Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Never mind a surge in litigation, often by entities outside Europe
For the uninitiated, this is what Battistelli does at the EPO
Summary: The vision that Team Battistelli has for the EPO is an ENA-inspired neoliberal and corporatist vision that would bring the legitimacy of the system down to zero and the European economy to the brink of collapse
THE DAYS OF THE EPO as a world leader are over. Battistelli demolished the Office and he can only rely on his mouthpieces to claim otherwise. He further misleads the public by presenting some numbers from inside the EPO (making claims about itself) — dubious numbers as one might expect [1, 2, 3] — and we’re supposed to think that everything is fine. It’s not. Everything is not fine and Battistelli may be fired next month, judging by his lack of progress on demands from his overseers.
“asically, the patents industry is protesting the changes made to address (tackle/eliminate) poor patent quality in the US.”Nevertheless, pro-software patents sites would have us believe that the EPO, with its growing affinity for software patents, is a model of success — all this while pro-software patents courts in the US latch onto EPO for the purpose of legitimaising software patents. “Constantly changing patent laws are taking a toll on American innovation,” one shallow new pieces says, essentially bemoaning decisions like Alice (ended a lot of software patents in the US). Basically, the patents industry is protesting the changes made to address (tackle/eliminate) poor patent quality in the US. Nearly doubling the number of granted patents at the USPTO in a decade? Not enough! They want more! They make money out of it.
“Nice to see that the EPO has stooped to questioning the competence of European patent attorneys, in order to promote its courses…”
–AnonymousAs longtime readers may know, our original concern about the EPO was patent scope, primarily the expansion to the domain of software patents. According to this new press release, TEVA’s patent monopoly is about to be invalidated by the EPO, but it’s not a software patent. To quote the announcement: “Jefferies analyst, Brian Abrahams, noted that EPO has released its prelim opinion that TEVA’s broad patent claims are not supported by the priority application (are not novel) and TEVA’s claims lack inventive step, a positive for Alder Biopharm (NASDAQ: ALDR).”
The sad thing is, if the UPC ever became a reality, the Boards of Appeal would possibly be made obsolete or redundant, making it even harder (or too expensive if not impractical) to challenge bogus patents — those granted in error. As one comment recently put it:
I understand very well how the examiner’s deal with unity – if the claim amendments mean they will have to do some more work, they will argue lack of unity. The applicant will either follow the examiner’s line through lack of will to fight or will take it to appeal, whereupon the BoA will roundly criticize the examiner and allow the appeal.
A response said:
I think you mix up lack of unity and the introduction of unsearched subject matter. Having to search elsewhere may not be lacking unity but will refer to the second case.
Battistelli already crushes the independence of the boards (see what was done to that judge), so what future would there be to appeals and external challenges to EPO patents? The EPO is so arrogant and drunk on power. It even insults its stakeholders now.
Having noticed something that we too noticed beforehand, one commenter goes out of his/her way to say:
Nice to see that the EPO has stooped to questioning the competence of European patent attorneys, in order to promote its courses:
“Patent attorneys do not always understand how the EPO deals with non-unity. Discuss here: http://buzz.mw/b15ku_f #searchmatters”
https://twitter.com/EPOorg/status/730712544655097856
So is the idea that we qualified but nevertheless ignorant-of-the-law EPAs should rush to sign up and better ourselves?
I am sure that these courses are useful as continuing professional development, but this tweet certainly isn’t a professional way to encourage attendance.
See what the EPO has become? It’s totally out of control and one way to stop this is to stop the UPC and get rid of its #1 fan (who now visits nations that consider exiting the EU in order to push the UPC). That’s Mr. Battistelli, who has promoted it for more than half a decade in spite of public disapproval (for nearly a whole decade now). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 9:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Time to give Battistelli the sack
Summary: An informal but timely progress report shows that Battistelli has made no progress whatsoever and all the injustices remain in tact, in spite of the warnings from the Administrative Council (mid March)
WE already wrote about Battistelli's failure to appease the Administrative Council two weeks after he was warned. Well, two months have just passed and Battistelli is as evil and crooked as ever. In fact, his attacks on staff representatives apparently stretch far beyond just the EPO (well after dismissal). Battistelli has nothing whatsoever to redeem himself; nothing was done to repair the damage because a weak SUEPO is what Battistelli wants.
“Battistelli has nothing whatsoever to redeem himself; nothing was done to repair the damage because a weak SUEPO is what Battistelli wants.”“For example,” says this new comment, “a recently dismissed member of the staff representation is seeking work as a patent attorney. The President will be able to prohibit that for two years, without compensation.”
This does not surprise us as we mentioned this before although we didn’t know staff representatives too were affected. It’s one prominent example of divergence from international labour protections. “Merpel catches up with developments at the EPO,” IP Kat has just said, “in the Boards of Appeal, employee dissatisfaction and sanctions, and more…”
“Nothing at all was resolved.”Well, remember that in spite of the rules, which are written very clearly, Battistelli suspended a high-level member of a Board of Appeal. Where is justice when it comes to him? In fact, it increasingly looks like Battistelli defamed a judge and might be sued for it. Battistelli was all along just a tyrant, as were his minions in management who relentlessly attacked staff representatives. He has done anything he could to demonise his exposers at the EPO (even outside the EPO) and some believe that the Boards of Appeal are next in the firing line. To quote what Fritz wrote: “These very staff regulations, including the investigation guidelines, have been seen a pen accepted by the AC. Si who is toto blame? The same will happen with the regulations for the BoA.”
Here are some remarks about the impact on SUEPO, in light of the PDF response to the regulations/guidelines for investigations (as HTML):
“All or nothing strategy” is the the best description I’ve heard so far about what is going on at the EPO.
Despite the clear instruction to come to an agreement with both unions, we have heard nothing about an initiative to even begin a conversation with SUEPO. They are still waiting for a response to their proposal of a agreement made a long time ago. My prediction is that the AC members will be told in June that SUEPO, to the great regret of management, simply refused to talk and nothing could be done.
Dear AC members, if you want the truth, SUEPO’s willingness to talk with you will without a doubt have few bounds.
The AC requested the EPOffice President:
¨to ensure that disciplinary sanctions and proceedings are not only fair but also seen to be so, and to consider the possibility of involvement of an external reviewer or of arbitration or mediation¨.
The disciplinary sanctions and proceedings were and still are unfair and in conflict with fundamental human rights.Battistelli never will accept a neutral external reviewer or arbitration/mediation because he fears the truth and loses his face. Battistelli only could accept a reviewer/mediator he can choose and have influence on.
The AC requested further: ¨pending the outcome of this process and before further decisions in disciplinary cases are taken, to inform the AC in appropriate detail and make proposals that enhance confidence in fair and reasonable proceedings and sanctions¨ and ¨to submit to the AC a draft revision of the Staff Regulations which incorporates investigation guidelines (including the investigation unit) and disciplinary procedures which have been reviewed and amended¨
Also here happened NOTHING. I am afraid that in the view of Battistelli and his clan the Staff Regulations are okee and not in conflict with fundamental human rights. For him it is not necessary to react to the proposal of the SUEPO because the SUEPO has a total different and unacceptable view of how the Staff Regulations should be. Moreover Battistelli and his team do not want to loose their faces. Faces they have already lost a long time ago.
Just because Battistelli keeps a low profile, as he was instructed to do (apparently but not certainly by the damage control experts) ,does not mean anything was resolved. Nothing at all was resolved. Battistelli called off the (probably illegal) pension cuts affecting one staff representative, but that’s purely it. He failed at everything. It’s time for him to go next month. Maybe some protests or a strike coinciding with the Administrative Council’s meeting will help get across such an uncontroversial message. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Patents at 9:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Deception, Free/Libre Software, Patents a las 6:52 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Ya es tiempo que los desarrolladores se unan activamente se envuelvan en poner fin a las patentes de software
Sumario: Impuestos al desarrollo — o el costo relaciónado con el caos de patentes — rápidamente creciéndo cada vez mas y en el caso del Free software rápidamente excede las ganancias por distribución, que usualmente es $0
EL sistema de patentes de los EE.UU es extremadamente hostil al Free software, por lo que toda clase de grupos como la OIN surgieron (aunque en práctica sean inefectivos). Poniéndolo crudamente, la USPTO y el Free software no pueden coexistir a menos que los examinadores de patentes dejen de otorgar patentes de software y la PTAB (o equivalente) se deshaga de las que ya fueron otorgadas (hay un alto grado de invalidación allí).
Law 360, un sitio con tercas cajas de pagos, tiene estas noticias acerca de un caso de alto perfil. Vale la pena notar que en el caso SRI International Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. es Free software, el software creado por Sourcefire, el cual fue considerado infractor. To quote Law 360:
Cisco Systems Inc. ha infringido dos patentes de vigilancia en red propiedad de SRI International Inc., un jurado federal de Delaware decidió el jueves, ordenando a la empresa de tecnología de California a pagar casi $ 24 millones en daños y perjuicios.
La demanda de SRI había apuntado productos como el llamado Sistema de prevención de intrusiones de Cisco y algunos servicios que Cisco adquirió cuando compró Sourcefire Inc. (Crédito: AP) Los ocho miembros del jurado acordaron por unanimidad el Cisco sede en San José infringió deliberadamente las patentes de sus productos de prevención de intrusiones en la red y no pudo probar las patentes eran inválidas.
¿Qué sigue, Jabber? Cisco merece crédito por defenderse, pero de todas maneras perdió. Esto son malas noticias para el Free software y demuestra el problema con las patentes de software. Cisco debería apelar si fuese posible; talvez Alice pueda ayudar aquí.
“Las patentes de software son asesinos silenciósos y los principales medios de comunicación hacen nada o muy poco para resaltar el problema.”
A través de los años hemos cubierto como proyectos de Free software (programas, apps, plugins) fuéron asesinados (sacados del internet de la noche a la mañana) debido a agresión de patentes, o litigación o amenazas de ella. Las patentes de software son asesinos silenciósos y los principales medios de comunicación hacen nada o muy poco para resaltar el problema. Esta apatía sólo empeora cuando ellos deciden citar abogados de patentes no a desarrolladores de software, acerca de patentes de software (a veces dejándolos contribuír a una completa columna/artículo).
Otro nuevo artículo de Law 360 habla de los masivos costos legales en los casos de patentes. Para citar: “El costo es $2,000 cada hora, de acuerdo a una investigación del BTI Consulting Group, un crecimiénto notorio del anterior $1,600 alcanzado el año pasado y relativamente tres veces más que lo que clientes normales pagan por trabajo legal.”
“59% de las compañías pagan por lo menos a una Firma Legal $1000 por Hora,” escribió un abogado de patentes, a lo cual Benjamin Henrion respondió con “Siempre dije que era una ocupación parasítica.”
“Los medios de comunicación son acosados por los abogados de patentes.”
¿Cuántos desarrolladores de software libre pueden pagar los abogados de patentes a estos precios realmente exorbitantes? ¿Por qué no son los desarrolladores no se levantan en armas? ¿Dónde está la resistencia? Los medios de comunicación son acosados por los abogados de patentes.
The Hill, medios de comunicación de los grupos de presión, está ahora ocupado spor maximalistas de patente para la maximización de la patente (¡sorpresa!). Para citar la divulgación de esta última pieza de propaganda: “Stoll es un socio y co-presidente del grupo de la propiedad intelectual en Drinker Biddle & Reath y ex comisionado de patentes en la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de Estados Unidos.”
Y esta gente posa como ‘periodistas’. ¿Dónde esta la voz de los desarrolladores de software? Los proponentes de patentes de software tratan de amplificar el mensaje de Stoll con tonterías como: “¿Las decisiónes de patentes estan estrángulando nuestra economíá? El antiguo Comisionado de Patentes Bob Stoll dice que sí.”
“No hay nada que posea una amenaza existencial para el Free software (no el FOSS cautivo a vendedores) más que las patentes de software y más envolvimiénto es necesario de más programadores con el objetivo de poner fin a ello.”
“Es “su economíá,” Henrion señaló. “Los agentes de patentes viven de ellas.” Bueno, ellos también conquistan a los medios.
“DDR Holdings no es más el punto de esperanza para los innovadores y dueños de patentes en el espacio de software,” escribió otro maximalista, “Discutiéndo Enfish” (lo que acabamos de cubrir).
Como Henrion notó, es esta “¿esperanza de la pesadilla regresando?”
“Hoy celebramos el aniversario de la #MSFT 1st #patente,” escribió una cuenta de Microsoft. “Salud a 30 años de innovación y muchos más por venir” (no innovación, chantaje, incluso contra el Free software).
Como Henrion lo puso, “¿quiéres decir la pesadilla para los desarrolladores?”
Necesitamos más desarrolladores — no sólo desarrolladores de Free software — que se involucren y contrarresten el mensaje de los abogados de patetnes, algunos de los cuales quieren salirse con la suya al traer más patentes a Europa, incluyendo patentes de software que Alemania notoriamente otorga (“¿Son la mayoría de patentes en Alemania válidas después de todo?”)
No hay nada que posea una amenaza existencial para el Free software (no el FOSS cautivo a vendedores) más que las patentes de software y más envolvimiénto es necesario de más programadores con el objetivo de poner fin a ello.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europe, Patentes a las 9:03 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
La gerencia de la EPO esta tratándo de ‘pacificar’ a la oficina por la fuerza
Sumario: En cara a la resistencia a contróversiales y frecuéntemente antidemocráticas, ilegales y posiblemente actos críminales o felonías, los chácales de Battistelli recurren a ataques de decapitación (atacando o torturando figuras claves) y armándose alrededor de sí misma — todo esto mientras falsamente acusando otros de portar armas o recurrir a la agresión
LOS escándalos de la EPO están sucediéndo por alguna razón. Como el Dr. Glyn Moody lo puso a principios de año: “Cuando fue preguntado por Ars, el representante de la EPO menciinó el inminente arribo del sistema unitario de patentes como una importante razón para revisar las reglas internas de la EPO…”
Piense a lo largo de las líneas de la globalización en línea/inclinada con TPP, TTIP o cualquier agenda corporativa-inclinada interrupida en tránsito (en medio unísono, donde las leyes consiguen ‘armonizar’, es decir, modificar de acuerdo a algunos intereses periféricos).
En Techrights estámos realmente preocupados por la UPC y lo hemos hecho por que más de media década (escribimos acerca de esto mucho antes de que se conociese como “UPC”). Nos complace ver que escritores, abogados, examinadores e incluso políticos están empezando a ponerse al día. Ya se estan dando cuenta de lo que se trata todo esto y que de vez en cuando despotricar acerca de ello. En respuesta, los defensores de la UPC se vuelven paranoicos e incluso agresivos. Como un comentario lengua sobre cachete lo puso el otro día: “¿Por qué te asombras Merpel? ¿No has estado leyendo los comentarios en tu propio blog durante estos últimos años? Estas personas están sobre sus propias posaderas por tanto tiempo,,, que y perdieron el contacto con la realidad,,, sin embargo, puedo entender su inseguridad, Es bastante fácil imaginar un escenario en el que alguien secuestre a un VP de EPO o PD y envía una nota de rescate a lo largo de las líneas de “nos han secuestrado a un miembro de alto rango de la administración de EPO – nos pagar 10 euros en efectivo o vamos a enviar de vuelta” “(que es una broma, por supuesto).
Algunas personas quienes talvez carezcan del sentido del humorrespondiéron como si fuese un comenterio financiádo por Battistelli. “Aparentemente,” una persona escribió, “FTI Consulting continúa envíando sus trolles…”
Bueno, FTI is al parecer completamente trayendo contenido de la UPC en discusiónes, but this isn’t it. Como una persona lo puso:
¿Es realmente necesario llamar a alguien un troll pagado por señalar lo obvio?
Por supuesto yihadistas son poco probable que sea consciente de la existencia del Sr. Battistelli, no importa salir del cascarón cualquier esquema en contra suya. Sin embargo, el propio Sr. Battistelli, que tiene una opinión notoriamente exagerada de sí mismo, probablemente no ver cosas por el estilo, e incluso puede estar convencido de que un ataque en su contra sería el mayor éxito de ISIS desde la caída de Mosul.
Otro comentario dijo (BB corto por Battistelli):
Gracias por la observación. No me di cuenta del segundo comentario “troll” y tengo que decir que no estoy seguro de a lo que el primero se dirige, y mucho menos con respecto a que! Me adhiero a una declaración de hecho, relevante para la cuestión de por qué la seguridad es considerado por BB (por cualquier razón) que necesite, y una expresión de mi propia opinión de que mis colegas no son una amenaza. No está claro cómo puede ser de arrastre.
Tal vez valdría la pena considerar que una opinión que no comparte, no se curricán sin más – irónicamente, los pregoneros parece dar a entender que sus colegas son tales que BB puede necesitar protección. Eso sí que sería trolling si pongo esa idea por ahí sin ninguna justificación.
Para volver a mi comentario – BB cree que podría ser un objetivo de los terroristas (no tengo manera de saber, espero que se haya salido de precaución) y yo no creo que mis colegas, sin embargo malestar o incluso en dificultades, recurran a la violencia.
Y si eso es aún provocativo …
Battistelli esta tratando de mantener al ilusión de que los representántes de la EPO son violentos y pelígrosos. Rodeárse de su Guardia Pretoriana perpetúa esta ilusión y el sárcastico comentario mencionado anteriórmente (acerca de secuestrar “un alto miembor de la gerencia de la EPO”) es actualmente divertido. Battistelli ve conspiraciónes donde no hay ninguna (“Para el hombre que esta asustado, todo amenaza,” dice este comentario) y la única amplia conspiración actualmente es la que esta siéndo perpetuada al presente por Battistelli y sus compadres superricos, quiénes están ansiósos de hacer la UPC una realidad a toda costa (incluso violando leyes Europeas e internacionales en el proceso). Recuérden el comentario anterior del Dr. Moody acerca del rol de la UPC en todo el presente desorden.
“La lógica no parece entrar en estas reciéntes “precauciónes de seguridad”, una persona señaló, “un ejemplo sería la necesidad de que los represnetante muestren los contenidos de sus maletines al personal de seguridad contiene nada más amenazante que un pioner. Me pregunto ¿qué es lo que harían si en una audiencia pertinente, digamos por una patente de puntas de flechas, diría cuando traiga muestras a la audiencia?”
Nosotros escribimos acerca de ello a principios de año. Es asombróso ¿no es cierto? Ha aquí otro comentario en la materia:
He leído que: “los guardaespaldas son precisamente para dentro de la EPO”.
También leí que son los empleados mejor pagados de la EPO. Su Presidente, quiere que los DG 3 empleados esten fuera del edificio en él que tenga su oficina.
Llego a la conclusión de que el Sr. Battistelli en su solido edificio Izar encuentra incluso la mera presencia de cualquier empleado de la EPO embarazósa, sólo de miembros de la cuadrilla que ha reunido en torno a sí mismo. Por cierto, ¿es cierto, que él tiene su propio ascensor privado, servicio de transporte a él en el aislamiento entre el garaje y la suite del ático?
La función de los guardaespaldas dentro de la EPO es, presumiblemente, para mantener el resto de los seres humanos a una distancia segura de su hombre, para asegurar que el Presidente cuando este en la oficina no tiene que sufrir incluso el contacto visual con cualquier otro empleado de la EPO.
“Tu mente trabaja mejor cuando estas paranoico,” dijo una persona. “Exploras cada camino, y posibilidad de tu situación a alta velocidad con total claridad.”
Aquí hay otro comentario en la materia:
de acuerdo con mi información de los guardaespaldas son, precisamente, para dentro de la EPO (contrariamente a la afirmación del troll anterior).
En el mundo exterior no se sabe de Battistelli, Bergot al. Y en cuanto a los riesgos reales: de la EPO sólo es asediada por Greenpeace de vez en cuando con una pancarta en la fachada o similares.
No hay que olvidar que Battistelli ve “enemigos internos” (el título insulto de una entrevista que concedió a la amigable de la EPO, Les Echos (FR en el pasado).
También he oído que al principio la EPO quería sheriffs con armas antes de aceptarlos desarmados. Una alta dirección que necesita ser protegido de su fuerza de trabajo dice mucho sobre el nivel de tensiones alcanzado.
En la EPO, como resultado de esta militarización, un montón de dinero es desperdiciado. “Dinero pue fué pagado por los aplicantes, y que nadie sabe en donde desaparecerá,” djo este comentario. Para citarlo completamente:
Objeciones no-unitarias en la búsqueda se han vuelto más populares en el OPO últimamente, debido a que las normas internas han cambiado. Examinador tiene menos tiempo para hacer frente a una búsqueda (que tienen un mayor número de búsquedas y el examen asignado que los años anteriores), y no la unidad es visto por sus directores como una forma rápida de enviar el archivo de nuevo a los solicitantes para ser puestas en orden. O bien, si los solicitantes pagan honorarios adicionales, las cifras de la Dirección se incrementan por el número de tasas de búsqueda adicionales.
Es una de las muchas medidas del equipo de Battistelli diseñada tanto para bajar el nivel de servicio y aumentar las tasas.
Me pregunto por qué la industria no se queja de la evolución del sistema de la patente europea. Battistelli está ahorrando millones de euros, pero las tarifas no disminuyen. Las cifras oficiales del presupuesto es que tenemos 340 millones se fue el año pasado después de que pasamos a 200 millones en el nuevo edificio y sobre todo en la modernización de nuestro sistema informático (todo el dinero fue a las empresas Francesas como “Conseil Infotel”, por cierto …) . Este dinero fue pagado en su totalidad por los solicitantes y nadie sabe dónde va a desaparecer.
La Oficina Europea de Patentes no es simplemente lo que solía ser. A los examinadores no se les paga lo suficiente para que sean competitivos en el mercado de trabajo de Munich (Munich no es Francia, donde todo el mundo parece estar desesperado por un trabajo), por lo que la EPO no pueden llenar la mitad de las posiciónes. La presión del trabajo, especialmente bajo directores que quieren perfilarse, es tan alta que las personas están tomando atájos. Las salas de recursos no funcionan por falta de personal. Los representantes del personal son despedidos y se les prohibió la entrada en los locales y más despidos están en marcha. Nunca ha sido tan mala desde que la EPO fue fundada.
“La Oficina Europea de Patentes no es lo que solía ser,” dice lo de arriba, afirmando lo obvio. Otra persona concurre:
Estoy de acuerdo con el último post, de “examinador preocupado”. Las reglas han estado allí desde 1978, para disciplinar a los solicitantes recalcitrantes. Por ejemplo, el que decreta que es necesario el consentimiento de la División de Examen, antes de poder obtener una segunda ronda de modificación admitida. Teniendo en cuenta el rendimiento secuencial en la EPO de búsqueda y examen de fondo a continuación, por supuesto que no iba a ser su derecho a cambiar durante el examen de fondo de la materia no buscada.
El problema comienza, sin embargo, cuando la administración tardía comienza a forzar a los examinadores en la aplicación de las reglas rigoros e inflexiblemente, sin apreciación de las necesidades del usuario.
Por supuesto, es necesario que haya un equilibrio entre i) permitir que los solicitantes presenten en los materiales de EPO redactados al estilo de los Estados Unidos, y ii) Los solicitantes esperando para volver a proyecto, antes de que finalice el año Convenio de París, al estilo de EPO. Recuerdo que la decisión G que se reconoce la necesidad de los solicitantes, después de la presentación, para poder volver a redactar procedimientos de las reivindicaciones de tratamiento médico en demandas compatible con EPC. Negarles esta libertad, pensó la EBA, sería injusto para estos solicitantes de fuera de Europa. Por el contrario, sin embargo, que no debería estar dejando dichos solicitantes se salgan con enmiendas negándoselas a aquellos solicitantes con sede en Europa.
Hubo un tiempo, cuando examinadores buscaba no sólo lo solicitado, pero también lo que el Solicitante podría pedir cuando era rechazado la primera vez, cuando todo el original de presentación de reclamaciones resultan ser viejo o evidente. Personalmente, todavía no he notado ningún rechazo general entre los examinadores para examinar reivindicaciones modificadas que atraen a partir de la descripción, pero lo hacen aún reclaman, aunque de forma más estricta, el concepto de la invención que el solicitante se presenta desde el principio. Sí, hay examinadores deshonestos, pero no siempre lo fueron. Si desea reclamar un concepto diferente, debe presentar una solicitud divisional. Esa fue siempre lo que tenía que hacer.
Los lectores, creo que podría encontrar que sólo hay una jurisdicción que encuentra el EPC tan difícil de entender. En el resto del mundo, no es nada especial. Cuando se trabaja para clientes en una jurisdicción que, seguro que sí ayuda, ya han acumulado una experiencia considerable para que pueda entender cómo funciona. Para entonces realmente puede ayudar a ellos, por mediación eficaz entre lo que se puede conseguir en virtud del EPC, y lo que supone erróneamente que tienen derecho.
A los examinadores de EPO, sigo siendo su amigo. Creo que usted (o casi todos ustedes) continúan haciendo un trabajo minucioso, concienzudo y competente, dando solicitantes toda la ayuda que está a su alcance para proporcionar, en el ejercicio de las reglas de la misma manera para todos los solicitantes, sean grandes o pequeños.
“Básicamente,” notóeste comentario, “la EPO se está convirtiéndo en un sistema de registración rápida.” Para citar con contexto:
por desgracia, me temo que no tiene ningún sentido lo que todavía está por venir. O tal vez, usted sea activo en un dominio técnico en el que el director no ceda a la presión de más arriba. Pero les puedo asegurar que no vas a ser nuestro amigo cuando los cambios lleguen.
Battistelli quiere mejorar la “eficiencia”. Traducción: 20% más otorgaciónes por año. El año pasado, los examinadores tenían que enviar los casos fáciles a cabo. Este año, la mayoría tienen sólo los archivos basura que dejan. Pero todavía tienen que encontrar algo para concederlos o van a tener malas notas. Y la reforma que acaba de ser anunciada es que las notas malas significan que podrías ser despedido por incompetencia profesional, el procedimiento de despido se ha simplificado.
Algunos examinadores están resistiendo la presión para conceder los archivos de basura, especialmente los más antiguos. El año pasado, la OEP silencio se deshizo de los examinadores más reacios empujándolos hacia el retiro. Este año será diferente.
Básicamente, la OEP se está convirtiendo rápidamente en un sistema de registro. Eso no debería ser una sorpresa, viniendo de un presidente francés, ¿debería? Salvo que sea un sistema de registro en el precio de un sistema de exámenes.
Esto es lo que hemos estado diciéndo por algun tiempo. La cálidad esta empeorándo debido a las políticas, así que la EPO se conviérte en algo no mejor que la USPTO, la que también está empeorando (en el sentido de calidad) a través del tiempo.
Un comentador medita y se pregunta si “¿Battistelli y los otros políticos están siendo amamantados por las Grandes Corporaciónes?”
Eso es exáctamente lo que esta pasando. Vean este memorandum “Mayor contacto con Aplicantes Mayores”. El comentador está de acuerdo con lo de arriba tambien:
Encaja con datos que se reúnen por todos los lados.
Los usuarios avanzados de la EPO quieren un montón de patentes que es más alta que la pila de sus competidores han amasado. No importa la calidad; en cambio, sentir el peso! BB están demasiado dispuestos a complacerlos. BigCorp negocia con BigCorp mantenerse al margen de los tribunales de justicia. Ninguna de las partes sabe qué fuerza patentes que realmente poseen. La única cosa que los negociadores tienen que seguir es qué tan alto es su propia pila de patentes en relación con la de sus competidores.
Incluso si esto es bueno para promover el progreso tecnológico es otra cosa completamente distinta. No estoy seguro de que Francia puede sostener a sí mismo a ser mejor la competencia de la mundialmente por su innovación tecnológica. Sin embargo, el progreso tecnológico es el único que puede crear puestos de trabajo bien remunerados, los niveles de vida y levantar la prosperidad para las masas.
¿Desde cuándo BB y los otros políticos se preocupan por los niveles de vida? O ¿es sólo su nivel de vida, alimentado por las actividades de presión de gran Corp? Si quieres ver la hipocresía política y ceguera voluntaria en acción, sólo tiene que buscar en la Conferencia sobre “Corrupción” se ejecuta en el momento en Londres. políticos ingleses nunca llegan a la idea de que la ciudad de Londres es el sumidero de la corrupción en Europa, incluso después de leer la última edición de The Economist, porque sólo ven lo que quieren ver.
Muy dentro de la EPO todavía es bastante fea y nada ha mejorado, basado en nuestras fuentes y voces anónimas de adentro. Battistelli et altrata de silenciarlo todo atacándo a los líderes cada vez más, los empleados son controlados por temor en vez de lealtad. Para citar otro comentario de otra madeja:
No te preocupes. Los miembros DG 3 no se atreven a desobedecer.
A partir de diciembre de 2015 pueden ser suspendidos a medio sueldo durante un mínimo de dos años con posibilidad de extensión infinita.
http://www.epo.org/modules/epoweb/acdocument/epoweb2/194/en/CA-D_18-15_en.pdf
Todo lo que se necesita es que el Presidente haga una propuesta de este tipo a la AC.
Bye bye independencia.
Actualmente debería decir Diciembre del 2014.
Mientras la crisis de la EPO se agudiza nos preguntamos si a un mes del Consejo Administrativo hará lo correcto al despedir Battistelli de sus deberes, preferentemente con sus ‘reformas’ de la UPC que han traído caos (atmósfera de golpe de estado) a lo que fue una Oficina de reputación.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.16.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
If it looks like a coup…
Summary: Ousting of existing EPO staff and replacement of public interests with corporate interests (even large companies from abroad) is what the UPC turns out to be all about
THE EPO is undoubtedly being transformed, albeit covertly and silently, not just gradually. While there’s room for speculation around EUIPO (with ever-growing EPO overlaps/intersections and many mentions in the EPO’s Twitter account these days), one thing we know for sure is that UPC — if it ever became a reality — would change a lot at the examination and prosecution levels (both, not either one or the other). Software patents are just one aspect among many. According to this new press release: “Redline Detection announced today that in a first instance decision, the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich, Germany, has unanimously ruled to revoke in its entirety Star EnviroTech’s European Patent No. 1,384,984 dealing with the use of nitrogen generated smoke with dye to leak test vehicles in Europe.” This is owing to the appeals system (like PTAB in the US) and while an appeal is still possible, it does show the power of revocation of patents erroneously granted. If the UPC became a reality and the boards were eliminated, would that still be possible at all? The boards, in our experience, are probably the most skilled for this type of task.
Later in the day yesterday we wrote about the forced reform that violently crushes anything resembling scepticism, criticism or resistance. This is class war. There may be suicides and other human tolls, but at the end Battistelli and his bosses want to get their desired laws rammed down everyone’s throat.
We are gratified to see that Merpel is back to digging/drilling into EPO affairs. “Thank you for the article,” one person told her, adding:
Just a quick note: the day after it was published that article was already in the top viewed, now it is at the very top. Apparently, this kind of article is very popular… maybe we could have them more often (hint, hint…).
Merpel has not written much about the EPO so far this year. We are not sure why. Merpel asks, “Does the UPC spell disaster for the EPO Boards of Appeal?” That’s almost a rhetorical question. Here are some portions from her article:
However, the Administrative Council has taken no decision to allow members of the Boards of Appeal to serve as UPC judges, and Merpel understands that there is no plan to do so. What she is not sure about is where the pressure not to allow BoA members to also serve on the UPC has come from. She has heard that the EPO President is against the idea, as he does not wish to relinquish any EPO employees. Presumably, the Administrative Council is not in favour, otherwise they could take such a decision irrespective of the wishes of the President, but it seems that they have chosen not to. But she also now wonders whether the Preparatory Committee is also not in favour.
This seems to be a great mistake. The Boards of Appeal represent the largest concentration of expertise in adjudicating contentious patent disputes in Europe, with a proven track record of doing so in a transnational manner. An early decision to potentially second a significant number of Board of Appeal members could have allowed this resource to be used for the benefit of the UPC, while allowing significant extra flexibility for the manpower of the UPC, whose caseload in the initial stages is unknown and unknowable. The alternative that seems to be now being pursued of recruiting a set number of judges risks over- or under-staffing.
Perhaps the Administrative Council and the EPO President are concerned that the backlog of cases at the EPO Boards of Appeal (currently estimated at around 8000 cases) can only worsen if some Board members go off to be UPC judges part time. This is an issue of concern, but it seems to Merpel that the solution is not to prohibit the Board members from being UPC judges part time, but rather to increase the manpower of the Boards to compensate. The Boards of Appeal are large enough to accommodate some flexibility in staffing levels, much more easily than the fledgling UPC.
[...]
Merpel has now realised a further problem for the Boards of Appeal themselves. As she reported earlier, they are currently significantly under strength. If BoA members are not allowed to serve part time on the UPC, it must be very attractive to instead resign from the EPO and go to the UPC full time. This is a time of potential significant upheaval for the Boards, with likely changes to location, career structure, independence, and work expectations. The UPC must look like an attractive escape route. But when there are already a large number of unfilled places, any significant exodus at this time could irretrievably lose expertise in some technical areas. Such damage could take years to restore. Moreover, it will result in precisely the outcome (increase in backlog of appeal cases) the avoidance of which is presumed to lie behind not releasing Board members to serve part time at the UPC.
No doubt the Boards of Appeal are at the crosshairs. They know it. Now, consider some of the comments which reinforce this suspicion. Among the comments we find some mean-spirited claims such as this:
Well… BoA members do NOT have any experience in patent litigation, do they ?
Claim interpretation, claim construction, doctrine of equivalency means nothing to them.
So they may be somewhat qualified for nullity actions in view of EP oppositions, but I doubt that they can be regarded as qualified for litigation…
Merpel responds as follows:
Do you really think so? Do you consider that it is possible to evaluate the novelty of claim without claim interpretation and claim construction? And even if they do not currently apply it on a daily basis, Merpel thinks it absurd to suggest that equivalence is not something that a Board of Appeal member cannot easily adapt their experience to decide.
The idea that nullity and infringement are different animals is a strange one to practitioners in many countries.
A more valid criticism, in Merpel’s mind, is that BoA members will be unfamiliar with the procedural rules of the UPC, but then again so will everyone else.
This was rebutted by an habitual commenter (called Fritz) also:
If you see the mess that drafting patent agents often make of claims which are then granted, often without any A84 objection, it is unavoidable that the BoA deal with claim interpretation and construction. Especially in chemistry, exactly that is the BoA’s daily job. How many times are A83 objections made and elaborately discussed before the BoA while in fact they are A84 objections? How many decisions do not start their reasons with the interpretation of the claims? Someone who seriously thinks that the BoA have never dealt with construction and interpretation of claims, has no experience with the BoA and has not taken the trouble to read the decisions. Just take the white book and look up A84.
The question of nullity is not different from that a normal opposition situation. What is different is the question of infringement, where the evaluation of proof will play a big role. However, the judgement of the validity of proof is also not or not much different form that used in cases of alleged public prior use. So I, as a former patent agent, think that the BoA members are absolutely the best to start with UPC and to lay a good coherent basis for what is new to all of us. Apart from their experience with working in different languages.
Then comes up the fact about under-staffing of the Boards — a subject which we covered here many times before. To quote:
Does Merpel have any thoughts about the (deliberate?) under-staffing of the Boards? I have witnessed the President state that there was no recruitment freeze, but this is clearly not the case; it is easily demonstrated by e.g. review of job advertisements / purrr-rusal of the business distribution scheme, that until recently there was a significant paws, er, pause. But what – other than petulance or “pay-back” for perceived wrongs – is the end game here?
Well, Battistelli is trying to kill Boards (of Appeal), but he won’t admit this. He is like a silent assassin, an ENA neoliberal whose sensitivity to human emotions is next to zilch. That’s what many managers are trained to do and feel (or not feel). As one comment put it:
Perhaps the UPC will preserve us from the occasional nuttiness of the Boards of Appeal, whose decisions sometimes give the impression that they are made just to check that we’re awake and paying attention.
Whether this was sarcastic or not, the matter of fact is that without the Boards of Appeal things would be a lot worse. One comment that’s not agreeing with the OP must have come from a patent lawyer or attorney:
“The Boards of Appeal represent the largest concentration of expertise in adjudicating contentious patent disputes in Europe”. Really? Since when? Yes, they adjudicate on validity. But that is not the same (despite your wish that it were) as adjudicating on infringement matters.
And how many times have European Patent Attorneys tried to argue points of construction and interpretation before BoA members only to be told subtle matters like these are part of “enforcement” proceedings and, hence, not taken into account by the EPO? The BoA members have made good careers by avoiding these matters – particularly evidence in forms other than patent documents.
Perhaps Patent Attorneys might be better placed than EPO Examiners to take up Technical Judge positions in the UPC – at least they will be used to advising on enforcement as well as validity?
An “anonymous” German practitioner from Munich writes:
According to my personal experience BoA members simply do not bother about anything, which happens after grant/opposition. Infringement discussions or equivalency are completely new matters to them (not in the sense of novelty :-)).
Being a DE practitioner I am of course maybe biased/bifurcated in my thinking, but in my view the BoA will have to learn quite a bit of different thinking when being confronted with infringement issues.
This may of course be different for a UK judge, who is used to thinking about both issues in parallel…
This seems nonsensical because the nature of rulings in a court is very similar to examination or appeals, except when it comes to damage calculations. “The attorney arrogance displayed in some of the above comments is just frightening,” noted the following comment, correctly stating that people who work for the Boards are perfectly suitable for the task:
Somebody who thinks that the boards of appeal do not deal with claim interpretation and equivalence cannot have spent much time before the boards or in their decisions.
Infringement is another matter, but as the applicable rules very from country to country, every judge at the UPC will have to learn a lot in this domain.
The attorney arrogance displayed in some of the above comments is just frightening. If like me you have to deal with EP attorneys every day, you wonder what gives them the right to look down on others. Really. Speck and plank, remember?
But who needs the UPC in the first place? It’s best suited for large corporations, even foreign, definitely not for SMEs, which Europe is internationally known for. As one person called ‘MaxDrei’ (a patent attorney) put it, the UPC “looks to me like a deliberate and cold-blooded re-boot of the patents system in Europe.”
Here is the comment in full:
This looks to me like a deliberate and cold-blooded re-boot of the patents system in Europe. Ever since 1978, the patent litigators have been grinding their teeth in frustration, that patent attorneys and a Patent Office have been in the driving seat, when it comes to matters of patent validity in Europe. Who do they think they are, the judges and litigators cry.
One has to admire the lobbying skills of the litigators, to persuade the politicians and the judges and industry, that this aberration in Europe must cease, and that the age-old order must be restored. The conduct of pan-European cases on validity must be wrested away from mere patent attorneys, and brought home to the wise visionaries within the international law firms, serving their CEO clients. Never mind that the White Book of the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO is far and away the most coherent and intellectually rigorous body of caselaw on the validity of patents that the world has ever seen. The only thing that has ever enabled strong FTO opinions to be given to industry is that White Book. Compare the mess of patent law that any national Supreme Court makes, when it ignores the teachings of the White Book.
As ever, you only know what you’ve got when it’s gone.
“MaxDrei makes an excellent point regarding “wise visionaries”,” this comment says. “Hear hear.”
Looking at another thread, one person notes that UPC “will have unprecedented commercial power in the Europe and the world.” The person recalls the saying “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” and here it is with some context:
For the UPC to be based on the EPO’s granting of patents, when the EPO seemingly does not have a Judiciary independent of the Executive, where the Executive of the EPO can apparently ignore the EBA or court judgements, is very worrying.
The UPC/UP will have unprecedented commercial power in the Europe and the world. Patents granted under it must be granted by an organisation that is properly held to account under international law and justice.
Who was it who says ….Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely…. a notion too far perhaps … I do hope so and that I worry unduly.
The UPC conspirators, as we noted before, try to hire people for the UPC before it's even approved (and it is definitely not unstoppable/inevitable). A comment on those ‘job advertisements’ from Bristows staff says:
It makes an interesting read. Note there is a specific ban on acting simultaneously as a member of the EPO Boards of Appeal and UPC legal judge (presumably technical judge too). One requirement is that “(c)andidates shall possess the qualifications required for appointment to judicial offices in the Member State of which they are nationals. This is a high bar here in the UK (though the paucity of information in the accompanying literature does not make this clear). It is not clear to me even whether UK members of the Boards of Appeal have such qualifications, which would be crazy. That august body would seem to provide a reservoir of candidates, though they’d have to learn a bit about infringement.
“It is not clear to me even whether UK members of the Boards of Appeal have such qualifications, which would be crazy.” Well, maybe it’s tailored to exclude members of the Boards of Appeal, just like that opening that Bergot took over (almost certainly with help from her husband and his old buddy, Battistelli [1, 2, 3, 4]). In another post from Merpel she previously took note of what had been happening to the Boards of Appeal. Here is the relevant part in full:
Boards of Appeal – disciplinary case
There are two issues relating to the Boards of Appeal. First is the suspension of a member of the Board of Appeal by the Administrative Council, following the imposition on him of a “House Ban” by the President all the way back in December 2014. Many (including almost all internal members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Appeal and many distinguished external members – see IPKat post here) considered that the “House Ban” contravened the EPC, since only the Administrative Council can exercise disciplinary authority over a Board of Appeal member, but the position was somewhat regularised by the AC’s later action. Later, the Service Regulations were amended by the Administrative Council last December, so that Board of Appeal members can be suspended pending disciplinary proceedings for up to two years, rather than four months as was previously the case (and is still the case for normal EPO employees).
The removal from office of a Board of Appeal member requires a proposal from the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The EPO has now twice petitioned the EBA for such a proposal. The first was rejected as inadmissible (See IPKat here). The second case (given the unusual number “Art 23 2/15″, indicating that it is a proceeding pursuant to Article 23 EPC) has terminated in a Decision of 11 February 2016 that is rather inconclusive. All of the admissible requests made to the Enlarged Board were withdrawn, while further requests will apparently be considered as a further reference – now the third related to the matter. The Decision states it is to be published, but Merpel has not yet seen an official publication of it by the EPO. Furthermore, Merpel wonders how many more opportunities the administration is going to have to put its case to the EBA while following the norms of natural justice.
Boards of Appeal – reform
There is general agreement that the Boards of Appeal of the EPO need some organisational reform. Most see the main issue as being perception of independence from the rest of the EPO structure, given the quasi-judicial role of the Boards in reviewing EPO decisions and actions. However, the proposal from the President of the EPO to reform the Boards was widely criticised, both for some of the specific details (some of which were considered to be incompatible with the EPC), and for the overall approach, which conflated independence with efficiency and seemed fixated on moving the Boards to another physical location. Moreover, the Boards of Appeal were themselves not consulted during the drawing up of the proposals. At the Administrative Council meeting of 16 and 17 December 2015, these proposals were not adopted; instead the AC mandated its own sub-group “Board 28” to elaborate guidelines to take the reform project forwards. After a falling-out between the President and Board 28, at the March meeting of the Administrative Council, the President was asked to formulate proposals based on these guidelines (see the text of the AC Resolution below) for consideration at the June AC meeting. We await details of what these proposals are.
The Boards of Appeal have put forward their own proposals for reform, and you can read the history of the reform from the point of view of the Boards on the website of their organisation AMBA. Merpel understands that the Boards have NOT been consulted even in the latest re-formulation of a proposal for reform.
Merpel understands that the President is still fixated on the idea that the Boards need to be in a different building from the rest of the EPO, although now the idea is that it will be in another location in Munich, not another city altogether such as Vienna. The Munich suburb of Garching, halfway out to the airport, is the latest rumour. The motivation to move the Boards from their current location seems odd since the justification is that the members of the Boards should not be mingling with the first instance Examiners whose decisions they are reviewing. But the Boards largely work in the Isar building, whereas the Examiners work almost exclusively in the PschorrHöfe buildings. The main other occupant of the Isar building is the President…
Boards of Appeal – resourcing
The original proposals for reform of the Boards of Appeal presupposed that they have an issue with efficiency. These turned out to be based on misleading comparisons. While the Boards themselves agree that something has to be done about the growing backlog of appeal cases (estimated at about 8000 cases), and some increase in efficiency probably needs to be part of that, most of the respondents to the EPO’s own consultation on reform of the Boards of Appeal emphasised that the reform and any efficiency increases need to be considered together. A more pressing issue in the ability of the Boards to deal with the caseload was that for some considerable period no new appointments had been made, and reappointments left to the very last minute (this raising concerns that the delay in reappointment could be used to make Board members more biddable in the meantime). Precise numbers are a little difficult to establish, but by March 2016, Merpel understands that no new appointments had been made for about 2 years, 7 Boards lacked a chairman and about 13 technical board member positions were vacant. Finally, a few new appointments (2 chairmen and 3 technical members) were made at the March 2016 meeting of the Administrative Council. Apparently the President denies that there has been any issue with the levels of staffing of the Boards, and considers that since he agreed to the creation of a new Board, the Boards have been “expanded”; it is to him apparently immaterial that this “expansion” is more than offset by the number of vacant positions and Merpel understands that this new Board was never in fact filled. Merpel very much hopes that the Boards will continue to be fully staffed.
This post attracted many comments that relate to the Boards of Appeal. One person wrote:
“The Decision states it is to be published, but Merpel has not yet seen an official publication of it by the EPO.”
This point is of little impact on the individual case (the decision has reached the IPkat and the internet after all) but may have wide-reaching implications.
Does it mean that the EPO can disregard the order of a decision of a BoA?
Should we expect in the future that decisions of first instance departments are subject to a review by the BoA only as far as the orders of their decisions please the president?
Maybe next time the EPO could decide to ignore an order to refund the appeal fee or to maintain a biotech patent in an amended form which is “inconvenient” for the EPO.
Apart from these provocative questions it seems to me that the interference of the president in the Boards´decisions and their independence turns out to be a much bigger problem than what has been assumed until now.
“The [judge's] removal from office would,” according to another person, “under different circumstances, merit a good laugh.”
Well, there is nothing funny about being falsely accused of violence. That was quite a defamatory move from Team Battistelli and there may soon be legal action over it. Here is the comment in full:
No progress on the possible removal from office of the member of the Boards of Appeal, no progress on the reform of the Boards, no consultation of the Boards on the reform, no progress on the social agenda. The removal from office would, under different circumstances, merit a good laugh. It is probably hard to find a comparable level of incompetence, in particular in such a delicate matter.
In the meantime, the EPO continues to infringe on Human Rights, as decided by an appeal court in the Netherlands back in February 2015 [sic]. SUEPO obtained that judgment, the EPO is challenging it, and the Vice President DG1 (search, examination and opposition) stated on Dutch TV that a judgment against the EPO would in all likelihood be ignored. SUEPO shall nevertheless sign a memorandum of understanding accepting the regulations in question.
The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labor Organization (ILO-AT), the only external “court” to which EPO officials can turn, has raised serious concerns about EPO governance. ILO-AT is drowning with EPO cases, impeding its ability to serve as tribunal for other organizations.
All things considered, the current President continues to apply his “all or nothing” strategy. Escalation is followed by further escalation. It is hard to imagine that the current situation will improve under this President.
“A typical management tactic,” wrote another person, “which pre-dates Battistelli, is to promise to be good in the future, if only the Union will accept the status quo.”
Well, they should fight on. Here is this comment about SUEPO:
SUEPO is right to insist on revisiting the so-called “reforms’ (a term which gives the measures a legitimacy they simply don’t have; after all “reforms” are always good, aren’t they?). The investigation guidelines are one such “reform”, as are the measures taken against SUEPO and its officials, the house arrest of sick staff, the unrealistic targets, the promotion rules which reinforce arbitrariness, etc etc. Using the term “reforms” for these measures is not neutral – it is adopting the management’s rhetoric, and reinforcing the scenario it would like the public to belief it – that of idle time-serving workers paid too much to do too little. (Extraordinary, therefore, that the EPO’s proud reputation over all the years of its existence was built on such a shaky foundation).
A typical management tactic, which pre-dates Battistelli, is to promise to be good in the future, if only the Union will accept the status quo. It is always an empty promise, but it allows the management to seem reasonable and the Union to seem intransigent. SUEPO must and will, I hope resist it.
Right now the pattern we’re seeing is simple to interpret. Anyone who is not 100% on board with Team Battistelli must be crushed and made an example of. Regarding the suspension of a judge one person wrote the following:
Does it mean that the EPO can disregard the order of a decision of a BoA?
The answer is yes, definitely. Should the EBA for instance decide to reject the AC´s late request for dismissal of a judge and decide he should be reintegrated into DG3, the president could simply maintain the house ban he imposed upon him 18 months ago, and there is absolutely nothing anybody could do.
The interference of the president in the Boards´decisions and their independence indeed is a much bigger problem than what has been assumed until now. The legitimacy of the whole EP (and UPC) construction would no longer stand up to scrutiny by a national constitutional court.
Going back to the previous thread — the one which focuses on the UPC — DG3 is noted as follows:
Merpel may also wish to consider the recent mooted change to dg3 rules concerning the requirement of approval for employment after leaving the epo. Thus even retiring or resigning would not clearly free a BoA member, particularly if his/her pension were being held hostage? I think that was part of the proposed changes to ensure the Boards’ independence.
Given the excellence of the White Book of DG3 case law, patent disputes in Europe these days usually come down to an argument over the facts. Is the teaching in the patent sufficient to perform the claimed invention? Is there in D1 a disclosure good enough to enable something within the claim? Was there a novelty-destroying prior use or not? How actually does the accused embodiment perform? Once the facts are established, the law is almost invariably straightforward to apply, both on infringement and on validity.
But readers, where (if anywhere) is fact-finding done better than at the EPO? In the courts in London, I would of course say, but at what cost?
What would be nice is top quality objective and dispassionate English common law fact-finding applied to the established DG3 law on claim construction and the substantive law of the validity of patents. Fat chance of that though, eh? Nowhere near enough work for mainland patent litigators, is there?
Regarding the gradual elimination (or phasing out) of the Boards, one person hypothesises as follows:
Well, I could think of further reasons for the UPC not takin on BoA-members.
1) Would a board member risk incurring the wrath of His President, in cases where he/she would have to rule in a way not favourable to the EPO?
2) The risk of the impression of a bias is indeed high.
3) Maybe not everyone agrees with MaxDrei in the quality of the BoA rulings and his dismissal of the national courts. As a DPMA-examiner I find the BGH decisions pretty coherent. In the cases I had to look at EPO-decisions (in parallel examinations or opposition proceedings) I found them often questionable and the reasons for the decisions often insufficiently disclosed (in German proceedings the courts would talk of “Begründungsmangel”).
The above does not quite pass muster for the following reason, as noted by MaxDrei:
Good point from Fragender. But how many English decisions does he read, I wonder. He would then be even more keen to disparage individual decisions of individual EPO Boards of Appeal. Naturally, as an Englishman, I find that the reasoning in the decisions of my own domestic courts appeals to me much more than what I find in EPO decisions. I guess it’s the same for him, as a German.
My point though is the integrity of the “body” of established case law of the EPO, in the White Book and a distillation of more than a thousand decisions each year for more than thirty years now.
I regret that the BGH (unlike the UK Supreme Court) persists in maintaining its own line, choosing not to defer to the established case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal. Just as the USA thinks it only matter of time before the world swings in to line with American case law, so the legal community in Germany supposes it only a matter of time before all Europe adopts the BGH line.
But now, with the coming of the UPC though, it is indeed perhaps only a matter of time. If so, what a pity.
In response:
I didn’t mean to say the BGH-line is necessarily better. In some respects I think the BoA-line is better, in others the BGH line. The EPO has dumbed down the person skilled in the art way too much for my liking (I have over 12 years of experience as a design engineer…).
I simply wanted to say they are not necessarily making a mess, simply by not following the BoA-decisions.
And yes, I do read fewer British decisions than German ones – but I try to read at least the interesting ones. They seem to be well written, usually.
It will be interesting to see, which line the UPC will develop.
That is if the UPC actually develops into anything at all…
An EPO examiner added the following input:
1) and 2): I think that it is rather the other way round. BoA members are excluded exactly because they ruled in a way that dipleased Battistelli in the past. The exclusion must be seen together with the understaffing of the boards, the attempts to move them out of Munich and to reform them in a way to render them more loyal.
Other EPO employees that have been more loyal and are surely more biased (maybe Mr. Lutz and friends) do not seem to be excluded from the UPC because the exclusion mentions only board members.
3) I think that it depends to what you are looking for. I agree with maxdrei and I find that english decision are better reasoned on the fact finding. BGH decisions seem, when you manage to extrapolate the reasoning from the amtsdeutsch, less reasoned than the average BoA decision. Decisions of my colleagues in the examinaning and opposition division are of course different and not to be compared with BoA decision: unfortunately I must agree with you that some of them are not very well reasoned.
But all this is, of course, a personal opinion.
Putting side this string of comments on why Battistelli is crushing the Boards and the role the UPC plays in achieving this, one person believes that Battistelli is “doing his best to ensure that the UPC is dominated by France.” Look how many French people are now in EPO management. Some of them are relatives and some are former colleagues of Battistelli. Coincidence? Lucrative jobs with astronomical (and sometimes secret) salaries? Therein lies a major scandal and this is why French politicians need to take action. It has become a national embarrassment to France. Here is the comment in full:
In my enthusiasm for the point that the UPC will go all German I had overlooked the role of Battistelli in the build-up to the launch of the UPC, doing his best to ensure that the UPC is dominated by France. Not Germany, and certainly NOT by any judges who learned their profession at the EPO.
When Germany, France and the UK are united, that no judge coming from the EPO will have any chance of judging at the UPC, what chance do DG3 members have, in the Brave New World of patent law made by the EU?
Here is one comment which suggests that not the UPC but some new rules that pose an existential threat to the Boards:
From what I hear it is not the UPC that looms in the future of the BoA. Rather it is the new rules which were refused by the AC in december that spell disaster. Those rules will be presented to the AC in June without any serious change, so I heard, and render the BoA very dependent on the opinion of the president, so then indeed there is a danger that BoA members dare not decide independently anymore. Again, those new rules have been put together without any consultation of the BoA and dead against the opinions of the users of the system, who heavily criticised the fact that independence was mixed up with efficiency, which was in general found satisfactory. Also it will be impossible for former BoA members to work in the field of patents without the consent of the AC. By the time such a consent might be given, if at all, time has gone by and the request has become moot. In fact that amounts to a Berufsverbot for members of the BoA. So no returning to their old job e.g. as a patent agent, no consultancy, etc., preventing any possibility to create some extra income. Again an example of the utter undemocratic way the EPO is governed nowadays, going against all legislation found normal in the member states, which, should these rules be accepted this time, I cannot but regard as a vindictive collective punishment of the BoA members. What a world…..
This, according to the above, is “an example of the utter undemocratic way the EPO is governed nowadays, going against all legislation found normal in the member states…”
It seem abundantly clear that both EPO staff and patent attorneys (or lawyers) now realise that the UPC is a ruinous plan of Battistelli et al. It benefits not them but few external forces, such as billionaires and their multinational corporations which probably evade tax (as usual). We need more people to mobilise against the UPC as it literally harms more than 99% of Europeans for the gains of 1% (or less) who are not even European. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Maybe if it’s repeated often enough and shouted from the mountains/rooftops with a megaphone they’ll manage to impose their selfish (greedy) will on the system
Content is available under CC-BY-SA