhat of a preview. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend