06.22.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:02 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Board 28 has already admitted there's a "crisis" as mass departure [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] goes all the way to the top
Summary: Letter says that “recruitment of Brits is down by 80%” and “the EPO lost 7% of UK staff in one year”
THIS morning someone diverted a message about the EPO to us. This message appears to have headed towards quite a few delegates and perhaps politicians too.
In the tradition of maximal transparency we have decided to share it below. We hope that readers will end up contacting their national representatives to let them know what nationals (whom they supposedly represent) think about this.
“We hope that readers will end up contacting their national representatives to let them know what nationals (whom they supposedly represent) think about this.”The message below is long (3 pages) and there are some interesting things in there about brain drain and the rather amazing exodus of British workers this past year (or slightly longer).
“The EPO-FLIER Team,” we learned, “a group of concerned staff of the EPO who wish to remain anonymous due to the prevailing harsh social climate and absence of rule of law at the European Patent Office, sent an open letter to delegations of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation. Interested circles and stakeholders of the European patent system were informed as well.”
Text of the E-mail was as follows:
Open letter to the Delegations of the EPO’s Administrative Council
Dear Heads and members of the Member States’ delegations to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation,
dear Chairman, dear Mr Grandjean,
Please find enclosed an open letter titled
‘The Administrative Council’s fiduciary duty to the European Patent Organisation and the Office’s duty of care’
directed to the delegations of the member states of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation.
The EPO-FLIER Team,
a group of concerned staff of the EPO
who wish to remain anonymous
due to the prevailing harsh social climate and
absence of rule of law at the European Patent Office
__________________________________
further links:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/12/european-patent-office-examiners-fear.html
http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/12/10/epo-supervisory-body-to-face-patent-quality-judicial-independence-fears/
http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/EPO-examiners-can-no-longer-ensure-appropriate-quality-standards.pdf
http://techrights.org/2014/12/08/epo-staff-is-demonstrating/
There was a PDF attached to the message and here is what it said:
Open letter – by email to the Heads of Delegation
22 June 2016
EPO-FLIER team
The Administrative Council’s fiduciary duty to the European Patent Organisation and the Office’s duty of care
Dear heads and members of the delegations to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation, dear Chairman, dear Mr Grandjean,
Ever since the founding fathers drafted the European Patent Convention, a high perception of legal validity of a granted patent has taken the Office from strength to strength. Highly qualified staff has for a long time dealt with significant workload increases while maintaining the quality of work that has drawn applicants to the EPO. However, we are now observing an accelerated change for the worse. Strong professional ethics are gradually giving way to rubber stamping in order to meet entirely arbitrary production targets. Despite embellished statistics allegedly showing otherwise, staff’s health is on the decline and the EPO is no longer an employer of choice.
Is it not the Administrative Council’s (AC’s) and the President’s duty to hand over to any successor an Office that is at least as healthy as it was when he took it over? And should
the AC not be seen to be positively influencing good housekeeping and a constant pursuit of excellence?
Who is the boss?
It was so refreshing to see the AC take its responsibility when it issued a resolution with clear and achievable objectives for the President. Very briefly there was a marked
improvement of the atmosphere in the Office. Very briefly, the AC had switched on the light at the end of the tunnel.
But instead of complying with unambiguous instructions, Mr Battistelli is playing games like an adolescent who is testing the envelope. He has not even tried to comply. Instead, he is
doing the opposite, challenging his supervisory body, rebelling against his “parents”.
It is time for the members of the AC to stop flogging a dead horse:
Mr Battistelli is causing immeasurable damage to the Office; he is now untenable.
The President’s extravagances
The AC delegations are aware of and endorse the costs for the President’s luxury fortress on the top floor of the Isar Building and his alleged need for highly expensive personal body guards. The EPO further pays for hosting high-profile events that seem to be mainly instigated for the greater glory of the President.
The Office should not be seen to be celebrating some inventors as being better than others. It risks reputational damage by highlighting the success of some inventions, especially if they later could prove not to work (see media coverage on Elizabeth Holmes’ dysfunctional blood testing equipment). For critical observers, her results looked too good to be true. The same applies to the current EPO results.
EPC changes through the back door?
Sinking almost endless resources into the IT Roadmap, with its badly managed outsourcing and brain-drain (due to salary cuts and a poor work atmosphere), is failing to provide appropriate tools. The changes in operation – above all an ill-conceived new career system in combination with management by intimidation – are resulting in more products per staff member, but with an outcome that no longer compares favourably to past quality standards.
Critical observers have started speculating about the effects the dramatic increase in the number of patents granted may have1. Applicants have started observing a decline in the quality of the EPO’s products and sometimes share their concerns with individual examiners. The existing quality indicators are not reliable. IAM 2, 3 is sponsored by the Office and the EPO’s own quality measuring system ‘CASE’ suffers from a built-in conflict-of-interest. The way it has been designed, it will always indicate excellent quality, no matter what the actual quality is.
A presumption of invalidity of granted patents leads to higher litigation costs. Big applicants might be able to finance such higher costs, but SMEs will suffer economically from low quality patenting4. The EPO can foster economic growth only if it returns to the previously high search and examination standards5.
The AC is the guardian of a non-discriminatory application of the EPC.
That is not possible under the leadership of this President.
EPO – employer of choice?
Word has got out that all’s not well at the EPO. The Office no longer attracts the same calibre of staff and therefore has had to resort to recruiting what it gets. That’s why the
EPO is currently abandoning previous quality criteria, such as language skills, or a balanced geographical distribution6, in the selection of new staff.
The recent Technologia survey on psycho-social risks for EPO employees is alarming, and the comparison of three surveys from consecutive years shows that the situation is deteriorating. Despite the AC’s mandate to the President to go easy with HR reforms, the Administration is still instigating some highly undesirable changes.
The self-proclaimed Dr. med. Battistelli and Dr. med. Bergot judge on the fitness of staff for work. The EPO exposes vulnerable staff to its medical advisors, who now have a direct reporting link to a PD Human Resources, who herself has a reputation of being vindictive. The Office now has the tools that it needs to breach medical secrecy indiscriminately and to abuse information given to medical practitioners in confidence.
The unfair dismissal of two staff representatives, the downgrading of a third and the ongoing attacks on other members of the staff representation are unacceptable, and have been criticised by the Council itself. Staff are dumbfounded by the way that an organisation that has a legal function (granting and refusing patents) behaves in ways that are contrary to the rule of law in its member states and how representatives of countries with a great legal tradition can condone such behaviour.
_________
1 http://ipnoncredere.blogspot.de/2016/06/high-how-will-ball-bounce.html
2 http://www.iam-media.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=77979ee9-60a0-4b2c-b074-e9a2b2623a0c
3 65% of the respondents rated the quality of patents granted by the EPO as excellent or very good.
4 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/15/patent_trolls_innovation_and_brexit/
5 http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/12/european-patent-office-examiners-fear.html
6 It seems that in the EPO the „brexit“ is taking place, as according to the Social Report for 2015 CA 55/16, page 22, the recruitment of Brits is down by 80%, while according to page 8, the EPO lost 7% of UK staff in one year. Further, no Irish, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Danish and Swiss personnel was recruited.
Mr Battistelli continues to undermine the rights of staff
EPO staff undergo a stringent selection process and have a long probationary period before being appointed as permanent staff. But in the interpretation of the EPO’s very senior management it is professional incompetence if staff members do not meet inflated output demands. In the President’s plans there will be no intervention of any meaningful advisory review instance in decisions for dismissal for reasons of professional incompetence (CA/53/16). If the proposal gets approval, Mr Battistelli will be in a position to expose staff of the EPO to unemployment without a social security system, which he aggravates by claiming exclusive rights to permit gainful employment a full two years following departure from the Office (CA/29/16).
The review of the Investigation Guidelines (CA/52/16) will, if adopted, increase the autonomy and powers of the Administration. The guidelines would become an even more dangerous weapon if put in the wrong, i.e. in Mr Battistelli’s and Ms Bergot’s, hands. Due process, duty of care and state-of-the-art HR management are completely absent from the Office now.
And all the time, the members of the Office’s only supervisory body watch it happen. To the neutral observer there is no doubt: this Administration is professionally incompetent, and
the supervisors are doing nothing about it.
The President and his cronies have to be stopped. By you. Now.
The Council and President have to show that they are good caretakers of the great organisation that has been put in their custody and entrusted to them. It is time to live up to
the expectations of the founding fathers, the European public and the staff of the Office.
You will be in the spotlight during the June Council meeting.
Please do not support the President’s change proposals in CA/29/16, CA/52/16 and CA/53/16.
Instead, please do what needs doing: restore a constructive climate at the EPO, under leadership of a President who wants to join the effort for the continued success of the Office.
For the undersigned, that President is not Benoît Battistelli.
With our best regards,
The EPO-FLIER team
a group of concerned staff of the EPO who wish to remain anonymous due to the prevailing harsh social climate and absence of rule of law at the European Patent Office
Copies to: Competent Ministries of the Member States
These proposal were mentioned here one week ago. We can’t help wondering how many other EPO employees are contacting delegations or at least heads of delegations. These delegates might only feel compelled to save the EPO if they witness enough voices of concerned insiders and outsiders. That’s how it goes in politics, for better or for worse. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.21.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Bristows and Bird & Bird among the culprits
Summary: The parasitic firms that lobby for the UPC and actually create it — firms like those that pass money to Battistelli’s EPO — are doing exactly the opposite of what Europe needs
THE EPO is in a dire and sad state because of its top-level management, which is effectively a cabal of ‘yes men’ to Battistelli. The sociopaths find these positions attractive and if they’re French and former colleagues of Battistelli, then they already have some job requirements covered. Megalomaniacal tendencies of Battistelli are rather contagious and it shows. This takes its toll on staff. Many are thankful to have never accepted a job offer from Battistelli’s EPO as there is an element of entrapment to it (Battistelli can veto employment choices even after someone leaves the Office).
“Megalomaniacal tendencies of Battistelli are rather contagious and it shows. This takes its toll on staff.”There are even worse things coming out of the EPO and they impact everyone in Europe, not just EPO staff. There’s no escaping the wrath of Battistelli and his grand plan, notably the UPC which rumours say he wishes to head (in spite of retirement age). The EPO routinely lobbies for the UPC rather than focus on patent examination (the EPO’s real purpose).
All one needs to know about the UPC is that it would harm European businesses and the media misleads about it (EPO's payments to European media companies contribute to this). The UPC is being designed and refined by and for patent lawyers, primarily in order to increase their overall profit/reputation, typically by making the number of lawsuits greater and the damages higher. Coup by occupation is all it boils down to, and it is not EU-centric either. The moment more people come to grips with what the UPC is and who it has been optimised for is the moment the whole thing comes tumbling down like ACTA in Europe, but right now a lot of UPC proceedings and intentionally kept in the dark, except when politicians are approached to ratify under the false preteses and the premise that this kind of coup is all about “unity”, “harmony”, “EU”, and “community” (among other euphemisms whose purpose is to perfume this very bad deal/bundle). A lot of the misinformation about the UPC just ‘happens’ to come from Battistelli, who has been promoting this whole scheme for a very long time along with other Frenchmen who consider French a more important language than Spanish (how convenient for them).
“A lot of the misinformation about the UPC just ‘happens’ to come from Battistelli, who has been promoting this whole scheme for a very long time along with other Frenchmen who consider French a more important language than Spanish (how convenient for them).”Based on some sad news from self-serving UPC propagandists, the Dutch people have been put aside again while the patent microcosm (includes the EPO and its clients/lawyers) used control of politicians to ram UPC down the country’s throat. This is a gross attack not only on democracy but on human rights. As I put it earlier in relation to similar plans in Germany (“UPC software patent ratification is on the agenda of the Bundestag this Thursday evening around 21H,” according to Benjamin Henrion), the UPC tests whether a nation is a client of its citizens or of patent lawyers and their foreign clients. It is a corporate takeover attempt, much like ISDS. Will it work?
Well, never for a moment believe that the UPC is inevitable. It’s not. To say so is to help the propaganda strategy of the patent microcosm, which has grown visibly stressed about UPC woes this month. Things aren’t going as they hoped because even Battistelli and his minions say that UPC might not happen. There are still many barriers.
“Can Europe beat its enemies, those scheming to undermine European laws (and the EPC) to make a new “order”?”“Kluwer UPC News blogger” is what Wouter Pors and the lads call their blog now. It’s just more UPC propaganda like Bristows’ (with “Bristows UPC” for marketing) and Wouter Pors has quite a reputation for UPC meddling, e.g. [1, 2, 3]. These are the very same people who ‘engineered’ much of the UPC and are actively pushing software patents into Europe, as well as patent trolls. To them, it’s all about money (theirs, at everyone else’s expense).
Can Europe beat its enemies, those scheming to undermine European laws (and the EPC) to make a new “order”? We sure hope that more people will join the battle. Just look which firms are behind this site (top) that promotes UPC events right now (EPLAW). UPC is for the lawyers, by the lawyers, against the people, definitely not by the people. Those same lawyers recently mentioned that Battistelli basically crushes the Office and ruins patent quality by demolishing appeal boards, in effect paving the way to UPC (where appeals would be dealt with differently).
Let’s bury the UPC before it’s too late. Now it the time to take action and expose what UPC is really all about. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The impact of the EPO’s ‘lunatic/irrational/unpredictable dictator’ strategy (or its notorious wrath plus SLAPP) likely
Summary: Free speech when it’s needed the most (EPO scandals) needs to be respected; or why IP Kat shoots itself in the foot and helps the EPO’s management by ‘sanitising’ comments
THE EPO’s management may seem scary. It has already banned IP Kat before. We spent a lot of time defending that site by writing about the ban and alerting journalists about it, creating backlash that might have played a role in reversal of the ban (we don’t know for sure, we can only hypothesise). The more people know about the EPO, the more likely justice and lawfulness are to be reached/restored.
We were rather reluctant to publish this post as we’re not (and never were) wishing to nitpick on the site which helps EPO employees. Yes, we have our occasional criticisms. For instance, it is hosted on a platform (E-mail and blog) where Google spying is a lot more likely than in other sites and yet most comments and a lot of material go there (because anyone can comment there anonymously).
Yesterday I left a comment at IP Kat and it vanished. This happens to other people too, but they don’t have a blog in which to write about it. Some tell me about this. I honestly don’t know what goes on in IP Kat‘s mind/s and what happens behind the scenes, but maybe someone is afraid to publish anything that might anger the EPO’s management after that notorious, short-lived ban. I am tempted to think that IP Kat was left with cold feet after that ban, but they had done this even beforehand, as people told me about that. If IP Kat is challenging or limiting the free speech of people wishing to comment, then it serves the EPO’s agenda to a lesser degree, by limiting the visibility of particular opinions or information. I already spoke to IP Kat about it several months ago (amicably, not in a confrontational fashion) and clearly not much has changed. I spoke about it before, urging them not to censor comments, but it is still happening.
I generally do not comment on blog posts because of impersonators (as of 7 years ago), but yesterday I decided I should make the exception because I was bothered to see an unfair comment about SUEPO’s head. I’ve been an activist for free speech and transparency — for quite a few years now as a matter of fact — and I believe in truth through rebuttal rather than outright removal/censorship. I left a comment in an effort to correct the record.
To IP Kat‘s credit, it did publish my first (of two) comment. This started with an anonymous comment that said, collectively: “We don’t really care about what happened to Mrs Hardon here” (where the word “we” seems to allude to staff or readers in general). To quote:
We don’t really care about what happened to Mrs Hardon here or what reason there was for nobbling the board, as Merpel says.
This is about obstruction of justice. This is about threatening a high court. These are pretty serious offenses anywhere.
The Office can’t afford to leave these offenses unanswered.
To nobble: “to cause or force (someone) to do something that you want by offering money, making threats, etc”. Try to do that to a court in your own country and see what happens.
One person quickly responded to the “We don’t really care about what happened to Mrs Hardon here” part:
Actually, we do – because if the reason she was dismissed is that she contacted the accused member of the BoA, and at the end the President is unable to show that he did anything wrong, that the accuses against her should fall too and she should be reinstated.
Another reason why we care is that the strategy to get rid of them seems to be the same.
We care about Else, actually we really do.
Then, having read that while cycling at the gym, I could not help myself but comment for the first time. I wrote: “The actions taken against Staff Reps, including some in The Hague right now (to further cement atmosphere of terror top-down), began with Hardon, so of course that matters. It is offensive to suggest otherwise.”
This comment did appear, but not my second comment, which spoke about the ‘quality’ of the so-called ‘evidence’. It was a polite comment and there is pretty much no justification for deleting it. I don’t have a local copy of that comment because I typed it on a cycling machine running Android, which basically means a public terminal with no detachable media.
I have been waiting to get the comment approved for more than half a day now, but it never showed up. In fact, later on another comment showed up (approved) but it was not mine. It said:
The potential “charge sheet” seems to be expanding – gradually but inexorably.
* deploying covert surveillance measures of questionable legality
* attempting to “nobble” a judicial body by means of alleged “threats”
* attempting to interfere with the course of justice by obstructing the hearing of witnesses
Anyone for an investigation ?
Perhaps if someone competent to carry it out can be found.
Watch this space but don’t hold your breath …
I asked Merpel for a copy of my comment (which they refuse to approve apparently), but have not heard back yet. My guess is, they later might claim that they have lost it or suddenly found it, in order to save face (that’s a common routine).
What is the bottom line? IP Kat censors comments. As a free speech advocate and enthusiast, I simply cannot support it. Over 35,000 comments have been posted in Techrights over the years (including harsh insults and threats against me) and I never deleted any of them, as a matter of principle. Quality control is not an excuse. Just remember that self censorship by fear is exactly what Team Battistelli wants; to do the job for him is undesirable. █
Update: It seems as though my comment was indeed deleted (it definitely made it through, see comments below). Strangely enough, I may need to wait before finding out who did this and why. Here is the correspondence about this:
Dear Roy
Thank you for your email.
If your comment was correctly posted, then it has been deleted because one of the IPKat moderators considered that it did not comply with our moderation policy:
http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/p/want-to-complain.html
The IPKat comments moderation policy has been in place for many years, and unchanged in substance since long before Merpel started writing about the events at the EPO.
Blogger does not store such comments so I regret that we are unable to email the content to you.
Kind regards
With respect, I’m at a loss for words. That is very regrettable. We discussed this matter only a few months back. I thought I would get some assurances that people’s free expression would not be impeded based on (in my opinion) what was often arbitrary if not agenda-motivated. People are rightly passionate about the subject and they need a forum in which they can be heard. The subject of legal liability for comments on one’s article/s is still sort of ‘in the air’ in the US and I believe in the UK as well. So I doubt it’s about legal safety; maybe it’s fear of a ban (the EPO recently banned IP Kat for a day) or spoiling of one’s business/professional ties with the EPO (some who write for IP Kat do have such ties).
As I recall it, it was argued that not deletion but moderation without publication was at stake. Now I learn that unwanted comments are basically just being permanently deleted, without as much as an E-mail trail/record (like notification of a new comment with its contents). It’s like I just wrote my comment to myself.
Trying to reconstruct the comment from memory, as it was not particularly long, it went something like this (but shorter):
It is also worth mentioning that the evidence presented about the judge might not tell the whole story. The EPO’s management already got caught lying about the disciplinary committee (e.g. its recommendations regarding dismissal and other punishments for staff representatives), so the alleged access to E-mail by means of screenshots isn’t to be taken at face value. It is possible that these were acquired by means of parallel construction (look at the method [1]), whereby initial pointer/intelligence is obtained though other means (e.g. spy agencies or Google) and it then enables the management to set up surveillance like cameras or keyloggers at the ‘right place’, in order to help capture something and never mention where the initial pointer came from as it may have been illegally-obtained. This is common in the FBI and US DoJ, and it is the subject of very heated debate in the United States to this date. I should probably mention it’s widely documented that CRG, which works with the IU, employs/contracts former Statsi staff (from Desa in Germany) and CRG itself is close to the British government.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
It is sad that pointing out such a thing is unsayable. I would like to know who deleted my comment and why. If this was not you, then it’s possible that someone with very scarce knowledge of internal EPO affairs just took the initiative to purge comments, which I think is not responsible. How often does this happen to other people who have no facilities to complain (and must remain anonymous for their own protection)? I am an ardent proponent of free speech and any policy which deems the above unsuitable for publication speaks rather negatively about the platform or the site, in my humble opinion. Moreover, in this case, people’s justice and careers are at stake. To eliminate such views can, in some loose kind of way, be seen an obstructing justice.
With great respect and admiration for your good reporting, I would like to see my feedback taken seriously and for the importance of free speech to be honoured, no matter what risks this may entail. The EPO is an aggressive organisation (at the top) and being too soft makes us vulnerable to its despicable methods. ‘Sanitising’ what may be viewed as ‘strong’ views (I don’t believe the above is even strong) helps it maintain lawlessness at the EPO.
Kind regards,
Roy
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 12:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
When money runs like water, even towards dubious causes
Summary: The latest cartoon regarding Battistelli’s European Patent Office
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.20.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Reign of terror by Team Battistelli
Summary: How the EPO’s Investigative Unit (IU) and Control Risks Group (CRG), which is connected to the Stasi through Desa, made the EPO virtually indistinguishable from East Germany (coat of arms/emblem above)
THE EPO‘s top management continues to rule by fear and the more afraid people are — or the more irrational and dangerous the management seems — the less likely people are to dissent, unless anonymously. We should note that some blogs from EPO workers vanished over the past two years (some did exist) and not much has remained for the expression of dissenting views, such as the view that patent quality significantly fell under Battistelli's watch. Moreover, if not more so, staff representatives are afraid. They are rightly afraid given the extreme sanctions against existing staff representatives in Munich and The Hague (using exaggerated and/or made-up allegations).
As one person put it: “Dialog… really?”
“It seems like the harsher the methods employed by Battistelli, the less likely he is to be able to engage in any meaningful social dialogue.”There is hardly even an illusion of social dialogue anymore. Battistelli does almost whatever he wishes. He does not even listen to the Administrative Council. He lives in his own fantasy world, where everything he pleases he believes will happen with or without backlash (he hardly worries about backlash as he insists he’s above the rules and repeatedly demonstrates that). Who takes the toll? The EPO’s reputation. Does Battistelli care? He doesn’t seem to mind, he’s already at retirement level/age.
“Simultaneously to the demonstration,” one person recently wrote, “the General Consultative Committee, GCC, took place in the ISAR building in presence of the top management.”
Was there any real dialogue there? Not really, “[h]aving learnt from a painful experience made by a former member of the IAC [Internal Appeals Committee], Aurélien Pétlaud, who was downgraded in 2015 in exactly this situation, the elected Staff representatives which had the obligation to participate.”
“Seeing a large bunch of disgruntled EPO workers (who seem to be the overwhelming majority by now), Battistelli has chosen the use of force rather than consent.”It seems like the harsher the methods employed by Battistelli, the less likely he is to be able to engage in any meaningful social dialogue. One begins to legitimately wonder if he’s actually interested in such a dialogue or only wants to tell the media about such fiction.
“On the Agenda [there were] precisely two reform proposals on Investigation procedures and Disciplinary Procedures,” we learned about aforementioned proposals, “giving even broader powers to the investigation unit and the president: knowing that these are already on the agenda of the coming AC (Disciplinary: CA/53/16 & CA/53/16 add1 – Investigations… sorry the official term is “fact finding”: CA/52/16 and add2), the debate was nothing more than the usual rhetorical exercise, that some may qualify a yet another of these sad “Battistelli-movies”.”
“Is this the future of Eponia? Another East Germany?”So even when there’s an attempt at dialogue it seems to involve yet more escalations in the attacks on staff, including staff representatives. This has got to be some kind of a farcical exercise. That’s like sitting down with one’s enemy for “peace talks” while deciding which targets are “ideal” for “mutual” nuclear strike/impact (as in power plants, water supply and so on).
From the same text: “It was [supposedly] the opportunity for the Staff representatives to state their utter disappointment with the last president disciplinary decisions (see as an illustration one intervention made in the GCC by an elected CSC representative) and Staff broad disagreement with the present management policy.”
This text, which reached us not by intention, serves to demonstrate which kind of atmosphere prevails not only at the appeal boards but also in panels or discussions pertaining to staff rights. It’s ludicrous and moreover it serves to show that Battistelli’s mask may not have fallen off yet. He wishes to get even nastier and he wishes to authorise even more authoritarian powers (maybe some of which were exercised beforehand, even before these were ‘legalised’ to retroactively justify/excuse them).
“Under Battistelli’s regime, the unthinkable becomes possible (for him, Battistelli) and ordinary things become verboten (for everyone) if Battistelli decides so.”Seeing a large bunch of disgruntled EPO workers (who seem to be the overwhelming majority by now), Battistelli has chosen the use of force rather than consent. When BlueCoat and the IU (or CRG) can’t identify disgruntled EPO workers one should wonder if they also reach out to their friends in spy agencies (CRG is connected to Desa, i.e. former Stasi staff, and maybe GCHQ also, as we noted last year). Is this the future of Eponia? Another East Germany?
As one insider recently told us about Battistelli, “do you think he’s not universally despised here? Even directors despair at the methods… [but Battistelli] has the money to spread around [...] so many people eating from his palm [...] there’s a good article in the Sueddeutsche about the slide downwards [...] that people lose job security and more and more jobs are precarious, on the border to the survival level [...] it’s also what´s being promoted at the EPO, with the limited time contracts” (which pressures to grant more patents rather than do one’s job and also reject applications).
Regarding Team Battistelli we got told that “Topic depends on Battistelli so he’ll do whatever Battistelli asks of him [...] hopefully he will get sentenced in Croatia, then things would become clearer, but justice in Croatia doesn’t move that fast [...] best hope is Battistelli himself who will certainly provide some more ammunition [...] he has no idea what a manager should be like (never heard words like “inspirational”, “motivating”, etc.) [...] he has no shame (who else would’ve brought nine French friends and distributed them in high positions?)”
“It’s enough to be flagged or accused by Battistelli to lose one’s job and potentially be barred from taking employment elsewhere (for several years).”Under Battistelli’s regime, the unthinkable becomes possible (for him, Battistelli) and ordinary things become verboten (for everyone) if Battistelli decides so. The notion of justice, in a system which is intended to provide justice (on patents), is totally absurd. “Institutionalised injustice,” as anonymous writers recently referred to it, is now the norm under Battistelli and here are some figures to support that: “CA/20/16 shows that things have since gotten worse. The documents show that the success rate of the “requests for review” has further gone down from about 5% in 2014 to about 4% in 2015, in terms of number of cases (page 55/116; table under point 285). The success rate in the Internal Appeals Committee (IAC) was about 9% in 2014. This was already a very bad year. Previously the success rate was between 25 and 35%. In 2014 the IAC did not meet after summer, until the members appointed by the Staff Committee resigned in October 2014. At the end of the year the IAC then whipped out a large number of opinions in 3-member composition, without staff representatives. From the overall success rate for the year it seems that the vast majority, if not all, of these opinions were negative for staff. As a next step the nominees appointed by the Staff Committee were replaced by “volunteers” recruited by Mr. Battistelli. Subsequently the success rate in the IAC went down to 4%, again in terms on the number of cases (page 56/116; first table under point 287). In terms of number of appellants, the figures are much worse still. According to the next table under point 287, of the final decisions after the IAC taken in 2014 still about 15% were positive for the appellant. The higher success rate compared to the IAC recommendations of the same year presumably comes from IAC recommendations issued by the IAC in 2013, many more of which were positive. In 2015 the success rate final decisions after IAC also dropped dramatically. Of the 243 cases (from a total of 2.420 appellants), Mr. Battistelli only allowed two, one of which only in part, giving an overall success rate of 0.8%. These data show that the current administration tries to win conflicts with its employees rather than to try and solve them. Under the circumstances it should not come as a surprise that the Board “observes” a growing number of ILOAT files (page 59/16). But for the Auditors all of this seems to be no reason for concern. The Board simply mentions the figures, without much comment and without giving any recommendations for improvement.”
Put succinctly and in very simple terms, there seems to be no point appealing anything inside the EPO, and outside of it, notably at ILO, justice is far too slow and even then it’s somewhat dubious (based on statistics on cases). This means that Battistelli can do to staff pretty much anything he pleases and there’s no veto power, no ‘safety net’ of appeals. So much for ‘job security’ at the EPO. It’s enough to be flagged or accused by Battistelli to lose one’s job and potentially be barred from taking employment elsewhere (for several years). Talk about reign by terror…
“The future shape of IP in Europe,” one person said, or “the balance between legal security and the need for costly litigation, is being determined by one thing only- the greed of the AC and the national patent offices.”
Another person wrote the other day, vaguely alluding perhaps to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
A truly historic moment for the EPO.
At last somebody within the organisation* has stood up for the rule of law and takes a principled stand against the abuses of the EPO management.
(* And I am not referring here to the Administrative Council!)
Many people have been waiting such a long time for a hopeful signal like this and are truly grateful that it has finally come.
Sad to think that such hideous abuses of power are tolerated for so long at the highest political levels throughout Europe. But those responsible will wash their hands and pretend that “we were never informed”, “we didn’t know” etc. while they dance on merrily to the tune of “Put another nickel in the nickelodeon”.
Shame on them.
The “idea that the investigation unit would be ordered to investigate a BoA decision is objectively too ridiculous,” one person wrote. Here is the comment in full:
It would be unfortunate if that turns out to be the reasoning of the EBA. It would convince only those who need no convincing, which is just useless.
A mere “unlawful” by the president who does not get to decide anyway (Art. 23(3)) should have been easy to dismiss.
The threat had better be real and serious. Probably it was, but at the moment it is impossible to tell. The idea that the investigation unit would be ordered to investigate a BoA decision is objectively too ridiculous to take serious unless the letter actually makes such threat.
“Who would really be surprised if one or more members of the EBoA would be marched out of the EPO,” one person said regarding Battistelli’s EPO. It would not be surprising at all, hence the insistence that the suspended (on ‘house ban’) judge gets a fair assessment, not politically-charged accusations and dismissal:
the two of recent of our feline friend concerning EPONIA, start on the sidebar with
“Extraordinary news has just reached Merpel.”
(this concerns the EBoA OP that was torpedoed )
the other reads “Merpel thought that nothing at the European Patent Office could surprise her any more. How wrong she was. ” (post employmen restrictions)
Who would really be suprised if one or more members of the EBoA would be marched out of the EPO because somebody ruled that a house ban was the right thing for these Judges , who are not really Judges ?
Sir Robin Jacob is then recalled, for his epic intervention on this matter:
Actually, a lot of people at the time were surprised.
Remember Sir Robin Jacob’s Letter?
And the one of the Six National Judges?
And the one from Dr Tilman Müller-Stoy? – with the caption from Merpel: “who’s asking the DE delegation to the AC to set the EPO management straight” (sorry, Dr. Müller-Stoy: it really did not work …).
After Battistelli informed the AC – and the public – that the suspended member of the BoA was (allegedly) an armed nazi, I can understand their reluctance to continue to defend him … but now? After the AC failed for 3 TIMES to have him dismissed, would it not be the time to SAY SOMETHING?
Actually, the silence of the IP world is defeaning.
Only Merpel is brave enough to continue to cover, comment on and criticize what is going on at the EPO.
Where are you Sir Robin?
In response to the above:
I would not expect too much from Sir Robin and his friends.
They may be in a quandry.
Rumour around the EPO has it that a retired British judge chaired a disciplinary body appointed by the Admin Council which rubber-stamped the work of the IU.
Seems like he never heard of Article 23 EPC.
A bit embarrassing for all concerned.
It cannot be pleasant to wake up and realise that you have been a Presidential patsy.
Might help to explain the current silence.
The following person believes that the EPO is like “East Germany” now:
When people who dare criticize and resist a dictatorship are caught, they are never good family’s fathers.
To avoid that normal people could identify themselfes with the person expressing a legitimate critic or an act of resistance, they are publicly presented as monsters, perverts, with the convenient discovery in their offices of incriminating material.
Defending someone like this becomes embarassing – Sir Robin is not heard anymore.
But the person has not acted alone! – we are told. Further conspirators are discovered, guilty by association – first the Judge, then the Union Leaders.
Thus, one by one, the pillars of a civil society are silenced – in secret trials in which the State’ s security may be conveniently invoked to avoid embarassing witnesses to appear, or with reformes to enhance the “perception” of independence, presented with grand fanfare.
And all this is appening – of all places – in Germany, the representative of which in the Administrative Council belongs to the Minister of – wait for it – “Justice”.
I’m surprised that nobody noticed this – but then, not everybody lived in the former East Germany.
“With the EPO,” one person says, “Maas has a politician’s dream: a half-plausible excuse to say “not my department!”.” Here is the full comment:
Justice minister Heiko Maas (SPD) ain’t really the sharpest knife in the drawer. Look at his performance in the NSA and Netzpolitik scandals…
With the EPO, Maas has a politician’s dream: a half-plausible excuse to say “not my department!”.
But it could still be worse… A lot worse… Three words: Thomas. de. Maizière.
Also, “forbidding the three members of the Investigation Unit to appear,” one person said, “is the real scandal here!” Battistelli is probably just trying to cover his own behind, having (quite likely) broken his own rules again:
Everybody here is focusing on a real or perceived threat in the letter of the President – the details of which we will probably never know.
In my opinion, forbidding the three members of the Investigation Unit to appear at the hearings, as requested by the EBoA, is the real scandal here!
The following comment explains that “Battistelli obstructs justice.”
So what happens next?
Whether it was by failure of allowing witnesses to be heard or by a threat letter to the enlarged board, one thing is clear: Battistelli obstructs justice.
Another thing is clear: in their last meeting, the administrative council gave clear instructions that “justice must be seen to be done”. In addition to “restore social peace”, “start talks with the unions”, etc…
Normally, in cases as clear and detrimental to the function of the EPO as this one, the expected answer would be: lift Battistelli immunity and find another President at interim to sort out the mess.
So I am asking the question again: what happens next?
Perhaps the best comment so far points out that “the Investigation Unit might have violated the private e-mail accounts of the accused member” (probably a lot more than once). As we noted here before, the EPO’s Investigative Unit claims to have read private E-mails of bloggers like Florian Müller (one might nonchalantly wonder if Google had something to do with it because Gmail was used). When HP got caught doing such things the ramifications were enormous, but in Eponia? No justice. Here is the comment in full:
Quite amazingly, the President himself has given an indication of why the procedure against the accused member of the boards might have had to be stopped at all costs.
In his final decision against Elizabeth Hardon, the recently fired chairwoman of SUEPO, as published here: http://techrights.org/2016/01/16/battistelli-has-isssues-with-hardon/ the President wrote:
“As regards the defendant’s request concerning the DPO authorisation, the Office’s explained both the technical and the legal aspects. It has explained the exact circumstances under which the investigation took place. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Office did not intercept your correspondence to Mr XX, nor access your private email account. Rather, it collected evidence in the context of an investigation against unknown persons within the premises of the Office and more specifically at one of the Office’s public PC kiosks. Screen shots of email correspondence and activities of Mr XX were obtained in that context. These included screen shots of two-way correspondence between Mr XX and you. It was in that way that your involvement came to light. It was demonstrated to the Committee that the Office had not relied upon intercepting your private email at all, and you were mistaken to think so. These reasons and details were considered carefully by the Disciplinary Committee who fully understood and accepted them. They do not require further elaboration“ see § II (iv) of the President´s final decision.
The President´s final decision thus evokes a suspicion that the Investigation Unit
might have violated the private e-mail accounts of the accused member of the boards and of his alleged accomplice, Elizabeth Hardon. The Disciplinary Committee in Hardon’s case, chaired by the very Mr. McGinley, see § II (i) of the decision, who a few days ago unexpectedly announced his early resignation http://techrights.org/2016/06/15/ciaran-mcginley-is-leaving-epo/ was apparently satisfied by the explanations of the Investigation Unit that they did not gain access to any private e-mail accounts.
It cannot be excluded that a public hearing by the EBA of several members of the Investigation Unit in the present case, which obviously relies upon the same investigations, could on the contrary have revealed that the Office in addition to its admitted spying on publicly available computers also hacked the private e-mail accounts of its staff, with disastrous consequences.
One might begin to wonder if last Tuesday’s hearing helped motivate Ciaran McGinley to take early 'retirement'. If he was ever implicated in obstruction of justice or the aforementioned illegal spying, what would be the impact? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“When asked by Ars, the EPO’s spokesperson mentioned the imminent arrival of the unitary patent system as an important reason for revising the EPO’s internal rules…”
–Dr. Glyn Moody
Summary: Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna’s latest paper explains that the UPC “expert teams” are in fact not experts but people who are using the UPC as a Trojan horse by which to promote their business interests and corporate objectives
THE UPC is not “unitary”, it is not “EU”, and it is not “Community” (as it used to be labeled). It is a patent lawyers’ wishlist and they are getting close to making this wishlist European law and practice. This is extremely dangerous and it’s rather clear who this is going to serve. Battistelli’s EPO, which is in the pockets of large corporations, obviously supports the UPC. Battistelli himself has supported the UPC (in previous incarnations thereof) for well over half a decade. He travels to the UK amid referendum to promote his agenda. This ENA graduate knows the drill and it’s certainly not serving the public (as those sufficiently familiar with ENA politicians probably know all too well by now).
“Battistelli himself has supported the UPC (in previous incarnations thereof) for well over half a decade.”Here in the UK we have what can be viewed somewhat like “moles”, or people whose role in the British economy is rather parasitic. They want more for themselves at the expense of those who produce things, such as software. They want software patents and they want the UPC. As we noted here before, Bristows are some of the biggest UPC propagandists out there (also for software patents) and Brian Cordery who is affiliated with Bristows now says that the “reshaping of UK patent litigation by the Judges coincided with the decision by many multinational companies in all sectors to coordinate their European patent litigation more and more – to devise, stress-test and implement strategies in key cases. Many UK law firms were chosen to assist their clients in this process which enabled these firms to gain a wider perspective and provide more joined-up advice to their clients.”
How revealing. He then admits that there is a “microcosm of patent litigation” in the mix. To quote: “It seems to the author that in the microcosm of patent litigation, sharing views and learning from each other has led to improved practices across the continent. Now we are of course on the brink of the most exciting development in European patent litigation for nearly half a century. The Unified Patent Court represents an enormous challenge – and an enormous opportunity – to all UK patent litigators. If the UK votes to leave the EU next week, the future of the UPC is uncertain although the future of the UK’s part in the UPC will be clear enough. What would this mean for UK patent litigation? Maybe not so much in the short to medium term – it is not unreasonable to suppose that the English Patents Court might become akin to its counterparts in Canada or Australia – still a venue for patent cases of high value and/or strategic importance. But how much more exciting would it be to shape the UPC which surely has the potential to become the world’s most attractive forum for patent litigation by the end of the next decade?”
“The problem is, the people who engineered the UPC, as the above admits, are people who stand to profit from it.”So UPC “has the potential to become the world’s most attractive forum for patent litigation,” right? Don’t we all love litigation as much as patent lawyers do?
The problem is, the people who engineered the UPC, as the above admits, are people who stand to profit from it. Members of the general public were excluded, as noted here many times before, and Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna, a longtime opponent of the UPC and its predecessors, has a new paper about it, having just published a whole book on the subject. We have already written a great deal about the UPC being all about rigged panels (excluding particular points of view), which effectively makes it a coup in broad daylight. In the words of Ingve Björn Stjerna: “There have probably rarely been legislative proceedings of such technocratic nature as those on the European “patent package”. Patent practitioners, especially judges and members of the legal profession, have been involved extensively in order to use their experience for the new system. An important role in this is played by the Preparatory Committee of the Unified Patent Court which is entitled to appoint so-called “expert teams” for its support and advice. Conflicts of interest do not seem to play a role when it comes to filling the positions of these teams. Appointments from the legal profession, the members of which often have significant financial interests in the realisation of the “patent package”, have repeatedly been made in favor of the same individuals from only a few law firms. Some of these persons use their membership for promoting the advocacy services of their law firms. These “expert teams” and their composition will afterwards be given a closer look.”
Here is the direct link to the PDF in English (there is also one in German). “The “expert teams” of the Preparatory Committee,” he explains, is an “[a]rticle on the composition of the “expert teams” of the Preparatory Committee for the Unified Patent Court and on the participation of members from the legal profession “in their personal capacity” (16/06/2016)”
“Perhaps it’s time to start a broad, Europe-wide information campaign about the UPC.”Well, it sure looks like the UPC might never become a reality at all. Even the EPO quit pretending that this is inevitable. Are politicians even aware of what it is they are ratifying and where it came from? Do they care? Perhaps it’s time to start a broad, Europe-wide information campaign about the UPC. We recently heard that FFII might be interested in pursuing this. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Another fine example of why we sometimes call it the European Private Office [1, 2]
Summary: Extravagant and cushy contracts to the tune of tens of millions of Euros are being issued without public scrutiny and without opportunities to competition (few corporations easily score cushy EPO contracts while illusion of tendering persists — for small jobs only)
THE European Patent Office ought to be widely viewed as Europe’s most scandalous ‘public’ (corporate) institution. As we noted here before, the EPO‘s French CIO from “Informatique CDC” was wasting heaps of money on “IT” (not far from a hundred million Euros). Combine this kind of budget with lack of oversight and you might expect something like the Bygmalion affair, with massive contracts given to French companies (adjacent to the CIO’s previous employer) such as Infotel. Alarms were already raised about this, judging by the following explanation based on which we produced the chart above:
One thing that is noteworthy is that there are more direct placements (79 in total) than there are awards after competitive bids (42 in total) and that the average value of the direct placements are higher than those of the competitive bids. The big winners are IT consultants, among which InfotelConseil S.A. (Neuilly, near Paris), SaM Holding GmbH (Gilching, near Starnberg) and Everis Spain S.L. (in Brussels). For Infotel the total value of the listed contracts is slightly over 14 million Euro. The total value of the 5 awards after competitive bids is about 1.8 million, i.e. almost 340 thousand Euro per contract. The total value of the 11 (!) direct placements is almost 12.5 million, with an average value of about 1.1 million per contract. We see a similar pattern with Everis Spain, with a total value of the listed contracts of over 15 million Euro. The 8 contracts after competitive bids have an average value of 574 thousand Euros. The 14 (!) direct placements are worth almost 11 million Euros, i.e. 770 million Euro / contract. SaM Holding won 2 competitive bids leading to contracts with a value of 1.7 million, i.e. 850 thousand per contract. Its 9 direct placements (among which 3 of over 2 million) amounted to 13.4 million Euro, i.e. an average of almost 1.5 million Euro per contract.
Direct placements by the EPO are highly problematic because of their lack of transparency and because these contracts are not open to any effective form of control or challenge. Already, potential competitors cannot challenge such placement for the simple reason that they are not informed of their existence. They also do not know the rules that apply. The only possible controls are from within the Organisation, i.e. by the Board of Auditors or by the staff representation. The EPO’s Board of Auditors, appointed by the EPO’s Administrative Council, is notoriously inefficient in finding irregularities. In the rare cases where it does find something wrong, the Office mostly ignores their comments. Given the lack of alternative controls, the staff committee challenged a direct placement (later also flagged as irregular by the Auditors! See page 159 of CA/20/09) at ILOAT. In its Judgment 3343 the Tribunal held the complaint irreceivable because the alleged violation of the rules did not have “a direct and immediate bearing on the employment status or rights of employees.” This leaves the EPO’s about multi-million Euros procurement budget essentially without any control.
Secret contracts to FTI Consulting — contracts which were recently expanded — ought to be investigated alongside Battistelli’s expensive information war [1, 2, 3, 4] (more contracts, even for surveillance and censorship). There’s also an urgent need to look into Battistelli's buying of the media. With so much to hide inside Europe’s second-largest public institution, a lot of ‘military-grade’ propaganda may be needed, not just managers with military background (there are quite a few of them now). EPO management is ‘managing’ its budget pretty much like the Pentagon allocates money. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.19.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Rushing examiners, but at what cost? Lots for Battistelli to cherry-pick from…
Reference: Quality (business)
Summary: By lowering the quality of patents granted by the European Patent Office Battistelli hopes to create an illusion of success, where success is not measured properly and is assessed by biased firms which he finances
TECHRIGHTS has expressed deep and genuine concerns about the quality of EPO patents for quite some time (about half a decade, not just in relation to software patents). The growing threat is an irreversible decline in quality that would superficially elevate the number of granted patents (devaluing/diluting their value, especially older ones) just like at the USPTO (which many would agree is in a chaotic state when it comes to patent quality). More is not always merrier, especially when it comes to patent monopoly/protection. It’s not beneficial to innovation (over-patenting) and it often brings with it many false positives, i.e. patents erroneously granted, which leads to spurious demands, court cases, disputes, etc.
The following is a very sad story (also a rather long one) from an EPO patent examiner. This examiner openly (but anonymously, for his/her protection) admits quality has been ruined under Battistelli. Here is the comment in full:
Just to complete the picture since it appears everyone is shocked of how things are run when they become a bit public. My unfortunate reality is these reports do not deviate from the daily life in-house. I am an examiner. Or more accurately, I was an experienced examiner, I am now on the payroll. I was once proud of doing my job diligently. Maybe it is linked to the technical field, I used to examine diligently with a low rate of grants, even when compared to my close colleagues. Most files I examined were withdrawn when explained why they would not satisfy the technical and legal requirements. I refused the large part of the other applications and, amongst the refusals challenged all but one stood before the BoAs.
Following the procedure towards a sound refusal requires serious work and takes time. I was never processing high numbers of applications, average compared to colleagues, had no rapid career but was proud of my work. Sure cutting many corners would have provided me immediate financial advantages in terms of promotions but would have been at the expense of the public, the competitors and my pride. I don’t know which one mattered most. I never gave in anyway.
Things have changed over the last three years. Production targets were raised, colleagues were put in direct competition for steps and promotions. The collaborative work we used to do mostly vanished. I have tried to stay focused on my work and its quality. I was soon put under pressure of my direct boss for having a low “productivity” (some kind of bizarre calculation dividing a weighted sum of the times you pressed a button claiming a search report is out and of the times that an application is granted, refused, withdrawn or that the applicant stopped paying the renewal fees by the available working time. Unrelated to the amount of actual work done but use to promote and punish). Not that my “productivity” had changed but the ones of my colleagues went up dramatically (rat race for grabbing big bonuses) and I am now in the target line. My manager explained me that I needed to do 40% more productivity to stay out of trouble. I told him that it was totally unreasonable and the work could not be done this way. He assured me he knew that but had no margin and had to follow the orders.
I then reflected on the actions of my own government represented in the Administrative Council. They obviously do not care. Neither do most other countries. The very same goes for the public at large and applicants.
I decided to preserve my health, my family and stopped doing my job. This year I will deliver more patents than I have done over the last 10 years at least. I am going back home earlier, have longer coffee breaks and do not elaborate relevant technical and legal arguments anymore. I avoid citing pieces of prior art that are too relevant; citing an approximate document is enough to write a formal objection, wait for the answer and submit it to the colleagues. I do not believe they read anymore what they sign and everyone is happy. Not my pride. But the price is paid. Had I known I would have end up in such a situation, I could have acted this way much earlier to get promoted. It is hardly a secret that most of today’s managers reached their positions either by having extraordinary “productivities” or by escaping towards functions not having any “productivity” calculations. Ask examiners about ridiculous examples of patents granted by their managers!
I am now making most people happy: my manager, Mr. Battistelli, the Member States, the Administrative Council, the applicants, their representatives, my family. I can only be sorry for my lost pride, my lack of courage, the public at large for restricting freedoms, the competitors for the unfair competition, the taxpayers for the extra expenses of the judiciary, the consumers for the extra licensing costs and the reader because I am too verbose. Telling makes my sense of guilt more bearable.
This comment isn’t from some ‘rotten apple’ or an outlier. Judging by reactions to it (thus far), many people at the EPO feel the same way. “The recent slide in examination quality has been very clear to those of us who study cases carefully,” one person wrote. Here is the comment in full:
Thank you for your heartfelt confessional. You are not alone. The recent slide in examination quality has been very clear to those of us who study cases carefully. But not only in the sense of granting applications too easily. We are also seeing negative communications issued with virtually no serious analysis. Cite a few documents, cut and paste the standard paragraph about being routine for the skilled person – job done! The application will be shelved for the next two or three years, while the EPO continues to collect those juicy renewal fees.
Responding to the part which said “This year I will deliver more patents than I have done over the last 10 years at least,” one person writes: “It seems that the effects are starting to see.”
We have been warning about this for a very long time and the cited blog post we already mentioned here the other day. Here is an observation from another thread:
Some further thoughts.
A big jump in grants will lead to a big jump in oppositions, even without any change in “quality” of decisions to grant.
Oppositions, I understand, are priority 1, even more so after the proposed changes to procedure.
And yet I am seeing an increasing number of zombie applications [more than 10 years old] being brought into examination, sometimes with an examiner amendment on a Rule 71(3) notice. How are you finding time to deal with the long tail of old applications?
The response to it uses internal terminology, which suggests these are indeed EPO insiders who speak on the subject:
I too have seen an increase in re-surfacing zombies, generally where there has been an exam report many years ago. Often the exam report just required a response to a PCT Written Opinion, in the days before the present Rule 161.
As I understand it, such zombies would be priority 2 under ECfS, above starting new examinations. Presumably this is why Examiners are able to allocate time to them.
“Indeed,” notes a response to it. “Those examination dossiers where the applicant would not get a refund due to a first communication already having been sent are priority 2. The first action blocking a refund is, IMHO, a trigger for a higher priority I can stand behind. Finish startes [sic] files instead of having as many started as possible, which seemed to be the priority for some of my colleagues. If you ask for accelerated, or when the next comm. can be expected, the file is lifted up to priority 1.”
Meanwhile, in relation to the US system (where patent quality is rather appalling for reasons we have mentioned for a decade), Professor Dennis Crouch now shows that despite the number of patents almost doubling, “Certificates of Correction” remain at a similar number and are seemingly peaking this year. In Crouch’s words: “A substantial percentage of patents continue to pass through the post-issuance correction process that leads to a Certificate of Correction.”
He also wrote: “The number of corrections has remained relatively steady over the past 15 years. Since the number of issued patents issued has risen so dramatically during that time, this steady-state of correction filings means that the average number of corrections per recently issued patent has continued dropped steadily for the past decade with the odd exception of patents issued in 2009. About 14% of patents issued 1990 to 2005 went through the correction process. That percentage is now down under 10%.”
This is one indication of decline of quality control. Now, compare that to the number of appeals at the EPO (a subject previously explored here) and imagine what’s to come with increased appeal fees (reportedly to skyrocket), especially if Battistelli gets his way and altogether eliminates the appeal boards.
Responding to the original rant (from “1984″) about patent quality, one person wrote:
I totally agree with you, 1984 – and also share the same, big regret: I should have started earlier to send out…
Another person wrote:
Thank you, 1984, for expressing so accurately my own feelings! Both so funny and sad to think you may just be in another country or just next door. We will never talk about it, we will never know. If the word were to be spread on the identity of anyone talking, our families would be screwed. Not worth the risk of the institutional retaliation.
Then came a humorous response from “The Investigative Unit” [1, 2] and one person seemed befuddled by IAM (the EPO is still leaning on its IAM propagandists to pretend patent quality and service are fine). To quote:
What I find rather impressive is that the Epo keeps winning each and every patent quality survey. Not only are we the best of the world but in 2015 our quality greatly improved over 2014…
That’s nonsense. It’s IAM nonsense, i.e. the usual.
Here is one response to that:
Do you remember the fate of the Survey organized by the Office about the reform of the BoA?
The results were completely misrepresented by Battistelli to support his agenda – as a post by Merpel detailed.
Do you really expect El Presidentitssimo to report any negative results that do not fit his agenda?
Good luck with that.
“The results were completely misrepresented by Battistelli to support his agenda,” the above says, “as a post by Merpel detailed.” This is what we have come to expect from just about any ‘survey’ by and about the EPO. Follow the money, follow the invoices. We have. Battistelli’s expensive information war [1, 2, 3, 4] is hoping to distract from and discourage (e.g. by spying) messages like that from “1984″. Truth/objectivity is not allowed at today’s EPO and Battistelli runs his Ministry of Truth, just like in the book “1984“. █
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