07.07.16
Weapons of Mass Distraction at the EPO Cost the EPO Millions of Euros
Human rights abuses rely on complicit or apathetic media to carry on; independent inquiry well overdue
Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s EPO continues to manipulate the media and waste millions of Euros (EPO budget) on Battistelli’s reputation laundering while his sheer abuses carry on uncovered (or barely covered)
THE past week has been relatively quiet not just because of US holidays but also because of the summer vacation. Having said that, there are new articles about the EPO in the German media and Battistelli’s expensive lobbying event helped interject him into news (“said EPO president Benoît Battistelli.”)
“The FTI Consulting contracts with the EPO sure give reasons for concern.”Want to help the EPO waste another 3,000,000-7,000,000 Euros on a similar lobbying event next year? The EPO asks: “Want to nominate an inventor for the European Inventor Award 2017? Find out here what patents they hold” (just forget about those who killed people and were honoured by the EPO). The FTI Consulting contracts with the EPO sure give reasons for concern. It is money down the drain and it enables Battistelli to get away with human rights abuses, so EPO budget is being used for Battistelli’s private vendetta (like smearing judges) rather than EPO interests. “The Tour de France is now under way,” the EPO wrote yesterday, “You may not know these bike-related patent facts” (another example of the EPO piggybacking events like the Tour de France for PR, and speaking of bikes, recall the recent Battistelli scandal). With puff pieces like these, no wonder many continue to ignore the EPO’s abuses and Team Battistelli disgracing France. Yesterday for example, MIP’s James Nurton, who spoke to Battistelli earlier this year, repeated the EPO’s lies which warp the reality of lost independence and make it seem like gain of independence. They try to make it seem like all problems are resolved when in fact the very opposite is true. To quote this one new comment about it:
Very disappointing that all the disciplinary issues have been swept under the carpet until October. But is that a cleverer move than it first appears? I recall a rumour that the judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court in the SUEPO/EPO case is due in September. If that is true, and if the judgment goes against the EPO, it should make for a very uncomfortable October AC meeting for Battistelli.
“I agree,” wrote another person. “Having the banned judge just wait for another four months in uncertainty is just irresponsible. And congratulations for the three oxymora in a single contribution: a clever move of the AC, a court judgement against the EPO, an uncomfortable AC meeting for Battistelli.”
Battistelli “gives the Staff Council less than 24 hours to review documents,” according to this person, so “presumably the BOAC can treat the President in the same way, meeting the letter of the law but giving him no real opportunity to interfere.”
The longest comment which we found yesterday spoke about Rule 12c:
The new Rule 12c says “On a proposal from the President of the Boards of Appeal and after the President of the European Patent Office has been given the opportunity to comment, the Committee set up under paragraph 1 (BOAC) shall adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. “
To understand the significance of the changes you need to go to Article 23 (4)EPC:
(4)The Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal shall be adopted in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. They shall be subject to the approval of the Administrative Council.
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar23.htmlThe relevant Implementing Regulations are Rules 12 and 13 EPC.
According to Rule 12 EPC, the Presidium shall adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal.
According to Rule 13 EPC, the members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal appointed under Article 11, paragraph 3, shall adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.In both cases, the rules of procedure “are subject to the approval of the Administrative Council” but they are adopted by “autonomous organs” of the Board of Appeal.
Under the new regulations, the rules of procedure are no longer adopted by “autonomous organs” of the Board of Appeal.
They are adopted by a subcommittee of the Administrative Council (the BOAC).
The organs of the Boards of Appeal have some input to this process but they are no longer responsible for adopting their own rules of procedure.According to my analysis of the situation that amounts to a loss of autonomy.
I do not see how it enhances the independence of the Boards.
Another commenter jokes by pretending to be “JK and BB” (Battistelli and Kongstad) and says “that´s an unfortunate slip of the pen, due to the late hour. We of course meant: “On a proposal from the President of the Boards of Appeal … the Committee … (BOAC) shall adApt [not adopt] the Rules of Procedure …””
Battistelli, who keeps breaking his very own rules, is changing them to suit his personal agenda. Why isn’t the media covering these serious scandals? The Register is the only English-speaking publication doing so nowadays, risking the wrath of legal bullying by Battistelli and his flunkies. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA