07.09.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Continuing a tradition of secrecy and dodgy negotiations among prospective beneficiaries, the UPC gets debated in Munich by Battistelli and Team UPC (mostly patent law firms), yielding nothing but lies and no meaningful press coverage
LAST month and earlier this month we published about half a dozen articles about the collapse of the UPC post-Brexit (see the EPO Wiki for details). It is a real problem for the UPC and this problem has become increasingly accepted even among law firms. For instance, citing Henschel’s article which we mentioned the other day, Benjamin Henrion says [1, 2] that “EU Patent Law will be Germanized without the UK “UPC judge were being accepted till 4 July, but UK judge applicants may now be excluded”” (Team UPC advertised jobs that did not exist and will probably never exist, which says a lot about Team UPC and its utter lack of ethics).
Henrion noted that “the UPC has too many problems.” Other than the problem that the UPC is an attack on democracy itself, there are technical problems with implementation now, especially due to Brexit. This was foreseen by many UPC critics other than Henrion and even the EPO admitted this last month. “Brexit Threatens Legal Uncertainty, Higher Costs For Trademarks, Lawyers Say,” according to IP Watch, but asking lawyers about costs is like asking weapons manufacturers about war and peace (this article is behind a paywall by the way). There are a couple of new articles about the EPO right now, but both are in German [1, 2] (translations would be desirable) and the latter is about Brexit. In many ways the UPC is dead, but Battistelli will try to save this ‘baby’ of his. The latest lies from the EPO (warning: epo.org link, linked to from the EPO’s Twitter account) say that there is “strong support for Unitary Patent package,” but as Henrion correctly told them, “when you ask the patent community, that’s like preaching your own church!” (they have only asked Team UPC behind closed doors)
“Other than the problem that the UPC is an attack on democracy itself, there are technical problems with implementation now, especially due to Brexit.”The UPC certainly enjoys support from the self-serving collusion that created it in the first place or at least came up with the plan. Why is it that epo.org basically became a Battistelli propaganda site rather than something scientific? What will companies think? Small companies all across Europe do not like the UPC. Does the EPO care about them at all? Based on this article from Team UPC, Margot Fröhlinger said that none of the available users and companies expressed reticence to continue with unitary patent package. “Whatever they decide,” to quote directly, “the UPC will go ahead. The baseline of this conference could easily have been: where there is will, there is a way.”
But whose will? Team UPC is a bunch of predators, they don’t represent the interests of Europe. Max Brunner (Ministry of Justice – France) is quoted as saying: “The project is good for business. Therefore we have to carry on.”
But the “UPC is harmful,” noted Henrion. SMEs in Europe speak out against it, having caught up with the facts. Team UPC is basically, yet again, misrepresenting Europe and European businesses. Glyn Moody said that the UPC “good for business means bad for the public here: more monopolies, more price-gouging” (at Europeans’ expense).
Moreno, another UPC critic, quoted Kluwer Patent Blog (part of or a wing of Team UPC) as saying “The UK now has to take certain political decisions. Whatever they decide, the UPC will go ahead” (sounds rather vain and assertive).
Watch who promoted this “Munich Conference” and the Kluwer Patent Blog post. And over at Patent WatchTroll’s blog there’s a Bird & Bird column about “Brexit Implications” (Kluwer Patent Blog is connected to Bird & Bird, which is a core part of Team UPC). Proponents of software patents in Europe like Bastian Best go further by promoting this London seminar and saying: “This could be an interesting seminar “Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe & USA”” (in other word, promotion of software patents in spite of the EPC).
“In the case of UPC, as one might expect, it’s a bunch of patent law firms that write ‘the laws’ behind closed doors (no transcripts published) and then ask politicians to ratify or rubberstamp these.”Perhaps the interesting thing will be the composition of attendants at this London seminar. Judging by this tweet posted several days ago (“Post #Brexit #UPC conference at #EPO in #Munich tomorrow http://bit.ly/29y0AAT @EIPLegal’s Rob Lundie Smith attending – look for updates”), Battistelli too was there (“#UP #UPC conference update – #Battistelli provides personal view of #brexit on #UPC – either UK ratifies or UPC delay until UK leaves EU”). Well, Battistelli will have left by then (it can take 2.5 years) and the EPO is currently in a state of crisis (of Battistelli’s own making). The UPC as it was envisioned is dead/dying, but UPC fantasies persist and its creators carry on as if nothing happened (“#UP #UPC Conference: Dr Carsten Zulch: technically qualified judges means bifurcation under UPC only sensible in limited circumstances…”)
“EU laws [are] written by large corps,” Henrion noted, “wonder why people vote for Brexit. Especially when spectrum could be freed instead.”
“When there are no written transcripts of what Member of European Parliament says in committee,” he added, “don’t be surprised people vote for #brexit [...] 15 years ago I requested written transcripts of the discussions in committees of the European Parliament, we are still nowhere” (source)
In the case of UPC, as one might expect, it’s a bunch of patent law firms that write ‘the laws’ behind closed doors (no transcripts published) and then ask politicians to ratify or rubberstamp these. Remember that the Chair UPC select committee is part of the collusion to override law in Europe and this tweet from the conference said “#UP #UPC Conference: Chair UPC select committee – UK could still ratify and post Brexit politicians may or may not find way to keep UK in…” (all speculative).
“Given length of time Brexit could take, this seems an increasingly plausible scenario,” MIP wrote about it.
“We saw the same lack of coverage surrounding the TTIP and TPP in past years; this relied on secrecy and at times on collusion.”“No UPC critics are speaking there,” Henrion noted, linking to this page. This conspiracy of self-enrichment by patent lawyers and their big clients requires that public stay sout, unaware and totally uninvolved. These people are just trying to ram UPC down our politicians’ throats and the more the public knows about it, the worse it will get for Team UPC. “UK preparations for #UPC ratification are finished,” wrote Patently German. “Ratification, however, will be decision of the new PM expected to take office in Sept” (they have much more pressing issues to deal with other than UPC).
As usual, all these secretive meetings were not covered by the media. There was a bunch of lies about it in the EPO’s site and Team UPC blogs. Battistelli, at the expense of the EPO, is buying 'articles' in European 'media', sometimes ‘articles’ or puff pieces in favour of the UPC (some of his ‘media partners’ did this last year and this year). What a disgrace this is. We saw the same lack of coverage surrounding the TTIP and TPP in past years; this relied on secrecy and at times on collusion. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.07.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Human rights abuses rely on complicit or apathetic media to carry on; independent inquiry well overdue
Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s EPO continues to manipulate the media and waste millions of Euros (EPO budget) on Battistelli’s reputation laundering while his sheer abuses carry on uncovered (or barely covered)
THE past week has been relatively quiet not just because of US holidays but also because of the summer vacation. Having said that, there are new articles about the EPO in the German media and Battistelli’s expensive lobbying event helped interject him into news (“said EPO president Benoît Battistelli.”)
“The FTI Consulting contracts with the EPO sure give reasons for concern.”Want to help the EPO waste another 3,000,000-7,000,000 Euros on a similar lobbying event next year? The EPO asks: “Want to nominate an inventor for the European Inventor Award 2017? Find out here what patents they hold” (just forget about those who killed people and were honoured by the EPO). The FTI Consulting contracts with the EPO sure give reasons for concern. It is money down the drain and it enables Battistelli to get away with human rights abuses, so EPO budget is being used for Battistelli’s private vendetta (like smearing judges) rather than EPO interests. “The Tour de France is now under way,” the EPO wrote yesterday, “You may not know these bike-related patent facts” (another example of the EPO piggybacking events like the Tour de France for PR, and speaking of bikes, recall the recent Battistelli scandal). With puff pieces like these, no wonder many continue to ignore the EPO’s abuses and Team Battistelli disgracing France. Yesterday for example, MIP’s James Nurton, who spoke to Battistelli earlier this year, repeated the EPO’s lies which warp the reality of lost independence and make it seem like gain of independence. They try to make it seem like all problems are resolved when in fact the very opposite is true. To quote this one new comment about it:
Very disappointing that all the disciplinary issues have been swept under the carpet until October. But is that a cleverer move than it first appears? I recall a rumour that the judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court in the SUEPO/EPO case is due in September. If that is true, and if the judgment goes against the EPO, it should make for a very uncomfortable October AC meeting for Battistelli.
“I agree,” wrote another person. “Having the banned judge just wait for another four months in uncertainty is just irresponsible. And congratulations for the three oxymora in a single contribution: a clever move of the AC, a court judgement against the EPO, an uncomfortable AC meeting for Battistelli.”
Battistelli “gives the Staff Council less than 24 hours to review documents,” according to this person, so “presumably the BOAC can treat the President in the same way, meeting the letter of the law but giving him no real opportunity to interfere.”
The longest comment which we found yesterday spoke about Rule 12c:
The new Rule 12c says “On a proposal from the President of the Boards of Appeal and after the President of the European Patent Office has been given the opportunity to comment, the Committee set up under paragraph 1 (BOAC) shall adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. “
To understand the significance of the changes you need to go to Article 23 (4)EPC:
(4)The Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal shall be adopted in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. They shall be subject to the approval of the Administrative Council.
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar23.html
The relevant Implementing Regulations are Rules 12 and 13 EPC.
According to Rule 12 EPC, the Presidium shall adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal.
According to Rule 13 EPC, the members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal appointed under Article 11, paragraph 3, shall adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
In both cases, the rules of procedure “are subject to the approval of the Administrative Council” but they are adopted by “autonomous organs” of the Board of Appeal.
Under the new regulations, the rules of procedure are no longer adopted by “autonomous organs” of the Board of Appeal.
They are adopted by a subcommittee of the Administrative Council (the BOAC).
The organs of the Boards of Appeal have some input to this process but they are no longer responsible for adopting their own rules of procedure.
According to my analysis of the situation that amounts to a loss of autonomy.
I do not see how it enhances the independence of the Boards.
Another commenter jokes by pretending to be “JK and BB” (Battistelli and Kongstad) and says “that´s an unfortunate slip of the pen, due to the late hour. We of course meant: “On a proposal from the President of the Boards of Appeal … the Committee … (BOAC) shall adApt [not adopt] the Rules of Procedure …””
Battistelli, who keeps breaking his very own rules, is changing them to suit his personal agenda. Why isn’t the media covering these serious scandals? The Register is the only English-speaking publication doing so nowadays, risking the wrath of legal bullying by Battistelli and his flunkies. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.06.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Even illegal surveillance inside the EPO is passively accepted by the ‘Administrative’ Council of the European Patent Organisation (EPO)
Reference: FISA Court Appears To Be Rubber Stamp For Government Requests (NPR, 2013)
Summary: The growing realisation that the so-called ‘Administrative’ Council is little more than rubberstampers of Benoît Battistelli, who controls their national budget
LATER this year we will have written over a thousand articles about the EPO. Not much has changed as not only Benoît Battistelli remains in power but also Željko Topić keeps his job (possibly to have the term extended, unless the ‘Administrative’ Council finally learns to say “no”).
The upside is that a greater proportion of EPO workers now knows the truth about the employer. The same goes for stakeholders like patent attorneys and European companies. “At the end,” one person wrote yesterday, “whatever Battistelli proposes will be approved – with cosmetic amendments to save the face of everybody in the AC.” (‘Administrative’ Council)
Here is the comment in full (CIPA represents clients):
as the CIPA already did before they were approved, and Merpel too, we can go on and dissect these rules after their approval and find further problems – look, without being an expert I can even do that:
On a proposal from the President of the Boards of Appeal and after the President of the European Patent Office has been given the opportunity to comment
First the president of EPO makes a comment and then the President of the Boards of Appeal makes the proposal … but what if the comment of the President of EPO is “I don’t like that”? What happens then? Does the resident of the Boards of Appeal still make the proposal?
We shall not forget that the President of the Boards of Appeal himself is dependent from Battistelli for his appointment or reappointment …
What I mean is: the fact that we are all here mentally masturbating [Merpel you can amend that] about possible scenarios deriving from the application of these rules means that they are not clear – there does not seem to be a definitive flow chart.
But the real truth is … neither the AC nor Battistelli seem to care about your comments and analysis – or the one of the CIPA, or the users, or Merpel, or AMBA.
You can scream from the top of your lungs “this is unclear!”, “this reduces the independence of the BoA!” – it seems to have quite the opposite effect: they adopt the rules even faster – overnight.
Stop it.
It’s wasted time. At the end, whatever Battistelli proposes will be approved – with cosmetic amendments to save the face of everybody in the AC.
Remember, it has been declared that “this is an historic achievement” – who are you to go against history?
The defeatism has not turned into humour. “Clearly,” wrote another person, “in this instance, they are only rubberstampers.” In other words, delegates became somewhat of a laughing stock like FISA authoritising surveillance in the US (never saying “no”, even if its job is oversight). To quote the comment:
The new Rule 12c says “On a proposal from the President of the Boards of Appeal and after the President of the European Patent Office has been given the opportunity to comment, the Committee set up under paragraph 1 (BOAC) shall adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. “
“Shall adopt”?
No possibility to amend, or comment themselves, or not adopt unwanted RoP? What is the Committee then needed for? Clearly, in this instance, they are only rubberstampers.
A clear step towards dependency. But not necessarily towards dependency of the President of the EPOff[ice].
The PoBoA can impose any rules he wants, and since his renewal is dependent on the President,…. But he can also implement any rules he wants against the wishes of the PoEPOff. The PoEPOff can only comment, not amend.
Two years ago there were rumours suggesting that the ‘Administrative’ Council, and notably Mr. Kongstad, should be viewed as complicit (not apathetic) in relation to Battistelli. The latest ‘Administrative’ Council meeting left few doubts about that. The problem isn’t just the patent Office but the whole Organisation. It’s almost as though Battistelli elevated himself from Office President to Organisation President (having previously held Kongstad’s position). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.05.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Reference: Highest quality is lowest cost
Summary: Rather than emphasise and maintain quality control at the European Patent Office, the Battistellites seek to maximise the number of granted patents and rely on false claims
THE PATENT quality (not so-called ‘production’) at the EPO used to be the pride of Europe. Growing up in Europe, many people learned about famous European patent examiners such as Albert Einstein (pre-EPO era). Some of the strongest companies worked hard and paid a lot of money in an effort to be granted European patents (EPs), which were quite reputable around the world. Some of the brightest scientists examined applications in tandem/parallel and determined whether or not an innovation or claimed invention was indeed novel and would have courts agree upon challenge (high certainty of eligibility, quality, and novelty). These are the “good ol’ days” of the EPO.
“Some of the strongest companies worked hard and paid a lot of money in an effort to be granted European patents (EPs), which were quite reputable around the world.”Based on this evening’s (GMT) press release, errors in examination continue to be found. An alternative headline for the “news release” [sic] would be: “EPO erroneously granted a patent again. Reinforcing claims of decline in examination quality.”
Not too long ago somebody sent us an insider’s account regarding patent “production”, ECfS (Early Certainty from Search), Priority 1 (in the queue), the so-called “Paris criteria” and more. It helps confirm what we have been writing here for months if not years, namely that there is a massive decline in patent quality the and this gets more irreversible the longer Battistelli stays. To quote:
Once upon a time, EPO examiners were largely free to organize their own work. It was clear that EPC and PCT time limits were to be observed and that replies should not be laying waiting for years, but otherwise things were left to the good judgment of the examiner. That has changed dramatically. Now each examiner has an electronic cupboard in which files are arranged following some obscure algorithm and deviation from the strict order foreseen is considered a crime to be punished with a bad note for quality. Last year the priorities were apparently mainly set according to the “Early Certainty from Search” program. Apparently this year reaching the “Paris criteria” has been added as a new objective. There are further constraints on the examiner and some of those may clash. There is e.g. the total number of “products” to be achieved in a year and the ratio of searches and examinations to be maintained – all this in a situation that is not necessarily under the examiner’s control. In technical areas with a low search backlog maintaining the “ideal” search / examination ratio may not be possible, and total production is equally likely to suffer.
Last night we showed that Team Battistelli (the HR wing) lies about recruitment. It is making up for lack of quality (of examination) by throwing more unqualified or inexperienced examiners at the task, paying them less and offering them fewer incentives to do a good job. “Workforce planning,” as an insider put it, seems to involve “lowering recruitment standards” and “5-year contracts for examiners have also been considered, to be renewed only once” (damaging to work security and experience).
According to the following, “face-to-face technical interviews done by DG1 have recently been replaced by Skype interviews” (here again EPO administration sucks up to Microsoft with spyware endorsement). To quote the broader version of this insider account:
In a recent DG1 internal message, PD11 has asked staff to help the Office recruit more examiners in order to create the over-capacity in DG1 needed to work off the backlog and to meet the Paris criteria for search and examination. The question arises as to how the capacity will be brought back to normal once the backlog has melted. We suspect that the preferred option will be through “incentivised” retirement of senior examiners considered too expensive – incentivised through pressure and threat. The other option will be dismissal for professional incompetence. To facilitate the process of firing unwanted staff, the Office has submitted a document to the GCC that would take dismissals for professional incompetence out of the hands of the disciplinary committee and make it a “managerial decision” by the President after receipt of a majority opinion delivered by a newly-created “Joint Committee”. That cuts two ways: the procedure will become easier and quicker, and the time needed to challenge the decision will double because decisions taken after a disciplinary procedure can be (almost) directly taken to ILO-AT whereas managerial decisions need to go through the Internal Appeals Committee first. Under the circumstances probably not many of our colleagues will be convinced to recruit their friends to the Office. The apparent solution: lowering recruitment standards. The face-to-face technical interviews done by DG1 have recently been replaced by Skype interviews. Only the “psychological” interviews, done by the HR department, are still held in the Office. Apparently DG4 (HR) and not DG1 ultimately decides who will be hired or who will not. This clearly shows the Office’s new priorities, and who is the boss here. 5-year contracts for examiners have also been considered, to be renewed only once. After protests from DG1, DG4 backed off from that plan, but the recent staff changes now list all entrant examiners since 1 May 2016 as “contract staff”. Furthermore, the question remains whether a recruitment process that pays more attention to the psychological – generalist – profile considered desirable by HR than to the technical skills required in DG1 will allow the EPO to maintain the high level of quality that made the Organisation a success.
The ENA mentality of Battistelli would ruin the Office and leave it in an irreparable state. Paying millions of Euros to PR agencies, media companies and silly lobbying events will get harder when applicants become unwilling to pay for low-quality patents. At the same time, Battistelli is biasing if not destroying the appeals process in the name of so-called ‘production’ (measured using a misguided and wrong yardstick which assumes more patents would mean “better”, linearly). Hours ago someone left the following comment about Battistelli’s plan to send appeal judges to ‘exile’ (the EPO lied about it under the banner of "news"). “In summary,” says this person, “I still think that this is bad reform that in many respects decreases the independence of the Boards.”
Here is the full comment:
I referred to the amendments made during the last AC meeting, which, as I understand are those highlighted CA/43/16 Rev.1.
You refer to two points: the drafting of the Rules of Procedure and the involvement of the users in the BOAC.
The first point is dealt with in the new Rule 12c EPC, which, contrary to what you say, does not seem to have been amended at all during the Council.
In respect of your view that the Rules of Procedure would be drafted within the Boards, as present, it seems to be based on a superficial reading of the text.
Old Rule 12(3) EPC said that “The Presidium shall adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Boards…”.
The new Rule 12c says “On a proposal from the President of the Boards of Appeal and after the President of the European Patent Office has been given the opportunity to comment, the Committee set up under paragraph 1 (BOAC) shall adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. “ Thus you see that the President of the Boards can only make a proposal but the adoption, i.e. the formulation of the final text, has been moved from the Boards to the BOAC after giving the President of the Office (which was previously not involved at all) the opportunity to comment. That is clearly a step in the direction of less independence.
In respect of the involvement of the users, it is true that the proposal has been amended to say that the BOAC “carry out, where necessary, user consultations on matters of direct concern to users, such as proposals to amend the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. “ But given how the opinions voiced by the users in the last consultation have not been into account, that is what I call a cosmetic amendment.
In summary I still think that this is bad reform that in many respects decreases the independence of the Boards. The fact that even worse reforms could and have been proposed is not a good reason for passing a bad reform. The members of the Council were right when they initially rejected it and I wonder on the basis of which deal struck behind closed doors they finally accepted it.
Patent offices live or die (or set their prices) based on demand and based on quality of examination. Unless ENA doctrine is elbowed out of the EPO, prices will have to drop (to maintain a level demand), just like recruitment standards fell, in a desperate effort to fill up the vacuum amid EPO brain drain.
Another fearsome outcome of all this — one which more directly impacts everyone in Europe — is that many low-quality patents would be granted, which would then pass all the costs to externalities like the European public, compelling small businesses which cannot afford going to court to just pay patent aggressors who fooled/tricked inexperienced EPO examiners (those recruited by the likes of Bergot) and faced no opposition from Battistelli-fearing (and understaffed) appeal boards whose cost virtually quadrupled so as to discourage appeals. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The latest Administrative Council meeting served to reinforce the belief that delegates are little more than lapdogs of Benoît Battistelli, no matter what abuses he’s implicated and directly involved in (the subject is hardly even brought up anymore)
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.
This morning someone (not SUEPO) leaked to us the following statement that SUEPO had issued several days ago:
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
Looking at IP Kat today (quiet day, possibly because it’s holiday in the US), there was only the following new comment about the abuse of justice by Battistelli — a long thread which over time developed into a discussion about BOAC (putting a Battistelli-appointed President in charge of the accused judge and his colleagues). To quote:
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.
CIPA aside, AMBA was largely ignored. It’s probably AMBA’s input that should have carried more weight.
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.
The AC (Administrative Council) has no bearing on Battistelli’s behaviour, as his action and inaction demonstrate (not obeying the Administrative Council’s demands and even extending the attack on staff representatives to The Hague, as noted above by SUEPO). There is hardly any separation between Battistelli and the Administrative Council anymore. There are also financial strings that ought not exist. Quoting further from the comment:
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.
Four months ago Board 28 (B28) lashed out at Battistelli and given that Battistelli has only gotten more abusive since (enhancing attacks on staff representatives and subverting the course of justice), it is not clear what has changed. Maybe the bully just made “Battistelli” the “B” in B28. Maybe the endless lies about “productivity” (in the future we shall demonstrate again that these were lies) helped silence them. Lying is very common in Team Battistelli, as we last illustrated last night. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Helping the oppressors and aggressors
Summary: The aggressive London-based legal firm (recently hired by the EPO), Mishcon de Reya, shows up again in relation to matters that are of relevance to the EPO and we analyse potential correlations
REPUTATION LAUNDERING is a big and growing objective at the EPO. Battistelli and his goons are trying to control the press, e.g. by silencing critical voices in it and using it to defame critical voices inside the Organisation. See today’s tweet from the EPO. This award pays millions of Euros of EPO budget to private corporations including the media, but the EPO does not want to say this to the public. In addition, the EPO wasted money on lawyers whom it used to send threatening letters to critics, like those who dare speak about the EPO-Microsoft connection. For information about this connection see past articles such as:
The last one is about the UPC, which probably isn’t going to happen. Earlier today the EPO wrote: “The EPO is pleased to inform users of its Online Filing software that a new update is now available” (follow the links to the downloads page and see how Microsoft-centric it all still is).
We recently thought about some FFII joint action against the UPC, but seeing that Brexit is already sending the UPC down the drain, this might not at all be necessary. This week, FFII’s Ante Wessels looks at some overlaps between the investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS), the large corporations’ wet dream, and UPC (serving to highlight TPP/TTIP connections):
UPC and ISDS: who would have to pay the damages awards?
[...]
Investment lawyer Pratyush Nath Upreti argues that investors will be able to use investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) to challenge decisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). [1] Investors could for instance use a Dutch bilateral investment treaty to challenge UPC decisions. Upreti identifies Dutch investment treaties as suitable for treaty shopping and warns for more frivolous IP litigation in investor-to-state dispute settlement.
This raises a question. Who would bear the litigation costs and damages awards?
If investors use a Dutch investment treaty the Netherlands will be the respondent. UPC decisions may regard the whole UPC area (almost the whole EU). ISDS damages awards may include expected profits. The Netherlands could end up having to pay litigation costs and damages awards including expected profits for almost the whole EU.
It isn’t exactly news that UPC and ISDS would both serve large corporations and their aggressive lawyers such as Mishcon de Reya (also acting for Microsoft on the patent front). It was therefore interesting to see my lawyer publishing “The Mishcon de Reya legal challenge on Article 50 – some thoughts” (direct link to the source). As a reminder, Battistelli opposes Brexit because it harms his UPC plans; now his lawyers in London (who threatened me and stalked me online for a while after threatening letters had been sent by another firm regarding articles about Microsoft-EPO ties) step in and attempt to take action which would salvage the UPC and certainly help Microsoft too (a large client of Mishcon de Reya on the face of it). It’s a small world after all, but the overlap of interests, as explained above, might all boil down to coincidences. A pattern emerges, however, wherein Mishcon de Reya helps aggressive entities.
James Nurton, who did a soft interview with Battistelli some months back, earlier today released “Brexit 10 days on: latest developments”. It’s about the impact of Brexit, which EPO management certainty isn’t happy about. To quote Nurton: “Practitioners say that they have had many enquiries about filing national UK trade mark and design rights from clients who want to ensure they have protection in the country whatever happens post-Brexit.”
We suppose these enquiries actually meant money (per hour); so it’s not so bad after all to at least some of them… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.04.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Would you believe these people and wish to work for them?
A conspiracy of lies and mutual cover-up
Summary: In an effort to hide the brain drain and the struggle to attract and recruit talent to fill the vacuum, Elodie Bergot (shown above next to Željko Topić and Benoît Battistelli) lies to the staff she’s supposed to look over at Human Resources (HR)
THE EPO is losing a lot of technical talent [1, 2, 3, 4] and even senior management. This has already developed into a crisis and earlier today the EPO’s Twitter account publicly appealed for job applications.
The EPO’s PR people asked: “Are you an engineer or scientist interested in joining an international team at the forefront of technology?” Maybe they should have added that recruitment of Brits is down by 80%, required skills have reportedly declined (in order to encourage more applications), and working conditions have been massively eroded to the point where accepting a job at the EPO can leave one unemployed for years thereafter (after a short probational period with no ordinary work benefits). SUEPO has already remarked on the subject and said in its public site that the EPO should be more frank/honest/transparent with potential/prospective recruits, telling them upfront about the traps, the caveats and all sorts of secret rules which turn examiners into slaves with no basic rights, very few safeguards, and no genuine resort to justice (e.g. appeals). Earlier today, sites for patent lawyers were repeating what the EPO had said [1, 2] (puff pieces) but not actually investigating the real news, which requires actual work. Distracting the journalists much these days? FTI Consulting at work? According to this tweet from the EPO (also posted earlier today), Battistelli keeps flushing money down the toilet in a desperate effort to drown out real reporting about the EPO. Well, after half a dozen tweets about EIA17 (Battistelli's lobbying/PR), the EPO says “We’ve already started receiving nominations for the #EIA17! Thanks for helping us to reward great inventors!” The PR team neglects to mention the hidden cost. Better start raising up to 7,000,000 Euros in budget for this next stunt, right? Maybe start paying the next “media partners” upfront, in order to keep them silent or complicit (like the Financial Times this year)?
“Reality check reveals that Bergot is about as reliable as her husband’s friend, Battistelli, i.e. not at all.”Last year Battistelli paid French media, which as a result censored itself (for him). A new French press report, published last week in “Libération”, criticises Battistelli, so apparently he didn’t spread money from the EPO’s coffers widely enough. One person explained that “Libération” is a French newspaper founded by Jean-Paul Sartre in 1973. “Since 2005 Edouard de Rothschild has been a major stakeholder,” this person added, which may be rather interesting because of alleged Rothschild-Battistelli connections.
Speaking of the French, consider Battistelli’s EPO circle which is largely French and now includes the oddly-appointed Bergot [1, 2, 3, 4] with her bodyguards* (more than one person). According to some sources, Bergot (widely viewed as Battistelli’s HR ‘plant’) said that “The EPO’s ranking in 28th place shows the Office’s positive image as an employer of choice for scientists,” demonstrating ignorance if not dishonesty (the latter would be worse). Bergot wrote this in the EPO’s intranet on the 31st of May of this year, i.e. just over a month ago. Reality check reveals that Bergot is about as reliable as her husband’s friend, Battistelli, i.e. not at all. “Looking at the broader picture and not to just a single number (out of the context),” one person remarked, “[i]n Germany in 2012 the EPO ranked 24 amongst natural science students, now rank 28; amongst engineering students (making up a considerable part of potential candidates), the EPO does not rank amongst the top 50 (69); amongst young professionals the EPO dropped out of the statistics “top 100″ in 2015 and 2016″ (very far from 28th place then).
“EPO management is again misinforming (nicer term for “lying”) to EPO staff.”“In the Netherlands,” we’ve learned, things are even worse. “The EPO disappeared completely from the top 100 ranks from engineering and natural science students,” sources demonstrate with hard evidence.
So there it is again. EPO management is again misinforming (nicer term for “lying”) to EPO staff. It’s easier to lie in the intranet for various reasons. Nice employer to work for, is it not? One that can be trusted and believed at the recruitment stages? █
_____
* “Maximum security at the EPO,” as some people call it, has made this place tremendously less attractive to work in. In the EPO’s own words: “Visitors to the EPO are advised that, as from now, their bags and luggage will be subject to a visual inspection by security. This measure will be applied in all EPO buildings at all sites. Thank you for your co-operation.“
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Sooner or later, judging by the severely damaged image of the EPO under Battistelli’s reign, all the allies who remain with Battistelli will be equally questionable
The public sentiments towards the EPO are largely negative (more on that in our next post), especially so in the UK. EPO recruitment of Brits fell by 80% (they probably don’t bother even applying) and these new comments from The Register are also revealing. One person wrote (correctly):
Most big players don’t contest the validity of a big pile of patents – they just show their own big pile of patents and agree a cross-licensing deal. It’s cheaper and avoids a lot of risk.
Most small players can’t contest the validity of even a single patent – they just can’t afford the legal fees (about a million dollars), and they don’t want the risk of a big judgement against them that puts them out of business, so they just have to pay up.
So most people filing patents would like them all to be rubber-stamped. Patent applications need to be checked very carefully in order to protect everyone else from the patent-holder.
We have heard from British SMEs that are extremely upset at the EPO (see coverage from around January of this year) and seriously consider taking legal action over the matter. Here is the Swiss system being cited by another comment:
“A very high degree of certainty in the validity of your patent”? Dream on. The likelihood of your patent being found invalid is determined by its commercial value, and has very little to do with the search and examination process. An EPO examiner spends a few days on each case. In a serious validity challenge, you will move heaven and earth to find prior art or weaknesses in the patent. It may take many man-months, or even man-years. The EPO’s little contribution is a helpful indicator, but it does not give you “a very high degree of certainty”, or even any kind of certainty. In fact it can be downright misleading.
By the way, some patent systems (eg Switzerland) function very well without any examination of patentability. It’s the applicant’s responsibility to make sure that he doesn’t claim protection for something he’s not entitled to. This makes for a very sober and reasonable patent environment.
Here is a good comment about software patents and the UK-IPO:
Every hour they argue among themselves is worth 8 patents not granted. I cannot imagine the UK patent office doing something so constructive. The UK patent office is responsible for the policy of granting software patents as long as ‘software’ is spelled ‘computer implemented invention’.
There was some rubbish in the Brexit propaganda about foreign EU judges making rulings that applied to UK companies. The bit they forgot to mention was that UK judges made rulings that applied to the whole of Europe. Once an EU court is selected for a patent dispute, that court’s decision applies to the whole of Europe so companies do not have to face nuisance litigation in every state. Before Brexit, a UK company could get their case heard in the UK.
Leaving the EU will not make the European patent office go away. UK trolls will still have to file there to sue EU companies. EU trolls will still sue UK companies, but post Brexit the hearing will be outside the UK.
Years ago, like thousands of other programmers I wrote to my MEP and asked him to vote against legalising software patents. The European parliament listened, so people with time and money to burn stand a good chance of getting a computer implemented invention patent invalidated because software is mathematics which is not patentable. I have also written to UK MPs and got replies like ‘I do not care about that, I just want to send money to Africa’, ‘programmers do not understand the benefits of the patent system so I am going to spend millions on an advertising campaign to educate them’ and ‘programmers do not understand patents’.
What the above could mention is also the loophole created within the EPO to permit software patents in Europe. Germany is even more lenient than Britain on this matter.
The EPO, says another comment, is “[a]nother institution beginning with European we’ll be glad to see the back off.” [sic] Likely to have come from a Brexit proponent, this comment helps show the degree to which Battistelli’s abuses contribute to the negative opinion/view of the European Union — a subject on which we remarked here before.
“Given Panama’s activities as reported in the press, patent co-operation with the EPO is unlikely to make a difference for Panama’s economy.”
–AnonymousNow, looking elsewhere, we also learn about EPO “Cooperation with Cuba, Colombia and … Panama” (notorious for Soviet ties, gangs, tax evasion, censorship, and all sorts of other mischief). In the words of an anonymous writer: “International co-operation seems to be one of Mr. Battistelli’s priorities. We have been informed about his cooperation (these co-operations are in the form of bilateral agreements, the contents of which is not published) with WIPO and with OHIM (now EUIPO), with China (in relation to which he received an honorary doctorate), with Morocco and of course with the EPO member states, the latter at an admitted cost for the EPO of 13 million Euros (CA/24/14, point 25). According to a EPO internal report Mr. Battistelli recently also visited Cuba, Panama and Columbia in order to “develop co-operation activities in Latin America”. What the report fails to mention is that during the last 5 years Cuba filed an average of 8 European patent applications per year, and Panama scored an average of 5 applications per year. Columbia is doing better with 15 applications per year. According to the official report, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed with Cuba and Colombia. This appears not to be the case for Panama. We cite: “There, the President met the Vice-Minister of Industry and Commerce and the Director of IP Office (DIGERP) who, among other relevant topics discussed, showed a particular interest for the validation agreements the EPO is currently pursuing with non-European Countries.” Given Panama’s activities as reported in the press, patent co-operation with the EPO is unlikely to make a difference for Panama’s economy.”
In a similar vein, these expensive trips of Battistelli and his bodyguards are unlikely to bring much income (application/renewal fees) to the EPO. These look like cheap publicity stunts, coordinated with people whose reputation (or political careers) would not be considerably harmed by being associated with a tyrant like Battistelli.
If Battistelli spends so much effort creating ties with rather notorious countries (on human rights, illegal drug trade, trafficking, financial regulation etc.) that barely submit any patent applications, what does it say about Battistelli’s vision of Europe? One might go a step further and say that Battistelli’s abuses contributed to Brexit. No matter how much controversy Battistelli generates, he’ll always remain closely-guarded and welcomed by infamous oppressors and monarchs (with royal titles). Diplomatically he’s useless inside Europe. Governance of occupation or authority by fear is the legacy of Battistelli at the EPO, which serves to legitimise or lend credibility to some caricatures/stereotypes/stigma regarding EU bureaucrats. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA