06.15.16

Benoît Battistelli Apparently Breaks the Rules Again and Says That Transparent Trial is Unlawful, Threatens Those Involved

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Battistelli seems to have had another tantrum/temper attack which he’s already quite infamous for

Summary: The effort to make the hearing (or ‘trial’) secretive backfires on Battistelli as the media (that which Battistelli isn’t paying or manipulating with PR agencies he spends millions of Euros on) catches up and reports more widely the absurdity of this whole situation

We have already published numerous articles about the so-called ‘trial’ against a judge who said the truth about the EPO [1, 2, 3, 4]. The more one knows about it, the more infuriating it can become (it seems as though the judge is being defamed in the media, probably with direct involvement from Team Battistelli and maybe FTI Consulting as well).

As of midnight (a few hours ago), The Register has this article (screenshot above) which summarises some of the latest developments (but not all). To quote:

President of the European Patent Office (EPO), Benoit Battistelli, has been caught threatening an independent appeals board looking into the case of a judge he summarily dismissed.

In an extraordinary turn of events in Munich this week, a planned public hearing of the organization’s “Enlarged Board of Appeal” was abandoned after it said it had received a “threatening letter” demanding that the hearing be held in private.

The board did not say who the letter was from or precisely what threats it contained, but several sources have confirmed it was sent by Battistelli, and in it he warned the appeal board that holding its hearing in public was “unlawful.”

It is not known what Battistelli threatened to do if the board continued with its plan to hold the meeting in public, but under recent reform plans that his office has drawn up, the EPO president has introduced a range of measures that would effectively give him the right to hire and fire the president of the – supposedly independent – Board of Appeals.

According to those familiar with events, the appeal board responded to the letter by pointedly asking the chair of the EPO’s Administrative Council whether he agreed with the letter’s contents.

According to a brief public statement made just before the appeal board shut down its meeting, the chair refused to disown its contents. In response, the appeal board refused to continue with its disciplinary proceedings.

Someone also leaked to us SUEPO’s report. Since we already saw the original and can confirm it is the same, including the typos (like “treats” instead of “threats”), we might as well paste the comment below and add the formatting to it:

Further details, according to an internal post of SUEPO:

15/06/2016

Enlarged Board of Appeal dismisses the case against the DG3 member amid treats by the EPO President Battistelli

Newsflash

Public oral proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal (“the Enlarged Board”) were scheduled to start yesterday, 14 June, at 9.00h, to decide on the request for removal from office of a member of the Boards of Appeal by the Administrative Council (Article 23(1) EPC). The Administration required members of the public to enrol on a list with their name and the information whether they were EPO employees or external to the Office. About 25 badges allowing entry to room 109 were then distributed essentially according to the order of the list.

The hearing did not start as scheduled. During most of the day a conference in camera (i.e. not the hearing as such) took place. The discussion apparently centred around a letter sent a few days ago by the President of the Office to the Enlarged Board. Essentially, it appears that the President condemned the decision to make the hearing public as “unlawful” and affecting the proper functioning of the Office. The exact content of the letter is, however, unknown.

The Enlarged Board apparently perceived the letter as a threat and asked the Chairman of the Council whether the Council endorsed – or not – the position taken by the President. Apparently the EBA did not receive a clear and/or reassuring answer.

The Chair only officially opened the hearing at about 17:15h. In the presence of the public, a decision along the following lines was announced (note: this is not verbatim):

The EBA received a letter from an authority which is not a party to the proceedings and which they perceive as a threat. The AC, as the disciplinary and appointing authority of the members, was asked whether it endorsed that letter. The Chairman of the AC did not distance himself from the letter. Under these circumstances, the Board cannot continue the proceedings and consequently does not propose to remove the respondent from office.

After the above announcement the Chair requested the public to leave the room.

SUEPO central

One person wrote about the typo, which is also in the original:

How nice of the President to have distributed treats to staff.
Jolly ungrateful of the EBA to have complained about this.

Here is a more serious comment:

Presumably, such a letter passed over the desk of the head of the legal division. It beggars belief that he didn’t consider the ramifications this would have on the case being heard. Having received such a communication seeking to influence the decision of the EBoA members, the members could have each declared themselves unable to take part in accordance with A.24(2) EPC but instead took the pragmatic decision to end the proceedings. Well done!

“Here [is] a further summary of the recent events,” says this commenter, linking to an article of Mathieu Klos from Juve (quite a few people have spotted this report by now, but we need an English translation).

The thing about this judge is, Battistelli tried to get rid of him repeatedly, i.e. many times, over a long of period of time (causing stress to the judge whose wife was apparently somewhat involved too — not the first time we heard of a spouse being subjected to abuse by proxy, probably by Team Battistelli), costing the Office reputation, money, time, and productivity.

Here are some tidbits from the article:

http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/namenundnachrichten/2016/06/eklat-am-epa-battistelli-greift-in-amtsenthebungsverfahren-ein

(link to a Google translation)

Ugly: the Court had requested the testimony of 3 witnesses from the Investigative Unit, but the President did not authorize them to depose because they could reveal how the computers were monitored, while the has always maintained that proper rules were followed …

A broader overview of this article was as follows:

The apparent source of the Juve article is the accused BoA member’s lawyer, Senay Okyay. This lends it some authority.

But where is Battistelli’s threat? From the other reports here, I would have assumed it was explicit: “If you hold these proceedings in public, then I will do [something bad]“.

But according to Juve, Frau Okyay merely reports that “The President described a public hearing as unlawful by the statutes of the Office.”

Certainly, it was both wrong and stupid for Battistelli to attempt to interfere directly like this. The right people to argue this issue were the Admin Council’s representatives (who are of course employed by Battistelli). Perhaps they had already tried and lost.

But in different circumstances, I think an appeal board or a national court would just have ignored such an intervention, perhaps rebuffing it with some trenchant comments. And then they would have continued to make an independent decision about whether to hold the proceedings in public.

So what this incident underlines is the fragile state of relations between the Boards of Appeal and Battistelli. Because of all the very real threats that Battistelli actually has made to the Boards (unwelcome reforms, removal to Berlin or Vienna), they are ultra sensitive.

The result is that the Enlarged Board feels threatened by a letter which, in different circumstances, they might just have ignored. They fear how Battistelli might retaliate, even if he makes no explicit threat.

The independence of the Boards of Appeal is still as big an issue as it ever was.

Questions remain, however, about whether it all ended and whether the judge will get his job back (it might be impossible as long as Battistelli remains in Office, simply because he would not reconcile). To quote a comment about this:

I wonder whether the Enlarged Board really closed the case, by taking a final decision on the merits. All reports are a bit vague on this point. If a decision had been taken, it would probably have been announced with the public present. It would make sense to simply put the whole procedure on hold, since every decision would be tainted by interference in the independence.

This approach would leave the current request from the Council in pending, with the procedure suspended. The nice side effect is that any new request – #4 according to my count – would not be admissible, due to the procedure still pending.

Another person wondered: “Did Juv[e] not also report that the President refused to allow witnesses from the EPO to be heard? Hardly a threat admittedly, but certainly interference.”

“It is rather revealing that Battistelli cannot stand the idea that his defamation of a judge will become evident and lay bare for all to see; maybe there’s also an element of penis envy because the judge is far more qualified than Battistelli and so are his colleagues at the board.”Battistelli cannot recognise a fair trial because it’s not his area. He is not a scientist and not a judge either. The accused judge is both. It is rather revealing that Battistelli cannot stand the idea that his defamation of a judge will become evident and lay bare for all to see; maybe there’s also an element of penis envy because the judge is far more qualified than Battistelli and so are his colleagues at the board. They’re just a lot more modest and professional. Battistelli is coming to grips with his inability to get his outlandish desires fulfilled (something he rarely encounters these days), whereupon he just acts like a spoiled brat instead. It’s self-discrediting.

What next for Battistelli? Buying some more media contracts and enhanced PR cooperations? How can the public be distracted/taken away from all that negative publicity now that it’s in the mainstream media? EIA2016 is already old news and millions of Euros down the toilet. This was just a truly stupid and spurious festival whose real purpose was to glorify or launder the reputation of a serial human right abuser, whom a retired high-level judge spoke about to Juve, making a comparison to torture sites and repeatedly shaming Battistelli (with his own reputation as a famous judge on the line).

At this stage, Battistelli would be wise to step down like Ciaran McGinley. He might lose his job (or face immense pressure) later this month anyway. █

Update: As of moments ago, someone posted an excellent explanation of why what Battistelli had done is totally unacceptable. To quote it in full:

The President described a public hearing as unlawful by the statutes of the Office.

Yes, of course: the narrative now is “The President only wanted to help and they overreacted”.

Please, read again Art 23(1) EPC:
(9) Unless and to the extent that the Enlarged Board decides otherwise, the proceedings shall not be public and shall be confidential.

Clearly, the Enlarged Board had decided otherwise, and in general they seem to be well-versed in the procedure – contrary to the President who has previously attempted to convince the AC to dismiss the member of the BoA without even passing through the EBoA, as the rules require.
If the Enlarged Board had decided otherwise, the President should have no say in that.

I think an appeal board or a national court would just have ignored such an intervention

They probably would, with the difference that:
1) Angela Merkel would never write a letter to some judges to tell them how to proceed:
2) the proceedings in a national court are public. Not so at the EPO, where Secret Trials are held on the pretense of confidentiality.

You did not refer to the fact that the President barred the witnesses from the Stasi – ehm, Investigative Unit, to appear at the proceedings.

Let me explain you why.

When the computers in the public – public – area of the Office were put under control, there was no request to the Data Protection Officer. The request was made only after the guy was caught doing whatever he was doing.

From the article Welcome to EPOnia, the strange land of European patents that is outside the law:

A strange letter from the head of the EPO’s Investigative Unit to the organisation’s internal data protection officer asked whether the spying described above “would have been authorised”—implying the request was being made after the fact. Also curious is the handwritten authorisation on the document, which is dated December 3, 2014—exactly when the Board of Appeals member was suspended for “alleged dissemination of material which was, as was also alleged, defamatory.”

Which means that the data collected from the public computers were obtained illegally. They cannot be used.

(Btw, Techrights has still a copy of the request to the DPO with the date clearly visible.)

Had the witnesses of the IU confirmed this, in a public proceedings, the case would have crumbled. So, the President barred them because their deposition could have helped the defendant.

To conclude, the president is trying to interfere with the proper administration of justice: did the Enlarged Board really overreact?

There is something rather awkward about the following comment because it seems to give Battistelli a carte blanche and it also dismisses the claim (which we heard from several sources) about a “threat”. The comment says:

The President’s refusal to allow EPO witnesses to be heard is neither a threat nor interference. However, it does weaken the case against the accused BoA member.

Perhaps requesting that the oral proceedings be public (guessing that the President would then withhold the witnesses) was a clever tactic by Frau Okyay?

Regarding the first line/sentence, it seems to have gone far beyond “refusal to allow EPO witnesses,” but we don’t know enough because it’s all shrouded in secrecy — a secrecy induced by Battistelli himself (no wonder).

As for the second paragraph (above), the rules are very clear about this and Battistelli disregards the rules.

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Benoît Battistelli’s Façade Continues: Exploiting Terror Attacks Again, Throwing Expensive Parties at the EPO’s Expense, Crushing More Workers’ Rights

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

Like watching a flower being squashed to perfume oneself

The Office — much like Paris — is better known as a militaristic operation now, not an examination institution

Summary: Another depressing look at how Battistelli manages the EPO, once a meritorious patent office which has become a laughing stock not only among EPO employees but also among the stakeholders who are the source of the EPO’s income

Benoît Battistelli is embarrassment to the EPO. He does to the image of the EPO and the European Union what Blatter did to the reputation of FIFA and UEFA.

Benoît Battistelli is once again (as in many times in the past year) exploiting terror attacks (warning: epo.org link) to pretend that he’s anything other than a thug, or a bully who terrorises staff, terrorises lawyers, terrorises delegates, and even terrorises bloggers. What a total hypocrite. This is a typical routine of his, after every major terror attack (we covered other such examples in the past). This helps boost/feed the fictitious narrative of urgent need for 6 bodyguards [1, 2, 3] and makes it seem like he’s the “defensive” party. What next? Will he be strutting around with a plaster across his face like Blatter did? Cosby too used such strategies to garner sympathy. Are these blog posts written with advice from FTI Consulting? Maybe ghostwritten by the PR team? These have been written since the initial FTI Consulting deal. Is Battistelli sitting up there in his office near the Isar waiting for the next terror attack so that he can write blog posts and ‘private’ letters (opportunistically published to the whole world), painting him as sympathetic and caring? The latest is being sent to the head of the USPTO, a terrible patent system with no real quality control and a lot of patent trolls (i.e. what Battistelli strives for with the UPC). There is hardly any connection between her and the victims. She probably lived in the West Coast and is of East Asian decent, whereas the attack happened in the (South) East Coat and mostly killed Latinos. But never mind all that; terror attacks are always convenient excuses for policy-pushing (gun control, foreign policy etc.), especially for politicians like Battistelli. He’s not a scientist, he's a politician, which in itself is a problem. This could disqualify him if not rationalise impeachment.

“But never mind all that; terror attacks are always convenient excuses for policy-pushing (gun control, foreign policy etc.), especially for politicians like Battistelli. He’s not a scientist, he’s a politician, which in itself is a problem.”Speaking of the low patent quality at the USPTO, it seems evident that Battistelli — whether inadvertently or not — emulates the same thing (including the patent trolls). Meldrew wrote today that: “There is a bouncing ball that might be spun in different ways.” Meldrew alluded to number of patent grants, which help demonstrate that Battistelli killed patent quality at the EPO; how long will it take for applicants to realise this and for value of existing (and future) patents to be accordingly/appropriately depreciated? In his/her blog, Meldrew wrote: “Applying some rough and ready guesswork, one can guess a total number of patents granted in 2016 as in the region 88,000 to 102,000 representing an increase of 29-49% in the number of grants over 2015.”

Yes, how ‘natural’. Unless the industry as a whole suddenly experienced a 29-49% growth in ‘innovation’…

That’s ENA’s neo-liberalism ‘at work’, racing to the bottom to help portray the businessman (Battistelli) as a king of all trades, master of jacks, and holder of no scientific qualifications. Meldrew asked: “What is happening in the background that explains this sudden increase?”

Well, recall the push to grant quickly, even at the expense of examination quality. Also recall the apparent fudging of numbers [1, 2, 3]. Another person explained this as follows:

Meldrew,
A partial explanation… Grants actually reflect work done 7-8 months previously as the decision to grant is based on the intention to grant delayed by time for translation and any amendments. Thus the current ‘surge’ is actually a surge taking place in early 2015.
That relates to a time when Early Certainty From Search started and examiners dossier management system prioritised search over examination. With one exception! Grants could be made immediately even if they were low ranked and the system identified files which were possibly ready for grant based on the info supplied for ESOP or WOISA. In order to reach targets examiners thus took this option and, in effect, non-grantable files became secondary at best. Priority was search and grant. Examination had to wait for search deadlines (priority 1) to be met. This may change soon so the apparent surge may not continue. Indeed, at some point examiners will have to do the examinations as priorities will change. But in the meantime the examination work is skewed to grant rather than further communications, even if the applicant has amended and feels it is ready for grant the examiner must deal with highly ranked files – legal search deadlines etc. – first and is not allowed to choose lower files.

Meanwhile, the EPO’s Twitter account (i.e. PR people) is still milking the staged events and linking to puff pieces like this one. Applicants’ money is apparently being wasted by the millions on a silly festival rather than a thorough/comprehensive/exhaustive patent search (for prior art). Cutting corners to improve the bottom line in the short term seems like ENA ideology. If Battistelli manages to survive until the end of his term, why worry about the mess he leaves behind him? It’s like a 4- or 8-year presidential cycle, where one typically leaves the bubble for successors to grapple with as it implodes.

“Grossenbacher has earned quite a negative reputation, for reasons we named here before. Some suspect he is also the reason Brimelow stepped down and made room for Battistelli.”EPO and Battistelli are busy wasting a lot of money on a lobbying event, dressed up as an award ceremony or science. Here is Battistelli writing about his lobbying event (warning: epo.org link) which took place one week ago. This event, which he spent millions of Euros (EPO budget) on, will “continue to assert itself as the ‘Nobel prize’ of innovation,” according to Battistelli’s blog post. So he thinks he’s Nobel again, having said something to that effect at the event as well (we covered this at the time). Megalomania at work?

Speaking of megalomania, Battistelli must be so intolerant toward quality control at the EPO that he is still working towards demolition of appeal boards (like court of appeals). Based on today’s legal news [1, 2], a fortnight from now the boards may be further marginalised. “Early Certainty,” the EPO labeled it today (euphemisms galore), “new opposition procedure from 1 July.”

We have already mentioned it here the other day, as it’s clearly an attack on appeal rights and hence on the boards. Patent quality would be severely damaged. That was a cornerstone of the EPO and it was how the high costs (fees) were justified for decades. These fees are presently being wasted by Battistelli, who is buying the media to control the message (improve an image) rather than improve the Office. To the tune of millions of Euros, Battistelli flushes money down the toilet because the image of the EPO remains tarnished.

Many comments appeared today at IP Kat and we wish to quote some relevant ones. At the EPO, according to one person, Roland Grossenbacher (who is Swiss like Blatter and the person who started the Investigative Unit) “must be viewing the present mayhem with a certain satisfaction.”

Grossenbacher has earned quite a negative reputation, for reasons we named here before. Some suspect he is also the reason Brimelow stepped down and made room for Battistelli. To quote the comment in full:

Personally, I have always seen the dead hand of Eminence Grise Roland Grossenbacher (or ‘Roland’ as BB warmly refers to him in meetings of the AC) in all this. He has led the hawkish element in the AC ever since he became head of the Swiss delegation and if there is any concertation involved in the various measures introduced by the BB regime, he is at least the arranger, if not the bandmaster. This is not to say BB is his creature: I think Benoît is now beyond anyone’s control. But Roland must be viewing the present mayhem with a certain satisfaction.

As for the third leg of the milking stool, I suspect that Jesper thought he was playing as an equal with the big lads, but probably now realises that the game has got too rough for him. Certainly, he does not seem to be exercising any leadership in the AC, for someone who is supposed to be its chairman.

“If an ordinary CEO had done [what Battistelli did] in the UK,” one person commenter, “he would have committed a criminal offence” (laws don’t apply at Eponia, Battistelli makes them up and changes them whenever he pleases).

Here again is the comment in full:

Truly astonishing. If it can be proven that there was a “threatening” letter, then it is hard to see how that could amount to anything other than an attempt to pervert the course of justice. If an ordinary CEO had done this in the UK, he would have committed a criminal offence that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

So does that mean we are now in the situation where it is unarguable that the EPO is being run by a person who, under national law, could fairly be described as a criminal?

Regardless of the semantics, the AC needs to act now, even if they have arguably been complicit in bringing this situation about. On this occasion, the president has unarguably overstepped the mark (and in a serious way). Given that the president has also taken other actions that are directly contrary to instructions given to him by the AC, then what choice does the Council have but to give him his marching orders? There would appear to be no options for “finessing” this situation so that business can carry on as normal.

I shall finish with a thought experiment. Imagine you are BB. Also imagine that there is some reason why it is essential to your survival that you keep from the public certain details pertaining to the investigations into the Board of Appeal member that you are trying to get rid of. Then what, in this imaginary situation, would you do if the Enlarged Board decided to make the dismissal hearing open to the public? Apart from making it as difficult as possible for the public to attend, you would perhaps try to engineer a situation where the Enlarged Board would be forced to close the hearing without having discussed the substance of the case (and hence without revealing to the public the material that could really damage you).

This kind of tactic would be akin to ensuring that your claims go down for added matter upon appeal, just in order that you do not receive a public (and final) pronouncement of unpatentability on a substantive ground such as novelty or inventive step.

The observable facts appear to fit the theory pretty well. However, could BB and his team be that devious? If so, just how explosive / damaging is the information that such tactics are aimed at suppressing?

The EPO still threatens people using their pensions, which is why some people suspect Ciaran McGinley decided to retire now (exceptionally early). Here is one new comment about it:

Here is an example of a restrictive covenant which was upheld by the Danish Courts:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/541.html

(see §43 onwards)

Here, compensation of 50% of final salary was paid for a 12 month covenant, with the prohibited acts restricted fairly narrowly. While there may be good reasons for the EPO to restrict certain acts after employment at the EPO ends, it is reasonable for the restrictions to be narrowly defined such they demonstrably protect the interests of the office rather than being open ended subject to the whims of the management of the day.

“They’re not acquired rights,” another person added, “they are contractual terms. And that was the intention when new examiners signed the contract. But bona fide is not in the legal lexicon of the EPO, it seems.”

Finally, here is the latest comment on this thread:

Staff Regulations of the European Union Article 16: An official shall, after leaving the service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits. Officials intending to engage in an occupational activity, whether gainful or not, within two years of leaving the service shall inform their institution thereof. If that activity is related to the work carried out by the official during the last three years of service and could lead to a conflict with the legitimate interests of the institution, the Appointing Authority may, having regard to the interests of the service, either forbid him from undertaking it or give its approval subject to any conditions it thinks fit. The institution shall, after consulting the Joint Committee, notify its decision within 30 working days of being so informed. If no such notification has been made by the end of that period, this shall be deemed to constitute implicit acceptance.

Looks very much like the new service regulations article 19. Nevertheless there are some differences which can be problematic.

Based on the type of comments we have been seeing today, Battistelli’s EPO has an appalling reputation, not just among EPO staff but also externally. Patent stakeholders (such as attorneys) increasingly view the EPO in a negative light. Does Battistelli care? And if so, what would he do? Dump several more millions of Euros (of applicants’ money) on media and PR companies? The EPO seems to have gotten itself a Sarkozy in charge, with or without a Bygmalion affair. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO Crisis: What If There Was an Administrative Council Meeting and Nobody Came?

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Delegates’ no-show protest?

Summary: A reader lays out one possible approach for national protests that can help put an end to the Battistelli era at the European Patent Office (EPO)

GIVEN THE abundant evidence of gross abuses by EPO management, any national delegate would have to be blind, dishonest, or even corruptible to pretend that everything is fine, even when Board 28 admits it's a disaster.

One of our readers tried to come up with a plan. How can one bypass Battistelli's timely gifts and protest without facing the severe consequences from the Napoleonic Nobel wannabe.

“Judging by what I read from the recent Techrights posts,” said this reader, “chances are high that Bastardelli [sic] will have his ass saved by a bunch of votes bought from minor countries. Like this, I guess also those countries who oppose him will save their faces by stating they voted against but kept actually enjoying the present regime with him still on the saddle.”

“…I guess also those countries who oppose him will save their faces by stating they voted against but kept actually enjoying the present regime with him still on the saddle.”
      –AnonymousWe have actually heard things along those lines (or to that effect) for quite some time. Battistelli is playing games with other people’s money. He continues to use money as a carrot-and-stick utility.

“They will simply say that there is nothing else they could do,” our reader added, alluding to what s/he called “minor countries.”

The reader continued: “Well, actually there is something, and it is quite something, major Countries could do: to withdraw their delegates in protest from the Council and from the Convention altogether.

“I know this is a strong step, but just the threat of it would be effective: it would devoid of legitimation the very existence of the AC and of the European Patent Convention. In fact, it seems to me that in case Battistelli stays on, this would be the only way to press on the whole AC and on Kongstad to take responsibility, for an intolerable situation that should no longer exist. It would also turn to be of major impact for the public, FIFA style.

“Unless, of course, major court cases explode nationally, but that would take more time and may still not happen at all: national Courts would still need major reasons for wanting to pick up their responsibilities in EPO related issues, pretending to respect an immunity that should not actually exist for criminal charges.

“It would also turn to be of major impact for the public, FIFA style.”
      –Anonymous“To withdraw a delegation from the AC would be equivalent to the closure of diplomatic relations between countries, the step previous military hostilities… I guess this would be the only way left that “virtuous” Countries could play to limit and eventually reverse the power bought by Battistelli in the AC and possibly to start a tide against Battistelli.”

Such a strategy would only be truly effective if several major delegations participated in it at the same time, so coordination may be needed.

“Maybe we should make a lobby in sync to every delegation for that,” our reader suggested, “I considered that for my own delegation, but as a single individual issue, that would never be taken seriously. Now issues are far from being individual ones. And if more countries dare this threat…”

“This theatre should have been stopped already a long time ago,” one new comment in IP Kat said earlier today. Here is the full comment:

After a few years following the development within the EPO under Battistell(BB) as President and Jesper Kongstad (JK) as chairman of the Administrative Council (AC) I come to the conclusion that only the representatives of the big countries in the AC (NL,DE,GB,FR,CH,IT,SP) can stop this disasterous development by demanding very strongly a diplomatic conference as forseen in the EPC. BB and JK are big friends. It is the tactics of this ¨team¨ BB and the AC with chief JK and with many BB-friends in the group of representatives of the small countries, to demand from BB as AC things to do and not do and when BB is doing nothing the AC is also doing nothing. This theatre should have been stopped already a long time ago.

This seems to be a strategy supported by quite a few people. Here are the contact details of all the delegates. Maybe our readers can explain to them this strategy and put an end to Battistelli’s coup (or reign of terror, even over delegates whom he reportedly threatens/bullies). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO Brain Drain Goes All the Way to the Top as Head of Patent Administration Abruptly Resigns

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A pattern of resignations continues [1, 2, 3, 4] as Ciaran McGinley too will fall this fall (having just announced intent of resignation or retirement intent far too early in his career)

Summary: People who are allegedly responsible for the unprecedented lawlessness at the EPO are leaving again, perhaps realising what’s next to come and shrewdly trying to dodge it based on insider information which they possess

IN OUR previous post we showed how SUEPO leaders and staff representatives are being abused inside the IU (EPO Investigative Unit). They’re gagged, so not much is known about what goes on inside. No wonder there are strikes this year. The EPO has become an embarrassing institution to work for, based on what EPO workers sometimes tell us. It wasn’t always like that. The EPO used to have relatively good reputation (we had an amicable attitude towards the EPO back in the Brimelow days), not just based on EPO mouthpieces.

“The EPO has become an embarrassing institution to work for, based on what EPO workers sometimes tell us.”Based on the latest news, Board 28 was right to say there's a "crisis" at the EPO. Now, only a few months later, the top managers have begun quitting their jobs. Vacuum remains behind them, compromising the quality of operations (not just as measured by number of approved applications but actual patent quality). We are growing rather concerned that it puts in jeopardy the entire organisation (hence everybody’s jobs, including delegates’).

When one sees his or her employees committing suicide under the Battistelli regime it’s not too shocking to see high-level resignations. If Battistelli does not step down pretty soon, signaling change and hope (to use the Obama buzzwords), a lot of other managers (even those in Battistelli’s circle but especially good, moral, respected ones) will vanish. This will compromise the entire Office, so the Organisation must act fast and decisively. This might also save lives (recall this letter from Ciaran McGinley about the fourth suicide).

Several different sources told us about the latest resignation. Basically, the head of Patent Administration (where many of the suicides happened at the EPO) has just unexpectedly resigned. This was known about yesterday, but now the word is circulating more widely. “I got the news yesterday lunchtime,” told us one person, “however I wasn’t allowed to share” the information, “but since it’s live now, here we go:

It could either mean personal damage control or jumping from the sinking ship (SOS Titanic) or both! The time will tell us.

BREAKING NEWS !

PD 21 CIARAN MCGINLEY JUST INFORMED STAFF THAT HE LEAVES IN EARLY RETIREMENT

with among other one striking sentence “However, looking to the future leads me to the conclusion that early retirement from the EPO is the right step both personally and professionally.”

In our experience (writing about software), people often retire early right before (or shortly after) major scandals that jeopardise one’s ‘peak’ or memorable legacy.

Our theory about this is that he cannot take it anymore, no matter the compensation (salary) working for incompetent top-level managers whom the staff hates so much that some commit suicide. There have been stories like this in other companies. That’s a sort of “acceptance” stage and appropriate action. We begrudgingly commend Ciaran McGinley for this decision, which surely he knew would damage Battistelli’s legitimacy before his potential sacking later this month (well overdue).

“Regarding the resignation of McGinley,” told us another source, “my first thought was exactly like what was portrayed below the first lines: Ciaran McGinley must know something that everyone else don’t.”

Is there more on the way? For completeness of our records, here is Ciaran McGinley’s farewell message in full:

From: Silke Johmann On Behalf Of Ciaran McGinley
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 1:35 PM
To: PA_all Staff
Subject: To all staff in Patent Administration

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to inform you of my intention to take early retirement later this year, namely from 1^st November onwards. I have informed Alberto yesterday evening and the President this morning.

Since taking up my duties at the European Patent Office on 1 January 1982, it has been a continuous privilege to have worked in, and to have contributed to, this organisation. It has furthermore been an honour to have served under, and worked directly with, all six Presidencies. The last years have been especially enjoyable as Principal Director of Patent Administration and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the wonderful contribution made by each and every one of you. Serving you since 1 January 2010 has been a highlight of my professional career at the EPO.

However, looking to the future leads me to the conclusion that early retirement from the EPO is the right step both personally and professionally. After all these years, I believe that the circumstances are now such that it is time for me to move on.

No doubt we will have the opportunity to share, reminisce and thank each other more personally in the coming months. I very much look forward to that.

Yours faithfully,

Ciaran McGinley
Principal Director, Patent Administration

So Ciaran McGinley, who has worked for the EPO since I was just two weeks old, is now leaving prematurely. Here are some thoughts we found about this, which look upon McGinley rather negatively, framing him as a big part of the problem:

An iconic EPO top manager is prematurely leaving the EPO…

- PD 21, Mr. Ciaran McGinley has announced to his staff his “intention to take early retirement later this year, namely from 1st November onwards”. This announce has come as a great surprise: Mr McG has been a notorious EPO manager for his long and (hyper-?) active time in the EPO but is still far from the EPO statutory pension age of 65.

- He has served in various positions, in particular as advisor to two EPO Presidents (worked under six of them), and is/was renowned for the legions of bold and staff-unfriendly reform ideas, which he repeatedly defended (against all parties preferably, in particular staff) with little diplomacy but with a remarkable skillful and eloquent stamina year after year… Just to cite one: the abolition of Automatic steps, which is unfortunately now a reality under Mr. Battistelli last career reform… So why should such a reform champion leave?

- Surely, personal reasons must prevail (enough pension rights, financial sustainability, personal and professional plans, etc..). Or has this manager informations about an imminent pension reform, that staff does not know about (at least not the Staff representation), rendering a quick departure a tactically clever thing to do? However, most “great leaders” who identify with their organisation, tend to feel essential for the future of the office and often believe in being unreplaceable: so why stopping now so “early”, so suddenly Surely not for simple mundane criteria such as stability and safety.

- Clearly when a herald of “tough” reforms thinks that “circumstances are now such that it is me for [him] to move on”, it does raise a few eye-brows… One cannot but have the impression that, perhaps, even for him, the radical provocateur he always likes(d) to posture himself, the present climate and today’s leadership may have gone a few unbearable steps too far.

- The question is not if other staff or managers think along these lines (a look in the staff survey should be enough to know the answer): the question is when will the Administrative Council understand and act to stop this?

That’s actually a good question. McGinley may be one among several ‘bigwigs’ to fall. Several people believe so. Stay tuned… there’s a lot more coming. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO Investigative Unit Causes “Trauma, Will Ruin the Health or Even the Family”

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ion Brumme’s alleged ‘crime’ is that he invited people to join the staff union

Summary: Staff representative gives details in an intervention, offering a personal testimony about the work of the “investigation/investigative unit” (IU) at the EPO

THE EPO, or Eponia which acts as though it’s a state with ‘intelligence agencies’, ‘courts’ and ‘security’ personnel (private bodyguards who are grossly overpaid), operates a secretive (mental) torture chamber called the Investigative Unit. We wrote about it last year [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] and explained how it had come into existence before Battistelli turned it into something to be expected from East Germany under Soviet occupation.

Here is a recent statement about what happens inside the Investigative Unit and what it did to Ion Brumme (above) among others because they ‘dared’ to sign people up for SUEPO, the Staff Union of the EPO. In French (original):

« Je ne cesse d’entendre que nous ne sommes pas là aujourd’hui pour discuter de cas individuels. Les cas de Ion Brumme et Malika Weaver sont pourtant exemplaires. Ce sont des représentants du personnel, sanctionnés dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions de représentants du personnel. Cela concerne tout le personnel. Le personnel a le droit de savoir. Si je suis dans cette salle aujourd’hui, ce n’est que contraint et forcé. Mon collègue Ion Brumme a été licencié et, ma collègue Malika Weaver ne pouvait être là aujourd’hui. Elle est fortement atteinte pas sa sanction de rétrogradation. Je la remplace.

La plupart d’entre vous assis en face de moi n’ont jamais vu comment se déroule un interrogatoire de l’unité d’investigation. Vous ne savez pas. Nous, à la représentation du personnel, on a vu, on a subi, on sait. C’est un traumatisme. Cela ruine la santé, voire la famille également. Le texte des Circulaires 341 et 342 qui est sous nos yeux aujourd’hui donne encore plus de pouvoir à cette unité d’investigation. Plus de pouvoir, ne veut pas dire, plus d’indépendance, bien au contraire. A l’heure où le Board 28 cherche à calmer la situation sociale, l’administration de l’office propose un texte aujourd’hui encore plus répressif.

J’aimerais attirer votre attention sur l’article 2 définissant le misconduct. Je vois que l’élément (n) qualifie de misconduct le fait d’enfreindre de manière manifestement intentionelle ou négligente une loi nationale. Je ne peux m’empêcher de penser à un membre du personnel de l’office, qui, sans doute avec la collusion de plusieurs, a ignoré un jugement de la Cour d’Appel de La Haye – l’intéressé allant jusqu’à dire que “les juges ont commis une erreur”. Naturellement, l’intéressé bénéficie de l’immunité de l’office et de plus, c’est maintenant écrit, ne peut faire l’objet d’une enquête par l’unité d’investigation. Cette caractéristique du texte symbolise en somme tout le cynisme de la démarche de l’administration de l’office. Cynisme qui s’est encore manifesté vendredi dernier.

Le Board 28 avait pourtant demandé à l’administration de l’office de calmer la situation sociale. Et vendredi dernier, on apprend que mon collègue Ion Brumme voit son licenciement confirmé, et ma collègue Malika Weaver, reste rétrogradée.

Je pense à eux. Je pense beaucoup à eux. Et aujourd’hui c’est le lieu pour en parler. »

Here is an automated translation:

“I keep hearing that we’re not here today to discuss individual cases. The case of Ion Brumme and Malika Weaver are copies. They are representatives, sanctioned in the performance of their duties staff representatives. This concerns all staff. The staff has the right to know. If I am in this room today, it is only under duress. My colleague Ion Brumme was dismissed and my colleague Malika Weaver could not be here today. It is strongly not reached his demotion penalty. I replaced.

Most of you sitting in front of me have never seen what happens during an examination of the investigative unit. You do not know. We, the staff representation, we saw, we suffered, we know. It’s trauma. This will ruin the health or even the family. The text Circulars 341 and 342 that is before us today still gives more power to the investigative unit. More power, not to say, more independence, quite the contrary. At a time when the Board 28 seeks to ease the social situation, the administration of the office offers a text even more repressive today.

I would like to draw your attention to Article 2 defines the misconduct. I see that the element (n) refers to the fact misconduct violate grossly negligent or intentional way a national law. I cannot help thinking of a member of the office staff, which, no doubt with many of collusion, ignored a judgment of the Court of Appeal Hague – the person up to say that “the judges made a mistake.” Naturally, the person enjoys immunity from office and more, it is now written, cannot be investigated by the investigation unit. This feature of the text symbolizes in short all the cynicism of the process of the administration of the office. Cynicism that has yet appeared last Friday.

The Board 28 had however asked the administration of the office to calm the social situation. And last Friday, we learned that my colleague Ion Brumme confirmed sees his dismissal, and my colleague Malika Weaver, left demoted.

I think of them. I think a lot of them. And today it is the place to discuss it.”

Accompanying text described the above as: “Intervention made by an elected Staff representative during the GCC of the 13.06.2106, dealing with Review of the disciplinary procedures framework and of Articles 52 and 53 ServRegs and the Revision of Investigation framework called Standards of conduct and administrative “fact findings” – while a spontaneous Staff Demonstration was taking place simultaneously outside against the President decision to confirm the disciplinary measures against Malika Weaver and Ion Brumme, former high ranking officials from SUEPO Munich.”

“Battistelli fancies himself a judge (and accuser, jury, and executioner) against a real judge, making up a ‘legal’ process (never-ending series of tiring show ‘trials’) and fabricating evidence to defame a judge who actually used legitimate evidence and is being punished for it.”It is worth noting that we have heard about the impact on the judge’s wife (the one who is on ‘house ban’) and we previously wrote about the spouse of Jesus getting affected (in relation to the attack on staff representatives at The Hague). This is totally unacceptable. It’s quite obviously a breach of human rights (though a human rights lawyer would be needed to lay out the specifics). It’s outrageous, but the EPO (or Eponia) does not care what the law says. It would even disregard the highest courts at The Hague (not obeying judges’ orders), by its very own admission. A later article will deal with the judge’s case.

Battistelli fancies himself a judge (and accuser, jury, and executioner) against a real judge, making up a ‘legal’ process (never-ending series of tiring show 'trials') and fabricating evidence to defame a judge who actually used legitimate evidence and is being punished for it. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

British Media Tackling Other British Media That the EPO’s Benoît Battistelli Paid for His Propaganda Campaign

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Emptying the EPO’s savings/coffers in a desperate effort to control (and distort) the message stakeholders receive

Summary: British media (the largest online publication about technology) criticises an article that the Financial Times (influencer of the rich) published in order to promote the UPC, just shortly after becoming a ‘media partner’ of the EPO

THE TRUE DEPTHS of the scandals at the EPO are yet unexplored. Benoît Battistelli never ceases to amaze, having just broadened his secret PR contracts. To make matters worse, Battistelli’s EPO is now buying the media. How long before this blows up both in the face of the media and in the face of Battistelli? There’s moral/ethical breach here. It’s sometimes considered to be journalistic misconduct.

“It’s institutions like the EPO (once run and ruined by Battistelli) which discredit the EU (even if non-EU an institution) and thus jeopardise European unity.”Put in simple terms and quite bluntly, the EPO has truly corrupted the media. This in itself should be a massive scandal which everyone should speak about. Unlike propagandists from the Financial Times (FT) and other EPO ‘media partners’ (i.e. Battistelli puppets/mouthpieces), I never make money from EPO reports. I just do this because it’s the right thing to do.

Battistelli’s puff pieces and recent campaigns at the Financial Times (of London) should raise many questions both inside and outside the EPO. It’s institutions like the EPO (once run and ruined by Battistelli) which discredit the EU (even if non-EU an institution) and thus jeopardise European unity.

Earlier today we found this new article (modified screenshot above). It seems like Battistelli’s Kool-Aid is hard for people to drink/swallow, even if they don’t realise that the EPO PAID the FT for propaganda. I quite safely assumed that they (most probably) didn’t know this, so I told them after they had published this article.

For those who don’t know what the EPO and FT conspired to achieve, see last week’s articles. All the gory details are in an article we published 5 days ago as well as a few articles from around that time regarding the EPO’s PR campaign with FT (including “FT Reports”, which magically enough started “following” me in Twitter a couple of days ago, having not enjoyed the attention).

Andrew Fentem from The Register wrote:

In 2017, the EU is going to open the Unified Patent Court. This court will make it much easier for patent trolls and corporations in the US – armed with dodgy patent applications and IP attorneys – to reach into the UK and strangle your startup at birth. Think about it.

Last week the Financial Times reported )that two-thirds of patent cases in the US are now brought by “patent trolls”. In the last five years this has cost US startups more than $20bn in VC investment.

Patent trolls don’t innovate or build anything, but specialise in suing legitimate innovative businesses. This activity is primarily enabled by the US’s massively dysfunctional patent system, a system that will rubber-stamp patent applications often with minimal vetting – resulting in a system choked with applications ranging from the spurious to the wildly ludicrous. Patent trolls then tour the world, armed with these “patents”, extorting money out of honest innovators and engineers.

Although patent trolling is now increasing rapidly in Germany, Professor James Bessen of Boston University School of Law says that it is not currently a major problem in the UK – where fewer software patents and a “loser pays” litigation costs regime are real disincentives for that sort of “opportunistic behaviour”.

However, the EU’s new Unified Patent Court will, according a German law expert, “increase patent trolling in Europe” and open the UK up to patent trolling because “a judgment from the UPC will … cover the territory of all participating member states… This significantly increases the business risk.”

We kindly ask patent attorneys, examiners etc. to pay careful attention to these arguments against the UPC. Like many arguments in favour of the UK remaining in the EU, these ones are based on logic and facts, thorough analysis rather than Battistelli propaganda, promises and fiction for those too lazy to examine it for themselves. In spite of the UPC, I am against Brexit, which probably helps demonstrate that my opposition to UPC is principled but not blind.

We urge all EPO workers to study the real impact of the UPC on their jobs and on European interests. Don’t believe a word which comes out of Battistelli, his ‘communications’ staff, and his ‘media partners’. Remember who Battistelli, an ENA graduate, really works for [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Also check who desperately wants the UPC (hint: the same kind of people or corporations that strive to ram TPP down Europe’s throat and incidentally some of those who want Brexit, as per today’s article at Corporate Europe Observatory). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Links 15/6/2016: Saving Old Chromebooks, PCLinuxOS With Trinity

Posted in News Roundup at 4:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Battistelli’s European Patent Office Broadens FTI Consulting Contract to Undermine the Media, Wastes Millions of Euros

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

FTI Consulting is hired when powerful people need to whitewash (or greenwash) truly evil things like fracking

FTI Consulting for fracking. From FTI Consulting’s own brochure [PDF], bragging about helping to poison British people on behalf of big clients.

Summary: Shedding light on what happens to EPO budget and how it’s put “to work” under Battistelli’s unprecedented tyranny (Eponia) right at the very heart of Europe

MANAGEMENT at the EPO has turned worse than nasty and malicious. It is now an existential threat to the Office and the whole Organisation, having wasted a lot of money buying positive publicity and earning utterly negative publicity (which is mostly definitely deserved). This reputation-laundering exercise may help determine if Battistelli and his thugs survive with their miserable careers.

Based on this morning’s Twitter activity (they have changed their tune somewhat since yesterday), the EPO’s lobbying of delegates is imminent, shortly after EIA2016 (a lobbying opportunity) and before the Administrative Council’s meeting: “In Tirana this week we’ll be discussing with EPO member states how to improve services for businesses & inventors. Stay tuned for updates!” (yesterday’s tweet was a lot more revealing as there is budget at stake)

“What we wish to draw attention to right now is the distraction and diversion campaign that portrays EPO staff as violent, armed, and dangerous.”This is another opportunity to grease up delegates and their nations before a vote that ought to sack Battistelli. “Keep on dreaming,” told us one person about this prospect, “Battistelli will never ever be sacked by the AC! Kongstad and Battistelli are close friends.”

Moreover, he appears to be 'buying' votes. What we wish to draw attention to right now is the distraction and diversion campaign that portrays EPO staff as violent, armed, and dangerous. It helps Battistelli surround himself with six bodyguards which are grossly overpriced (and raise questions about the very legitimacy of the secret contract). It turns out that Battistelli’s friend’s wife, a short French lady, is also strutting around with bodyguards (yes, plural!) these days and the sky is the limit in Napoleon’s EPO. Moreover, the PR contracts (i.e. manipulation of the media) are on the rise and they are expanding, broadening the reach of obnoxious PR people who also tried to push fracking into the Manchester area. These people have business objectives; they don’t have ethics.

Recall some of the awful strategies used by HBGary on behalf of corporate clients against Wikileaks, against journalists, and against the public. These are the tactics EPO workers ought to expect from EPO management right now. EPO management sent threats my way only weeks after signing the FTI Consulting deal and that’s about the same time when EPO used German and Dutch media to defame a falsely-accused (of fictitious things) judge whose 'trial' ended in his favour yesterday (for the third time).

There are truly nasty tactics being employed by the EPO at the moment. Those who are not aware of it must not have paid sufficient attention. These attempts to anonymously defame the judge, as we noted the other day, came right after the contract with FTI Consulting. Guess what EPO management is doing. Will it shy away and end the FTI Consulting contract? No, it broadens it, offering financial awards for what sank the EPO into an unprecedented crisis. In the following text which we received, note the part about the bodyguards as well:

The EPO is very secretive about its finances. Hence the few documents that it publishes – internally only – are worth reading. Someone recently drew our attention to the very last entry in CA/F 6/16 that refers to “close protection” (i.e. bodyguards) and concerns 6 contracts with 6 individuals, at a total of €550.000 for a fixed period of 6 months. Over a year this makes 1.1 million Euros, just to protect Mr. Battistelli (4 bodyguards) and Ms. Bergot (2 bodyguards) from what seem to be largely imaginary dangers. As far as we know the Office never made “awards” of this kind to individuals, but only to companies. It is not clear why this time things are different. We also wonder how the individuals concerned were selected. Could they be old friends of one of our newly recruited managers? There are more pearls to be found in CA/F 6/16, e.g. we note a contract worth €280.200 for FTI consulting – already graced with some €870.000 at the end of last year – for “EPO’s position campaign for Germany, the Netherlands and France”. That makes more than 1.1 million Euro purely for propagating the Office’s story telling, on top of the European Inventor of the Year award, estimated to cost several million Euros. There is also a contract of almost €800.000 for Lenz & Staehelin, lawyers in Geneva, for “legal support for EPO cases at ILOAT”, i.e. for the Organisation to fight its staff. To that the sum paid to ILOAT (estimated at 20-25k per case) must be added. The President and VP4 nevertheless continue to provoke ILOAT cases, among others by refusing even modest compensations e.g. for excessive delays awarded by the Internal Appeals Committee – for the results see herein further below.

No wonder EPO staff is up in arms. Look how the Office is run. It’s madness. If it was a private company, it would have folded long ago. Paying publishers for UPC propaganda events in the US is small potatoes when the budget is as incredible as more than a million dollars per year (to a US-based PR firm).

Using PR and purchases of press contracts (media ‘partnership’), which is a growing trend, the EPO management is trying to maintain the illusion that everything is going well. It’s appalling to watch such an expensive charade going unpunished, with zero accountability in fact (no matter if people’s money goes down the drain). Last year the EPO did publicity stunts for a fraud which is responsible for many deaths. When EPO management is making “entertainment” out of frauds and crooks like Elizabeth Holmes, for example, what does that say about EPO management? Regarding this one examples (Holmes), one reader asked us, “did you notice they are making a blockbuster film about Elizabeth Holmes with her being played by Jennifer Lawrence? I really hope that someone catches onto the idea of “the corrupt world of patents” and does a bit of digging…”

“This ‘article’ says “King Battistelli” but does not properly explain that it’s a cynical label for Battistelli because he’s a megalomaniac tyrant and infamous thug.”This is about that dumb European Inventor Award ceremony, which is called a “Eurovision for” Battistelli (they say “Hot Patent Talent”) by this new puff piece that EPO links to (as of last night, shortly after it got published). After waste and abuse (purchasing of media) we cannot quite understand how it really came about; maybe FTI Consulting contacted Etan Smallman or someone else at Vice? And at what cost? At whose expense?

This ‘article’ says “King Battistelli” but does not properly explain that it’s a cynical label for Battistelli because he’s a megalomaniac tyrant and infamous thug. Instead they attribute it to extravagant tendencies as follows:

It is the flagship event of the European Patent Office (EPO), a quango that employs 7,000 people and has been embroiled in a peculiar amount of publicity and controversy of late. While the inventors themselves are invariably modest to a fault, the same can’t be said for the EPO’s president, Benoît Battistelli, recently referred to rather scathingly as “King Battistelli” by one tech website. His face receives a whole page in the event’s brochure and each year he insists on mounting the stage—with accompanying introduction from the glamorous host—for the announcement of every single category.

The reason he’s called “King Battistelli” is that he does not obey the law. He doesn’t even obey ServRegs. Battistelli is breaking his own rules. As one person put it last night:

Mr. Battistelli sent a threatening message to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

If true, then according to the Guidelines for Investigation, everyone concerned has a DUTY to report Mr. B. to the investigative unit. According to what had been presented as his contract, he is after all submitted to the same staff regulations as every one else…

When Mr. Battistelli leaves service in one way or another, will he be submitted to the whim of his successor before applying to a new job?

And if there is a vacancy at the top, does this mean that no one can leave the EPO anymore?

As one person noted, Battistelli “is appointed by the AC so it is they who would decide his future employment? But if he leaves within 10 years is his pension still retained by the EPO?”

More comments on this topic (but another thread) were as follows:

The EBoA was right in considering that its independence was threatened. Mr Battistelli has just put a document for the June session of the AC which defines Standards of Conduct applying to everyone including the BoA. All EPO employees must act solely in the interests of the organisation. Nothing is said about the interests of the users of the patent system and the public. And its the EPO Stasi, the Investigative Unit which will track those deviating from the standards.

Is that the end of it before the EBA with regard to this ‘case’ (number 3) or did the EBA just suspend procedures? If ended, who will rid BB [Battistelli] of these troublesome judges? Will there be legal advice (VP5?) that the EPO judiciary is out of control and not acting correctly? Surely now the AC will have to resolve the big issue – BB v DG3. They either decide to overrule DG3 or they overrule BB, it’s difficult to see any form of co-existence.

Amazing. A new low for the EPO.

I’m confused, and trying to make sense of the bigger picture. Does anyone have any insight into why the EPO has descended into such farce? The common narrative seems to be that, once Battistelli realised he was above national law, and could change internal regulations at will, and was answerable only to a disparate bunch of spineless bureaucrats, he decided to give the EPO a good shake-up – either for ideological reasons (ENA-style) or because he’s simply a nasty piece of work, depending on whose narrative you read.

But isn’t it more likely that the AC gave Battistelli specific objectives, such as improving productivity, and that he was simply not able enough to deliver on these without causing all a whole lot of collateral damage to the office and its reputation?

And whose idea was it to set Battistelli these objectives anyway? Was change really needed? What was the motivation for the changes? Fear of the UPC? The TTIP?

Whatever the reasons, there needs to be some transparency and public accountability. The current situation is not only farcical but also a touch sinister – is it really a good idea to entrust important national legal and economic issues to an organisation with no effective accountability?

What we’re seeing right now at the EPO is beyond words. It is a lot worse than anything we saw in FIFA. It’s a lot more similar to the Watergate Scandal, but this one is lasting years and there’s still no resolution, not even a resignation. Eponia is one heck of a crazy place run by crazy people, where managers needlessly waste millions of Euros on bodyguards, millions of Euros on PR firms whose role is to lie to the media, and even give millions of dollars to media companies in order to compare the EPO to “Eurovision”, whereupon the EPO’s PR team links to that as ‘proof’ that Battistelli is an awesome king whose haters are just utterly jealous. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend