11.17.16
Battistelli Should be Made Redundant (Fired) Before All EPO Staff Becomes Redundant in a Defunct Office That Flagrantly Mocks the Law
Another troubling message from a victim of Battistelli reveals the depths of the boss’ depravity
A once-respected patent office is now ruined by a psychopathic, aggressive bully
Summary: False accusations, manufactured (by Team Battistelli) complaints, lies about the judgment, and secrecy by threats is now the ‘golden’ standard mastered by Battistelli, a liar and abuser so villainous that he deserves no place in society, let alone a well-funded patent office
THIS MORNING’S outline from IP Kat took stock of news regarding Laurent Prunier, whom Battistelli fired while defaming him in front of all staff — certainly a Battistelli classic. This is what IP Kat said:
Firings will continue until morale improves – Merpel revisits the EPO
Merpel growls in disappointment at the dismissal of Laurent Prunier, Secretary of SUEPO The Hague and member of the EPO’s Central Staff Committee.
Understanding of this case is crucial because it’s one of many; it’s part of a pattern which is bound to repeat until stopped.
Battistelli has since then added to his lies using a column at IAM, which is increasingly giving a voice to both sides (more so than before). IAM has thankfully given Prunier (i.e. the accused as well) an opportunity to respond (response behind a paywall, although there are ways for getting around it, at least temporarily). The key part says:
Dear Mr Wild,
As the person directly concerned, I am responding to Mr Battistelli’s letter to you and would appreciate if you could publish this answer so that your readers can be fully informed.
I deny having ever harassed or defamed anyone (nor have I seen any of my fellow colleagues, staff reps and/or SUEPO officials harassing or defaming anyone).
The alleged “victim” did NOT file a complaint against me. The person who filed it was a very close associate of Mr. Battistelli.
The staff representatives in the disciplinary committee have not found that I was guilty of harassment. That finding was 3:2, only by management side.
The easiest solution for the public to assess the truth vs. story-telling is for Mr Battistelli to lift the confidentiality he imposes on me and I will gladly publish all the documents.
Bien cordialement – Best regards
Laurent Prunier
A lot of the above seems familiar as political enemies are often eliminated in this way (someone from the past exploited to manufacture a highly distorted case without that someone’s will at all, only to be followed by mere illusion of justice). Several current examples come to mind, but these are outside the scope of this post (Wikileaks for instance).
The sheer abuse Battistelli subjects staff representatives to, not to mention the systematic harassment from this sociopath, urgently needs to stop. Where are those pet chinchillas of the Administrative Council? It’s clear that Battistelli metaphorically spits on them. He needs to be fired with immediate effect and forced to pay compensation to the Office he ruined. Take away his pension, too. See how he feels about it when he’s the one on the receiving end…
But how can Battistelli be so belatedly dismissed for his antisocial behaviour and violation of his own rules? “The alternative would be unworkable if any one country could effectively fire a president,” says the following new comment. To quote the whole comment:
While I share your pain, the system is of course designed so that a single person or country cannot interfere. The alternative would be unworkable if any one country could effectively fire a president. There are of course ways and means but that is like a policy of mutual destruction whereby no agreement or diplomatic post would be respected (head of the EPO is, I think, a diplomatic passport post). Countries are rightly wary of interfering in what are tacit reciprocal agreements of respect. The ability of a non-office country I.e. not NL, DE, BE to intervene is very limited in any case.
Today (actually bumped up in the news although it’s a little old), from Boult Wade Tennant comes this article “concerning disclaimers at the EPO” as it speaks of the process through which law firms and/or their clients (applicants) typically go along when attempting to be granted an EP. “When the claims of a European patent application or patent are amended,” it says, “the amended claims must satisfy Article 123(2) EPC in order for them to be allowable. Article 123(2) EPC specifies that the European patent application or European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed. The European Patent Office (EPO) is well-known for its strict approach in making this assessment. The “gold standard”, frequently cited in EPO case law, requires that an amendment can only be made within the limits of what the skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the application as filed (see G 3/89, G 11/91, G 2/10).”
Well, “gold standards” are no more at the EPO. There’s just one man with a golden crown and he has already decided that the goal is to grant patents as much as possible, as quickly as possible, until it all runs out and examiners become redundant. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA