06.08.16

Goodbye to Patent Quality at the EPO, Thanks to Team Battistelli With Its Extreme Policies

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Removing the ‘burden’ of quality control

Summary: The erosion of patent quality at the European Patent Office seems ever more evident and inevitable, especially if the UPC becomes a reality (opening doors to software patents) and makes the boards of appeal marginal

NOW that the EPO is in full propaganda mode and there are dedicated hashtags for purchased press coverage I’ve decided to stay home and cover more closely some EPO affairs, in addition to all the other stuff (unrelated to EPO). The EPO is totally out of control. It’s run by lunatics who believe their ‘circle’ can just buy votes, ‘studies’, press ‘coverage’ etc. How far can this go before the EPO implodes or politicians invoke some magic law that can hold Battistelli accountable?

Good explanation of why the EPO management is effectively trying to demolish the boards (a little oversight or accountability) was posted by an anonymous blogger as per information that initially came from IP Kat and angered the EPO management enough to have the site banned (media analysis/sources seem to suggest this was the final straw which did it).

Here is the core of the analysis, which is accompanied by numbers:

This shows that the increase in fees has dramatically affected ex parte appeals, with appeals before the increase averaging at about 1200 a year and in the first full year after the increase amounting to only 864 appeals (a 28% decrease).

The increase in fees has affected inter partes appeals less, with the number of appeals in opposition roughly tracking the number of grants (roughly 2.5% of grants end up with an appeal in opposition).

If a mere 50% increase in appeal fee has resulted in such a drastic change in applicant behaviour, what effect might the huge proposed increase have?

It is to be hoped that the Administrative Council will recognise that an effective appeal system is essential to maintaining quality at the EPO, and will not increase the appeal fee [at all].

“A few thoughts on the effect of the last big increase in appeal fees can be found here,” s/he wrote in IP Kat. The numbers seem to support the hypothesis that fee hikes directly impact the number of appeals. It demonstrates that Battistelli’s plot would squash the boards in the same way the Tories in the UK destroy the NHS, claiming failure or lack of demand (which they themselves created or led to, respectively).

“Well, with lower/declining quality of patents, which is a known issue (see how the EPO accelerates examination under pressure), not many appeals by the applicants would be needed, especially if massive fee hikes are implemented.”One critical comment on the above says: “Perhaps a table of number of grants against number of ex-parte appeals may help (or refusals even). Given the increase in productivity, could there be a simpler link – less refusals = less appeals”

Well, with lower/declining quality of patents, which is a known issue (see how the EPO accelerates examination under pressure), not many appeals by the applicants would be needed, especially if massive fee hikes are implemented. The value of EPs (European Patents) would itself decline, making the relative cost of appeal disproportionately high. This may be good for ‘production’ figures that don’t account for quality and use more convenient (easily-measurable) yardsticks like number of granted patents, repeating the USPTO's mistakes (patent saturation necessarily means deflation). As one person put it this morning, “when it comes to management at the EPO, the dumber, the better.” Under Battistelli it’s all about loyalty (to Battistelli, not to the EPO as an Organisation), not brains or skills. No wonder people are leaving in droves and brain drain is repeatedly being reported to us [1, 2, 3, 4].

“No wonder people are leaving in droves and brain drain is repeatedly being reported to us.”Another new comment says that “private practice are receiving more and more applications for patent attorney positions from EPO examiners.” Here is the full comment: “Rumours – confirmed by some industry sources – are numerous that industry and private practice are receiving more and more applications for patent attorney positions from EPO examiners. While I see more and more advertisements on Linkedin re. recruitment of examiners.”

There is also a discussion there which compares the USPTO and the EPO (not on quality but on staff regulations). The same person says: “Well, that USPTO regulation makes perfect sense. And is a good example for the EPO, if not yet in place. For the interest of applicants, not for the direct interest of the EPO. So still… Conflict of interests of the EPO… outside counsel to SUEPO? Investigative agency hired by the AC to investigate too close family ties at the top of the EPO? I am still very much in the dark what such legitimate interests of the Office may be.”

“On the surface, today’s EPO has a lot of scandals and enough to make it Europe’s leading pariah, but it’s disconnected from oversight so it keeps behaving like a rogue regime, mostly uninterrupted (outside intervention is not sufficiently effective).”Apparently, conflict of interests is absolutely verboten for all staff except Team Battistelli, where people even bring family members to roles with massive salaries. Making this situation ever more comical, it’s these family members who are also then put in charge of identifying issues like conflict of interests (Human Resources).

The EPO. What a house of cards…

The EPO now bans access to sites which are critical of the EPO and at the same time pays the media to say what Battistelli tells the media to say about the EPO. These sponsored/bought articles (by EPO) should in their own right be a huge scandal (waste, press abuse, misleading the public) and as more ‘media partners’ start to issue their puff pieces we kindly ask readers to keep us informed (some of this coverage is not in English). On the surface, today’s EPO has a lot of scandals and enough to make it Europe’s leading pariah, but it’s disconnected from oversight so it keeps behaving like a rogue regime, mostly uninterrupted (outside intervention is not sufficiently effective). The EPC inadvertently created a monster and this monster is called Battistelli. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO Powers Up Its Spam Machines, ‘Media Partners’ Start Their Prepared ‘Articles’ (Puff Pieces)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Here we go again, notice the pattern…

Summary: As of last night or earlier yesterday, the EPO’s ‘media partners’ (i.e. coverage for sale) are active and the EPO’s PR staff is over-zealously and enthusiastically bombarding people online so as to desperately seek attention (see above)

The EPO spends literally MILLIONS of Euros buying the media, based on our sources. It’s basically for lobbying packaged up as "science".

The Financial Times, an EPO “media partner” (i.e. bribed) this year, already starts with puff pieces:

Do the best inventions always come from small companies? Join us for a Twitter debate on Thursday #FTInvent @EPOorg pic.twitter.com/PQCs3Apqf3

— FT Special Reports (@ftreports) June 7, 2016

Notice the “SME” theme…

So much for ‘report’. Are readers being told about EPO payments? Or the EPO’s unethical media strategy? They just borrow the name, FT, to self-legitimise.

Well, soon thereafter, unsurprisingly, the PR people at the EPO managed to ‘find’ the above and link to it. And then there was this (about an hour ago):

Join us on Thursday at 18.00 hrs CET for this Twitter chat hosted by @FT #FTinvent pic.twitter.com/C5PgpIBPQr

— EuropeanPatentOffice (@EPOorg) June 8, 2016

It’s quite crude, is it not?

Then again, look at the image at the top. Watch what the EPO is doing right now in ‘social’ media, not just traditional media (CNN included).

“IAM also organised a UPC event for the EPO, funded in part by the EPO’s PR firm.”Regular visitor to the EPO, Bastian Best, says: “Tuning my slides for today’s unitary #patent and #upc presentation http://4sq.com/1Y7X3ff pic.twitter.com/d7NkU7EIx1″

Hopefully he will explain to everyone that SMEs expressibly hate the UPC, but judging by his avatar he surely will claim that startups need to lean on patenting. It’s that same old strategy, wherein so-called ‘experts’ are making claims ‘on behalf’ of SMEs, just like IAM did (we mentioned it this morning).

Speaking of IAM ‘magazine’, watch another Microsoft connection (other than its Web site): “Great discussion with Microsoft’s @erichandIPG on the evolving global IP landscape at #IPBCGlobal Summit @IAM_magazine”

IAM also organised a UPC event for the EPO, funded in part by the EPO's PR firm.

“If that’s not a scandalous waste of money, what is?”“Colleen Chien and IAM are seeking data on the EPO and USPTO,” Patent Buddy says. Well, IAM folks already have the EPO 'connections' and the mutual love. “I’ve never seen a report from Chien that was not critical of the patent system,” Patent Buddy continued. I’ve never seen a report from IAM that was critical of the patent system.

Expect a lot of EPO propaganda in the coming two days. The EPO is literally purchasing or 'buying' coverage. If that’s not a scandalous waste of money, what is? █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

06.07.16

Time to Call Out Joff Wild (IAM’s Editor in Chief) for His EPO-Connected UPC Propaganda, Other Agenda-Pushing Initiatives

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Also a longtime SUEPO basher

Summary: The latest UPC propaganda and where it is coming from (or who for); a kind request for realisation that IAM is not a legitimate source of news/information but mostly propaganda (preaching, not reporting)

THE EPO scandals, based on statements made by EPO spokespeople, have a lot to do with the UPC. As Dr. Glyn Moody put it earlier this year (page 6 of a very long article):

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: “the EPO needs to be fit to efficiently handle all tasks as the authority appointed to deliver and administrate Unitary patents once the scheme enters into force, which could already be this year. Its importance is likely to increase both at European and international level, and that needs to be reflected in our capacity to respond to new demands for our services.”

The EPO’s central role in the unitary patent system means that an organisation that is not subject to EU rules or laws will wield a key power: to grant or refuse EU-wide patents on inventions. The EPO will receive 50 percent of the patent renewal fees charged for unitary patents, with the rest being shared out among the other EU countries, just as EPO earnings are today.

As a consequence, the EPO will once more have an incentive to issue as many patents as possible in order to boost its revenue from renewal fees—a problem that besets the current EPO system, as discussed above. The double danger here is that the introduction of the unitary patent, implemented with a more accommodating attitude to approving applications, could bring with it both US-style patent trolls, and US-style patenting.

Patent trolls are almost unknown in the EU because it is currently impossible to obtain an EU-wide patent. Without it, patent trolls would have to apply for patents in multiple jurisdictions before suing their victims in each of them separately, increasing the cost of carrying out this kind of bullying, and multiplying the risk that they would lose somewhere and see their bluff called. The new unitary patent is specifically designed to make it easy to obtain patents across the EU—something that patent trolls will relish.

Some people, especially those who would profit from trolls or whatever (litigation and defense/offense), just don’t seem to ‘get’ it. They just focus on how much money they would get. Aistemos Blogteam earlier today published “Europe, Utopia and the Unified Patent Court”. There is no Utopia here at all. To quote the concluding words:

We do need to know how patent strategists, litigators, portfolio managers and investors think, and their insights can be valuable. But we also need a lot more firm information before we can obtain a clearer view as to whether this carefully-planned and extensively revised scheme for litigating Europe’s patents is better, the same as or worse than the patchwork of national courts that preceded it.

Well, it’s time to abolish or mothball and shelve the UPC rather than pretend it’s inevitable and “prepare” or learn it. Don’t study what’s uncertain. Of what benefit is the UPC anyway and to who? Surely the quality of the pro-UPC propaganda has rapidly deteriorated. Joff Wild, the EPO’s mouthpiece and UPC propagandist (EPO pays for such stuff), is not just a trolls denialist (pretending no such problem exists) but also one who would not mind trolls taking over Europe. Why are people taking him seriously? Earlier today IP Kat wrote: “Joff Wild, the editor of IAM (Intellectual Asset Management), is one of the most astute observers of intellectual property as business assets. IPKat is delighted that Joff has offered to share his thoughts on the current state of patent valuation.”

“Well, it’s time to abolish or mothball and shelve the UPC rather than pretend it’s inevitable and “prepare” or learn it.”He is paid by companies that prop up the system and strive for patent maximalism, so how objective is he really? He literally helps set up events for patent trolls, in which their reputation is being collectivity laundered.

But here’s why we still have ‘beef’ with Wild, putting aside his dangerous betrayal of sources. Shortly after IAM's latest EPO propaganda that in spite of the EPO's decline tries to pretend everything is great (and the EPO later conveniently cited this) we have more bogus claims, or lies, to put it more bluntly. Were SMEs surveyed by IAM? No. There’s the usual selection bias (MIP too is now surveying only the choir, ignoring more than 99% of the population) and empty assertions from Wild about SMEs. “The two most immediate risks,” he says to IP Kat (or Neil Wilkof says based on a discussion with him), “are: the U.S. Supreme Court cases going against patent owners, so reinforcing the anti-patentee narrative in the US and making US patents even less attractive; and the UK voting to leave the EU, so delaying the UPC by two or three years at a minimum, or maybe even killing it off permanently. A lot of people are placing big bets on the UPC. A delay, let alone de facto abandonment, is likely to cause a significant negative market reaction.”

“They must be thinking of predators and opportunists from across the Atlantic, not legitimate European businesses, maybe just lawyers’ firms. “No, no, no. They must be thinking of predators and opportunists from across the Atlantic, not legitimate European businesses, maybe just lawyers’ firms.

It is an established fact that SMEs are against the UPC (they say so themselves) but watch how Wild, writing in his own site today (with “SMEs 4 the UPC” right there in the headline), puts together completely nonsensical prose which acts more like reality-distortion, not facts passage. To quote one part:

SME advance – It’s rare to find anyone running a European SME confident enough to talk in detail about patents, let alone willing to do so. That’s what made the contribution of Rubén Bonet, president and CEO of Barcelona-based Fractus, so welcome in this morning’s “Europe’s chance to lead” plenary session. The company is a designer, manufacturer and licensor of optimised antennas, and was spun out of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona in the late 1990s. It holds over 200 patents and applications covering 50 inventions, and is no stranger to the courts in the US and elsewhere. That, of course, makes it an exception. As Bonet acknowledged, most SMEs do not engage with the patent system, regarding it as a waste of time and money. The UPC, though, could change that, he said. The key would be to maintain current quality standards at the EPO and to ensure that the new court regime also functions to the highest standards. With such quality you have predictability and with that you have the ability not only to pan long term, but also to attract investment. There is nothing more disastrous for a tech-based SME, Bonet observed, than to be awarded a patent, to build a business around it and then to have it invalidated a few years further down the line. The delivery of high-quality patents makes that scenario far less likely. In terms of UPC predictability, Bonet said, it will be important to get eh damages regime right and also to ensure the availability of injunctions. With these things in place, plus high-quality grants, he stated, litigation would actually less likely as parties would have a much clearer idea of what the outcome of going to court would be. All of this would make SMEs with European patent portfolios more attractive to VCs and may even make it easier to secure money from the banks against the assets. What’s not to like from an SME perspective? (JW)

“What’s not to like from an SME perspective?”

What a nonsensical rhetorical question. Wild is hijacking their voice or preaching to them. This is lobbying or advocacy, it’s not news.

A later part from Wild (JW) is revealing more intersections with EUIPO, as we foresaw [1, 2]:

From UPC to UIPC – It’s no great secret that the European Patent office was not best pleased when the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), which grants Community trademark and design rights, was rebranded the EU IP Office earlier this year. It looked like a bit of a land grab, given that even though the agency has no patent remit, patents are very much part of the IP family. At the very least, it was argued in Munich, the name change might cause confusion and give an opportunity for unscrupulous operators to fleece unsuspecting punters for a few Euros. With that in mind, it was interesting to hear Margot Fröhlinger – the EPO’s Principal Director of Patent Law and Multilateral Affairs and a 2016 inductee into the IP Hall of Fame – talk about her hopes for the Unified Patent Court during her induction speech. Fröhlinger has spent long years, first at the European Commission and latterly at the EPO, helping to drive the UPC agreement and it was her fervent personal hope, she said, that once it is up and running the court’s remit should eventually be extended to cover trademarks, designs and other forms of EU-wide IP rights – a UIPC, if you like. There is no doubt that such a view would not be terribly popular in OHIM headquarters down the coast from Barcelona in Alicante; but although there would be a number of practical issues to resolve before such a move could take place it does make some sense for a continent that for a long time has seen merit in specialised IP dispute resolution fora. (JW)

We used to be polite towards IAM and give it the benefit of the doubt, but there’s no point being too polite to the EPO and its propagandists as lack of antagonism would let them eat Europe alive, without resistance/opposition.

Every EPO employee should know by now IAM’s role as it relates to the EPO. There should be no confusion/ambiguity here. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, IAM does an enormous damage to Europe (its economy, not the patent law firms perhaps). It must be the ENA way… █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Enlarged Board of Appeals Can Decide Whether Battistelli’s Attack on the Boards Will Become Public

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Public scrutiny and media attention would only serve to expose the naked emperor (Sun King)

The Emperor’s New Clothes. Image credit: Владимир Шеляпин

Summary: An update or a short series of updates about a meeting which is expected to take place next week and deal with an illegally suspended (by Battistelli) judge who ‘insulted’ Battistelli by saying the truth

THE management of the EPO is hoping to demolish the boards which assure patent quality and justice. That’s the ENA way (or the highway). The boards can be viewed/perceived as an ‘impediment’ to so-called ‘production’.

Days ago we wrote about claims that on the 14th of June there will be a meeting in which Battistelli's attack on the boards will be discussed and this new comment says more about that:

Well http://www.epo.org/applying/online-services/proceedings/calendar.html? for 14th June does not list the proceedings or indeed any proceedings in 131. Note that proceedings in appeal are public unless particular circumstances dictate otherwise. Could that be the case here?

Well spotted.

And in the same vein the EPO site does not provide access to the previous decisions in cases Art. 23 1/15 and Art. 23 2/15 – despite the fact that the Enlarged Board determined that they be published.

Who cares as long as Wikipedia is available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_23_1/15_and_Art_23_2/15

But probably not for much longer at the EPO …

There’s some disagreement over whether the public can access the proceedings or not:

the hearings next week in the case of the suspended member of the BoA are public and planned to last 3 days – but I am ready to bet with you that as soon as a critical level of interest in them will be reached, despite the attempts of the Office to hide their occurrence, the President will find a good excuse to block access to the public.

As you said: “unless particular circumstances dictate otherwise.”

Here is what Merpel wrote:

Article 12a of the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Boards of Appeal, setting the procedure of proceedings under Art 23(1) EPC states:
(9) Unless and to the extent that the Enlarged Board decides otherwise, the proceedings shall not be public and shall be confidential.
Has the EBA really decided otherwise in this case?

If there are no effective (and affordable) boards at the Organisation, then patent quality is assured to decline. Earlier today we found this brag about a new EPO patent. This promotional piece of text says: “Intelligent Mechatronic Systems (IMS), a leading connected car solution Provider, announced today the granting of a patent, by the European Patent Office (EPO), that covers the fundamental requirements to enable connected car services using smartphones and other mobile devices.”

It’s not a company from Europe but from Canada and we previously saw how software patents had been disguised as devices, only to be squashed by the Boards of Appeal (Rapporteur Corcoran in that case). Getting rid of such people, or defaming them, would open the gates to software patents in Europe, in clear violation of the EPC and the 2005 directive that reinforces it. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Perpetual Attack on EPO Staff, Even After the Staff Leaves the EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Sun King’s general approach towards staff and his media strategy

Summary: The war on staff’s freedom (even freedom of speech, including after leaving the EPO) escalated to the point of jaw-dropping levels

IT IS no secret that EPO management witch-hunts people, especially those who are associated with (or run) SUEPO. Those people must behave as Battistelli (Sun King) pleases at all times, even after he dismisses them (apparently) because vengeance goes a long way. The Battistelli Kool-Aid must flow uninterrupted. People must stop reading blogs that express criticism or question the EPO. They should instead tune in to EPO (paid) “media partners”. That’s the Battistelli way.

Having realised that she is banned by the EPO anyway, Merpel now continues her work with little hesitation (not much is left to lose). I know the feeling. Among the comments posted in relation to the censorship (please note we have updated this post 3 times already, with new information) we have [1, 2]:

The Bike has been expertised and only normal wear detected on the brakes …I guess it will not make it to the intranet.

You are joking, right? Expertised by whom, anyway?

The “Bike” meme/theme — or the “Bike Affair” as some call it — just won’t go away. It helps distract from meaningful conversation about Battistelli and his goons, as does the event on Thursday (to coincide with a protest). Once again the EPO resorts to 'spamming' people for this silly event. Compare [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] (pretty much identical message, which can get them temporarily shadow-banned by Twitter). This is truly pathetic.

Looking at the latest from Merpel, based on a lot of comments and discussions in comments (which we never get around to covering due to lack of time) she has composed this article about “the EPO’s plans to restrict post-service employment”. To quote the key bits:

Merpel wrote recently about the latest plans of the European Patent Office to reform the Boards of Appeal of the EPO. One aspect present in the earlier proposals of CA/16/15 (see IPKat here, here and here) was that post-service restrictions on employment should apply to former members of the Boards of Appeal, in order to prevent the appearance of conflicts of interest. This aspect has been removed from the main proposal and made the subject of an entire new proposal of its own, to apply not just to Board of Appeal members, but all employees of the EPO.

[...]

It must be cause for concern where powers are stated to be used only exceptionally, but granted without restriction. Moreover, the EPO is explicitly moving to a situation where more employees are expected not to stay their whole working lives with the EPO, so the question of what an ex-employee can do will rise in prominence. For example, the proposals for reform of the Boards of Appeal plan to remove security of tenure so that Board members can no longer expect to be automatically re-appointed at the end of each 5 year term.

For the Boards of Appeal, the most significant issue is that Board members cannot improperly use their former status to the advantage of a particular party by representing them in proceedings before the EPO, but this was dealt with more than 2 decades ago in case G/94.

As an organisation, the EPO is struggling (to put it politely) with its staff relations. It is baffling that the Administrative Council might think it to be a good idea to to add to the list of staff grievances by granting the EPO President, who is the “appointing authority” for most staff, an entirely new ability to control the career of staff members even beyond their departure from the Office, without at least being convinced first that the lack of such powers was damaging the Office.

So Merpel returns to her original question – what is the evidence that further restrictions are required now?

“I may be prejudiced, but this sounds like “Silence! I kill you!”,” said this one response. To quote the whole thing:

I am puzzled at how a former member of a Board of Appeal could take a position where he or she would create a conflict with respect to the legitimate interests of the European Patent Office.

Indeed, we have G2/94. But as this relates to partiality, one would say the proposed oral submission of the former Board member could harm the interests of the other party, not so much the interests of the EPO. And, by the way, G2/94 related to partiality of the Board of Appeal, which is, as we all know, not part of the European Patent Office (hmm… ok, they are employed by the Office?).

So, again, what legitimate interests of the EPO could be at stake for any position taken up by a former Board member?

I may be prejudiced, but this sounds like “Silence! I kill you!”.

It’s also said that “the current EPO looks like the old soviet structures in the 80s’,” to quote another comment:

The current EPO direction wants to control 360°, 24/7 the life of each and single one.

An ex-EPO director now happy pensioner told me today : the current EPO looks like the old soviet structures in the 80s’

Sad, very sad

“This is a measure of pure vindictiveness, with no reasonable justification whatsoever,” added another:

There does not need to be “evidence” to support any whim of the President. Who is going to say him nay? However, there are several benefits from his point of view. As already noted, this measure would have a crippling effect on members of the Board of Appeal wishing to pursue any “occupational activity” after leaving the EPO. In a strategy to undermine the BoA this is another effective action.

There is also the benefit of blocking the activities of anyone retired or dismissed who wishes to work for SUEPO, whether paid or not. There are already several people who would potentially be affected by this measure, especially the two SUEPO leaders dismissed in Munich. Displease the President and the risk is that he and his investigators will pursue you to the ends of the earth and for the rest of your working life.

This is a measure of pure vindictiveness, with no reasonable justification whatsoever.

And finally, a shorter remark:

The Will of the President is all the evidence you need, Merpel.

A lot more of this can be found in comments in other threads, which is possibly why the EPO grew angry enough to just block the entire site/blog. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO Protest Tomorrow: Help the Media (Not ‘Media Partners’ in EPO Management’s Pocket) See What EPO Staff Really Thinks (Updated)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A reminder that later this week there will be a showing of dissent and unrest, not just a paid-for ceremony that serves as mass distraction

THE EPO has a war in it between staff and management. There will be a demonstration on Thursday and to quote a source of ours: “There are two local SUEPO demos on Thursday: In Munich, the demo starts at 12:00 h in front of the ISAR building. In The Hague, buses leave at 11:40 h (sharp) in front of the Main building, the demo starts at about 12:00 h at “Plein 1813″ (not at Carnegieplein).”

The goal is to raise awareness of the rift while Battistelli's media extravaganza goes on in Lisbon. Some MPs are aware of the rift and to quote SUEPO: “Ënnerstëtzt Lëtzebuerg weiderhin den aktuellen, staark ëmstriddenen EPO-President?” (Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party, 3 June 2016). Scroll down to read the parliamentary question in French of Claudia Dall’Agnol, Member of Parliament.”

Luxembourg may be a small country, but it’s not so blindly loyal to Battistelli, nor is it passive. We recently mentioned two articles from Luxembourg [1, 2] and surely politicians from other nations pay close attention. The more of them get personally involved, the better. That’s bureaucracy. The whole situation gets harder to ignore.

SUEPO recently published a list of 8 videos with Dutch politicians in them and we increasingly see more of the same from German politicians. The demonstrations in Munich and The Hague will hopefully stir up some of the same kinds of interventions. “The demonstration in The Hague on 28 January 2016,” wrote SUEPO, “led to an extensive media coverage in The Netherlands, including video reports that have now been grouped in a playlist in Youtube. All the video reports are now provided with translations in English, French and German (you simply need to activate subtitles in your preferred language)”

English subtitles are available for all the videos and here are half of them which we probably never showed here before (except some sections/cuts within them):

NOS Journaal 28/1/2016 20:00

TV West Nieuws 28 January 19:30

‘De heksenjacht heeft nu ook Rijswijk bereikt’

Video in article “Personeel protesteert tegen ‘intimidatie’ bij Europees Octrooibureau” (28/01/2016)

Here is a text circulated about tomorrow’s protest and why it’s worth attending:

Oh Benoît, did the earth move for you too?

On 16 March, the Administrative Council voted unanimously in favour of a resolution, imposing their will on the president. In a 2012 interview (http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/le-stratege-du-brevet-europeen.N182255) that has by now become notorious, the president said that it would take a “tremblement de terre” for the Administrative Council, or any of its members not to support him. Was the meeting of 16 March the earthquake that we have all been waiting for?

A unique resolution
One thing is for sure: the resolution is unique in the history of the European Patent Organisation. Never before has the Administrative Council felt the need to take the initiative in such a way, or done so with such unanimity. There was not a single vote against the resolution, which told the president who was boss, even if it did so in softer words than some would have liked. In the same 2012 interview, the president said, “Je n’ai jamais été aussi libre. Je n’ai pas de ministère de tutelle, de Parlement, de gouvernement. C’est nous qui fixons les règles, les discutons, les négocions.” Suddenly, however, it is not the president who makes the rules. And now, he has a body to which he must answer. The words he uttered in 2012 were out of place at the time he said them, and they definitely seem totally hollow today. The “great dictator” cannot resist the sabre-rattling and the growling, but the lion of old has turned into a cat with allures.

Whose turn is it to be micro-managed now?
The master of micro-management is finding that he is being micro-managed himself. No longer can he say, “Je n’ai jamais été aussi libre”. Ironically, no EPO president has ever had so little freedom or been under such close supervision. But he has only himself to blame for the arrogance and ruthlessness with which he pushed the bad reforms. How many of us can remember the harnesses that mothers used to put on badly behaving children? They had reins so that the mother could keep a close eye on the child and quickly pull it back to order if it stepped out of line. The Administrative Council has just fitted out our president with a virtual harness and is keeping a tight grip on the reins it has in its hands.

It is becoming rapidly clear that staff, many delegations and large swathes of the press have lost all trust in what the president says. Staff realised a long time ago that what Battistelli says is often a distortion of the truth. Others, with less access to the full information, took him at his word and refused to believe that he was as bad as the staff was claiming. For Council delegations, that changed last December, when they realised that the president not only had failed to implement the clear wishes they had expressed about the DG3 reform, but that he had even misrepresented the results of the external survey on the reform of DG3 the Office had carried out. In the March 2016 Council meeting, some delegations went further, questioning the background to the high productivity statistics, and hinting that they may not be all they seem, or may not have been achieved in a reasonable way. Journalists have also begun to spot cracks in the shiny presidential surface. IPKat is analysing the Office’s statistics and is finding they might not be telling the whole truth (http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/epo-performance-1-application-pendency.html).

Do NOT be fooled by the president backing down for the first time in his presidency, and removing the pension cut from the punishment imposed on one SUEPO leader. This was a unique and isolated act, and if you read the text of the president’s decision, he refuses to accept that he made any mistakes, only granting the milder punishment “ex gratia” (http://techrights.org/2016/03/26/epo-strike-imminent/). Undoing one blatant injustice is not the same as doing justice or making it seen being done. This “gracious” act is merely symbolic, and the language used shows no change in attitude whatever. Real justice would require complete abolition of ALL the new rules and regulations that breach international civil service law and human rights.

SUEPO and the resolution
The resolution passed on 16 March calls on the unions “to work rapidly to an agreement on Union recognition without preconditions.” Pro-Battistelli commentators, notably Intellectual Assets Magazine, have seized on this, arguing that the ball will soon be in the unions’ court to resolve the issue (http://www.iam-media.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=0fe01b6c-4516-4a7d-afcc-8ef0b8496405). It is difficult to understand how such commentators reach that conclusion. SUEPO has in fact played a rather minor role in the evolution of staff’s unhappiness with the Office’s management. Even the latest call for strike came from a group of individuals and was not a SUEPO initiative. If SUEPO were to throw open their arms and say, “All is forgiven, Benoît,” what would staff expect them to do? Should they agree to measures that go against the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the strike regulation, social democracy and the health reform? Should they accept that their union leaders, some of whom are now unemployed, go into negotiations with a man who behaved so heinously towards those same union leaders? Should they negotiate with a man whose idea of negotiation is to say, “Take it or leave it, and let me warn you, if you leave it, there will be nasty consequences for you”? We say, NO, they should not discuss with this man, who has disqualified himself from the ranks of people it is reasonable to speak with. There is no trust in Battistelli, and after all that has happened, there can never be trust in Battistelli.

It’s time to go
Today, the president is a lame duck. He may not think so, of course. True to character, he is acting in his old aggressive way. It is as though, metaphorically speaking, he has cut the brake lines on his own bike and is hurtling downhill towards disaster. His latest proposal for a reform of DG 3 has once more been drafted without consulting those affected, is once more at odds with leading opinions across the IP world and is once more totally unacceptable. In parallel, he is “revising” the Investigation Guidelines and the rules for disciplinary procedures at the EPO. No one expects any good to come out of these activities.
His open disrespect for the instructions he has been given will lead to further tensions in the Council. Can the delegations tolerate his presence any longer at the helm of the EPO?
He is in a Catch 22 situation. If he behaves in his old way, he will surely be the subject of severe criticism for ignoring the Council resolution. If he does nothing, then there is no point in him staying on as president. If he surprises us all and spontaneously turns into a Mr Nice Guy over night, it will have no credibility. Whichever way you look at it, a once strong – and very unpleasant – leader is now weak, and still very unpleasant. It is time for him to go.
And it is our duty to remind him and the Council of that:

Come to the demo on Thursday!

Things are getting very busy (and noisy) at the EPO again, so expect more coverage from us. █

Update: at around 2 AM, based on the RSS timestamp, SUEPO published the following statement:

Actions continue: next demonstration 9 June

During its March meeting, the Administrative Council (the Supervisory  Body) of the EPO passed a resolution making a number of requests to the Mr Battistelli, President of the EPO. None of the changes that Mr Battistelli will table to the June meeting of the Administrative Council (AC) comply with these requests.

The reforms proposed by Mr Battistelli – if adopted by the Council – will further increase the discretionary powers of the President over EPO staff and their representatives (new investigation regulations, new disciplinary procedures, post-service employment restrictions) and reduce the independence of the Boards of Appeals (reform of DG3). In short, the new proposals are bad for staff and bad for the EPO.

In spite of the many proposals tabled by SUEPO in the (recent) past and of the clear request of the Administrative Council, SUEPO – representing 50% of staff, was not even approached by the President to re-open discussions about a Memorandum of Understanding.

By acting this way, Mr Battistelli shows a blatant disregard not only for staff but also for the representatives of the EPO Member States. 

Last month we explained why Battistelli should be sacked.

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO’s Old Spokesman (10 Years in Munich) Resigns Again After Only 5 Weeks, EPO is Just Buying the Media Now

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

At what cost?

Operation Mockingbird

Summary: Oswald Schröder, who left the EPO when things turned truly disastrous, is leaving again and it seems apparent that spending millions of Euros buying the media is all that Team Battistelli has got left before the public realises that it’s just another FIFA

POLITICAL pressure against the EPO is growing again. Politicians speak to one another and it starts to be too much for Battistelli to bear.

We don’t expect Battistelli to be able to ‘buy’ his way into silencing them like he does the Administrative Council and he cannot just blacklist YouTube or the European Parliament’s Web sites Office-wide (this is how Battistelli increasingly deals with dissent, having resorted to the most miserable measurements imaginable, short of hiring mercenaries to murder his perceived enemies). Now that JoinUp at Europe.eu publishes “Portugal to boost digital economy with EUR 1.9 billion” we can’t help thinking of this week’s 'gift' from Battistelli to Portugal. How will that turn out? The whole media strategy of the EPO right now is just “pay lots of money for media companies to say nice things” (i.e. buy the media) and this is very expensive. It’s gross waste and abuse from a leadership that’s about to have a ‘FIFA/Blatter moment’.

“Remember that IAM was chosen to organise UPC propaganda events supported by the EPO and financed by the EPO’s PR firm along with UPC profiteers.”Based on this new article from Luxembourg, the EPO’s spokesperson who left (we last mentioned this last year, he had worked for the EPO in Munich for a decade) is leaving again after just 5 week at the GDL palace. To quote an automated translation of the article about Oswald Schröder: “Just five weeks he was in office: Now, the new spokesman for the Grand Ducal Court, Oswald Schröder, already resigned. [...] Schroeder’s departure is the second to hold the post in the last months. Last fall spokeswoman Isabelle Faber had resigned with immediate effect on their function. Then took a “Comité de pilotage” led by Nadège Lartigue communication of the court to the outside. On May 1, Oswald Schröder was presented as the new spokesman for the court. Schroeder was formerly marketing director of BGL Bank and Spokesman of the European Patent Office in Munich. His deputy is Caroline Verhoeven, who has worked for the European Commission and a short time from the publisher “Maison modern”.”

Maybe Oswald Schröder simply left the EPO because he saw what was coming. We could use a translation of the entire article.

Joff Wild, one of Battistelli’s propaganda troops (IAM), is still promoting the UPC. Remember that IAM was chosen to organise UPC propaganda events supported by the EPO and financed by the EPO's PR firm along with UPC profiteers. Here is the latest from Wild, wrongly assuming people actually want the UPC:

Beating Brexit – So it turns out a few senior IP people have noticed the opinion polls in the UK indicating that the Leave side in the country’s referendum on EU membership is now ahead of the Remain side. The conventional wisdom is that if the UK does vote to quit the EU, then the Unified Patent Court agreement will remain unratified and the new regime will not come into force until, at the earliest, the UK formally departs. But, wait a minute, some people are now saying. The UPC is not an EU Treaty, it is an inter-governmental one. Were the UK to ratify it would not necessarily be going against the spirit of the referendum result and, in any case, it will remain a member state for a fair while even if the result is for Leave on 23rd June. Of course, this depends on how the UK government sees things. The country’s IP minister is, like the Prime Minister David Cameron, a Remainer. The justice minister, Michael Gove, on the other hand, is a prominent Leaver. But if the UK government can be persuaded to sign up despite a vote to depart, then – the thinking seems to be – a way will be found in the period that exists between that vote and departure to ensure that whatever happens the UK remains within the unitary patent system. It’s hard to believe that British industry would not want that – the country’s patent profession certainly does – and it’s not as if patents are high-profile. Essentially, no-one would actually notice. It makes sense, I guess; but whether it would actually be the right thing to do once the will of the people has been expressed is very much open to question. (JW)

The bottom line is this. As people will find out later this week, the EPO’s media strategy is just to pay the media. No wonder Schröder is no longer at the EPO. It’s embarrassing. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Politicians Susann Biedefeld (MdL) and Agnes Jongerius (S and D) the Latest to Express Anger at EPO’s Management Over Its Abuses

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Animal Office or Nepotism Office?

Summary: Mr. Battistelli, who has turned the European Patent Office (EPO) into a laughing stock, is burning the entire Organisation (boards included) to the ground having refused to step down or admit any of his mistakes, which politicians are obviously seeing

AS expected and hoped, EPO management is coming under fire from more directions. The message is getting through to politicians too.

“The “Social Study” organised by management,” told us one person, which is “still running this week, is rather another PR gag than anything else. The presidents’s BoA reform is true to style.” Another person produced the above cartoon (among others), which is probably self-explanatory (context here).

We don’t expect many people to believe this-called called ‘Social Study’ and looking at another study, this one without EPO management ‘managing’ it, one person wrote:

“You’re right, the results of the staff survey are truly appalling. The indicators of stress are almost off the scale.”

So lets do something really, really really radical,,,something that will make the world stand up and take this nonsense seriously, once and for all. Lets organise another demonstration and walk to the French and Spanish Emabssy’s in our lunch times (private transport in your CD or BN plated car entirely at your own volition and you lucky ones can always claim that VAT you spend on petrol back at the end of the year – failing that a SUEPO bus will be available )

This should make he Admin Council quake in their boots and think oh oh oh,,,,,,,,,,shouldn’t it?,,,,or should we just sit and wait till the ‘lovely Sun Guvnor’ finally leaves?

Now that Battistelli is allegedly 'buying' votes, buying the media, and buying so-called 'research' or 'studies' along with other means of truly expensive propaganda he is also blocking more and more blogs, but can much longer can he keep this up?

Susann Biedefeld, MdL, speaks out against the EPO in her Web site, in spite of Germany’s or Bavaria’s supposed benefit having the EPO in Munich. Here is her talk about it (switch on translation and choose the desired language):

Agnes Jongerius (S&D) has in the mean time got questions about the “working conditions at the EU institutions” added to the European Parliament’s Web site:

Today (Thursday, 7 April), staff at the European Patent Office (EPO) went on strike in order once again to draw attention to their difficult working conditions. The Court of Justice of the EU had previously called for these conditions to be improved, but nothing was done in response to that pronouncement. Conditions at the EPO have reached a nadir, but the EPO is not alone in this respect. At other EU institutions and agencies too, including the ECB and the Fundamental Rights Agency in Vienna, infringements of the Staff Regulations of Officials have occurred in recent years.

1. Does the Commission agree with staff at the EPO that the industrial relations climate at the EPO is unacceptable and needs to be substantially improved?

2. The Commission is an observer on the EPO’s Administrative Council. In that role, is it insisting that industrial relations at the EPO be improved?

3. How does the Commission try to remedy failures of compliance at other EU institutions and agencies which ought to abide by the Staff Regulations of Officials?

Stay tuned as there’s more coming in our next post. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend