09.28.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:19 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Decapitation and union-busting strategies carry on unabated at the EPO
Summary: The attack on SUEPO (EPO staff representatives) at The Hague appears to have been silently expanded to a third person, showing an obvious increase in Battistelli’s attacks on truth-tellers
THE level of distortion of the facts inside the EPO is truly flabbergasting. People are expected to believe that all is well because staff representatives are fired, terrified, or both.
Thankfully, we sometimes get a word from the inside. Mr. Prunier, for instance, is being falsely accused and in his own words, he faces “demonstrably fabricated accusations,” as we noted earlier this month. He’s not alone though. People all across the EPO (various branches, including independent ones) have come under attack. Here is a new comment (published today) about how Battistelli might be planning to get rid of a judge whom he considered to be a thorn on his side because he had allegedly spoken about abuses by Team Battistelli (like, simple facts):
After the nomination of the BoA president, it will be easy to dismiss a BoA member.
Art. 21. (…) “the President of the BOA will be responsible for proposing disciplinary action to the Administrative Council with regard to the members, including the Chairmen, of the BOA and the members of the EBA”.
Just keep the case pending until the nomination of a BB friend as BoA president then the BoA suspended member will be dismissed.
Earlier this year we wrote about defamation complaint/s on behalf of the judge. A “criminal complaint for defamation allegedly filed with the state prosecutor in Munich,” says the following comment, “was reported in the Süddeutsche Zeitung in December 2014 and elsewhere in the German press.” Well, as far as we know the EPO too came under complaints of defamation, after it had allegedly ‘planted’ defamatory claims about the judge, including in Süddeutsche Zeitung. Here is the comment in full:
Another rumour currently doing the rounds in Munich concerns a criminal complaint for defamation allegedly filed with the state prosecutor in Munich by a senior official of the EPO some time ago. This was reported in the Süddeutsche Zeitung in December 2014 and elsewhere in the German press.
It is now rumoured that this complaint was recently rejected by the state prosecutor who seems to have taken the view that no act of defamation had been committed.
Maybe this is the new element referred to by the President ?
The following new comment says rather clueful things about aforementioned claims:
@One of those
Point 18 of the decision in case Art 23 1/16 makes it clear that at least the Enlarged Board of Appeal takes the issue of res judicata seriously, even if they did not apply it in that case. Of course, ILO-AT is a completely different kettle of fish.
@Anon 06:03
What you are suggesting is that “a proposal from the Enlarged Board of Appeal” (Article 23(1) EPC) could soon simply be interpreted as “a proposal from the President of the Enlarged Board of Appeal”. Interesting suggestion. That certainly would not be my interpretation of Article 23(1) EPC. The EBoA and its president are not synonymous, and so my view is that the one cannot stand in for the other when it comes to explicit provisions of the EPC.
Trouble is, what recourse would there be if (yet again) the EPO and the AC took action that arguably contravened the provisions of the EPC? Who is there to hold them to account? Perhaps this particular lacuna will prove to be the worst mistake of all by the founding fathers of the EPC.
@Nolle prosequi
I see that you have your tongue firmly in your cheek when suggesting that the (alleged) dismissal of VP3′s defamation claims could amount to the “new element”.
But perhaps we should not rule out a link. If the defamation claims have been rejected, then it becomes clear that there is no sound legal basis for dismissing the accused member on the grounds of defamation. It is undoubted that this development could prove to be a major embarrassment for BB and his coterie (who, by the way, could stand safe behind their immunities if it ever were determined that they defamed anyone). What better way to take the sting out of this threat by going on the offensive and dragging up new “allegations” (related to the other allegation in case Art 23 1/16) that provide renewed justification for the investigation into the BoA member?
With the disciplinary case closed, and with one of the allegations against the member (allegedly) being dismissed by an independent body, it is very hard to come up with a valid reason why the Office would adopt a “press on regardless” tactic. The actions of the Office therefore provide ample material for the generation of theories involving sinister conspiracies. So much for defending the reputation of the Office!
Not to worry. No doubt there will be an “independent” study issued in which it is confirmed that the Office has acted with utmost propriety… oh wait, it has already issued! I am particularly impressed by PwC’s range of expertise. If an above commentator (Empty) is correct, then it appears that “PWC have found that the office’s actions have met the requirement of the EPO’s legal framework”. Amazing. I never realise that PwC employed individuals who were experts in patent law. Or, based upon what some allege is standard practice of certain accountancy firms (when producing financial audits), perhaps should we should instead interpret their statement to mean “this is what the EPO has told us and we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of their statement (though, sotto voce, we have not conducted any form of independent verification)”. In this context, the rather odd choice of an accountancy firm to conduct a social study starts to make a lot more sense.
Here’s more:
“this development could prove to be a major embarrassment for BB and his coterie”
Pray, a major embarrassment in front of whom exactly? It appears that, given their supposed “immunity”, these people don’t give a s*§t about what the external word thinks.
And for the AC, it will certainly not be informed of this major development but lavishly showered at the next meeting with fabulous production figures and the deriving money.
Nothing to see here, move along …
The most interesting bit however was this comment which claims to quote the secretive board. See the bit highlighted below:
Have you seen this one in MICADO ?
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
of the 74th meeting of the
BOARD OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL
Munich, 8 September 2016
under 4. Concerning AC and General Affairs
“the Board noted information provided by the President about three current investigations/disciplinary proceedings involving SUEPO members in The Hague.”
This serves to reinforce the belief expressed in the followup comment. It states that Team Battistelli basically “decapitated the ranks of SUEPO in Munich and now they go for those in The Hague”. Here is the full comment:
“the Board noted information provided by the President about three current investigations/disciplinary proceedings involving SUEPO members in The Hague.”
Yep. They decapitated the ranks of SUEPO in Munich and now they go for those in The Hague – of course, “a simple coincidence” as VP1 would say.
And since the Investigation Unit is there to conveniently provide proof of guilt to the President, they are already dead meat.
The AC will obviously look the other side …
A lot of new information is contained above. Some of it is speculative, but some of it quotes an internal document which we hope to get a full copy of. These comments in IP Kat are very hard to find because they’re buried in some additional pages in a comment thread of a very old article (these deserve more attention, hence we often repost these here). Sadly, since the EPO banned IP Kat for almost a whole working day (perhaps some kind of a warning sign) there has been virtually no criticism of the EPO over there. Tomorrow we’ll show just to what degree the pro-EPO element has grown at IP Kat. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 7:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Reference: Rule of law
Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) actively undermines democracy in Europe, it undermines the freedom of the press (by paying it for puff pieces), and it undermines the rule of law by giving one single tyrant total power in Eponia and immunity from outside Eponia (even when he breaks his own rules)
THE situation at the EPO has gotten so bad that the EPO is now buying the media for some Milan spin (among other spin) to help sell the UPC to the gullible public officials. This culmination in lobbying demonstrates the moral depravity to which Battistelli and his goons are willing to sink.
The UPC is an assault on EU democracy (and in the UK what we are seeing in that regard is total disregard for the referendum), which is effectively being stolen by lobbyists and patent lawyers of large corporations. The “UPC [is] on the Council agenda of this Friday,” Benjamin Henrion wrote, “I told you so. Italian minister seems to lobby for Milan without even a discussion in Parliament.”
We first wrote about it last night. Italians should protest that day, along with their media (already covered UPC).
Was the public consulted on this? Why does the media, which was paid by the EPO, support this with some puff pieces that involve Team UPC? How corrupt can things get and when will European politician start to genuinely care? And not just because they perceive it as an opportunity to promote their political party, e.g. in France…
The Battistelli regime has gotten so oppressive recently that SUEPO is silent (not a single word for three weeks) and the attack on the appeal boards intensifies behind closed doors (the secretive Board 28). “This Office has really become a banana republic,” one comment says today. “Looks like a last, desperate attempt of Battistelli and his henchmen to avoid that at the next AC the disciplinary case is closed,” this person notes, in relation to the news about Battistelli trying to prevent the scapegoat from getting his job back (or basically return to work before the end of his term). Here is another new comment about it:
If the matter were not so serious for the accused (or should that be former accused and/or victim?), this Wile E Coyote-esque persistence would draw a chuckle.
As one person has pointed out, late filed submissions are required to be prima facie relevant and OK, maybe, if you can give us another reasoning because the one you have come with isn’t good enough, isn’t normally the procedure to follow.
I note that, in the Social Study (?), PWC have found that the office’s actions have met the requirement of the EPO’s legal framework. The mind boggles about what wouldn’t.
We wrote about the PWC 'study' just after its release on Friday. It’s hogwash. It’s just ammunition for lobbying in next month’s Administrative Council’s meeting (there are also court rulings from the Netherlands coming up very soon).
One person added that “there is no “Res Judicata” at the EPO, nor does ILO-AT require this of its member organisations (and the EPO is not a member of ILO-AT).”
Another person remarked on “the issue of res judicata” as follows:
They would not go for the same accusations.
Actually, rumors were circulating around the last meeting of the AC that the president had a completely new strategy to deal with the suspended member of the AC, since the first one did not work.
A new accusation would have been made according to which the suspended member had discussed with an external IP lawyer a case in front of the BoA, thus contravening the requirement of confidentiality for anyone working at the office.
That would have been considered as “misconduct” – the punishment for which we all know is dismissal.
I have no further details – such as “when did this discussion take place”, “was at an informal meeting”, “which proof did they have”, “did the office require the Lawyer to testify” or anything else.
I understand the defense of the suspended member was aware of these rumors.
We shall be keeping a close eye on this. If anyone out there has access to internal affairs of Board 28, please consider getting in touch with us. Information lapses and secrecy currently achieve nothing but harm staff. This also harms the EPO as a whole by making redemption improbable. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.27.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
While publicly stating to the media that they have gained independence (which is a lie)
Back to East German standards in Munich
Summary: The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli’s ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake ‘trial’ in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)
THE EPO has become a rogue institution under Battistelli. It not only abolished quality control but also started attacking anyone who dares talk about it.
According to this, the “EPO does not even invite critics of swpats [software patents] when it makes an event, looks like an echo chamber for patentees” (links to an event that was mentioned here in another article from this morning).
Jesper Lund responded by saying that the “EPO has even stopped saying computer implemented inventions instead of #swpat” (software patents).
“Remember that Battistelli, who cooked up several fake ‘trials’ (internally, no oversight), relied on a USB device as ‘evidence’ and then spread some defamation in the Dutch and German media regarding the claims made by the accuser (himself).”They just keep changing the words they use to dodge the negative connotation. See how they say UPC instead of EU Patent and Community Patent, among other names for the same bad scheme. The EPO used to speak of “computer-implemented inventions,” a euphemism for software patents. They used to do this in their older Web pages (in the old site) and sometimes said CII, as we showed earlier this year. So basically, our fears of software patents under Battistelli are justified and insiders tell us that they do in fact grant software patents.
Who can stop this madness? Usually the boards of appeal. They already contributed to narrowing of scope in the past (to prevent frivolous litigation*). This morning we published a post that mentioned Board 28 and the latest stunt from Battistelli. He is quietly putting up the fire on the boards — all this while the media is supposed to believe that the 'exile' in Haar is an improvement (Wim Van der Eijk, Chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA), is already on his way out).
Remember that Battistelli, who cooked up several fake ‘trials’ (internally, no oversight), relied on a USB device as ‘evidence’ and then spread some defamation in the Dutch and German media regarding the claims made by the accuser (himself). Here is the latest on this:
yeah, just saw it too.
How can there be new material NOW?
Or did one of the newly hired guys find new evidence somewhere in the stack of material on the famous USB-storage element?
Incredible.
The most important thing hammered to me in the EPO-academy for examiners-to-be, was that every single communication should be as complete as possible, including ALL objections.
We should not create new cases every time with new objections based on grounds previously known or foreseeable, but not formulated. We should not be lazy. Writing all down is procedurally efficient and gives better legal certainty to the party concerned and the public.
Maybe we should politely ask the administration representatives to join the academy, so that they do learn this important element of procedure.
It also causes one to reflect a bit more when hearing/reading something, before jumping to conclusion and action.
One might be led to the “conclusion that the AC and the President are colluding to subvert the provisions of the EPC,” one person asserted today. Here is the full comment:
So there are “new elements of information” on the suspended member of the Boards of Appeal. So what? The sole disciplinary authority for that member has closed the case against him. The charges have effectively been dismissed.
Some time ago, I posed the question of what the AC would do in the light of the disciplinary case being closed. I guess that we now have our answer: an “excuse” has been found for not immediately following the only legally sound course of action open to the AC, namely reinstatement (and appropriate compensation) of the member in question.
Do I take it that the member (and his legal tem) has been fully informed of the “new elements of information” and has been provided with an opportunity to comment upon them (as well as the issue of res judicata)? Or is there not even a pretence at formal investigation / disciplinary proceedings here?
If this carries on, then it will become impossible to avoid the conclusion that the AC and the President are colluding to subvert the provisions of the EPC. Whilst the immunities afforded to him mean that President can afford to be sanguine about the possible consequences of this, the members of the AC would do well to remember that their immunities are much more limited.
As we pointed out before, the attacks on the staff continue to escalate and become more severe. Staff in at least three EPO sites is said to be affected (the Dutch branch and apparently the Berlin branch also).
We are still curious as to why SUEPO has said nothing for so long; maybe SUEPO just hopes that the EPO’s union-busting agenda will slow down a bit if they say little or nothing to the general public.
The EPO is in shambles and Battistelli does everything to ensure it stays that way. No wonder staff is leaving in droves and it is difficult to recruit suitable people. █
_____
* There is this new report today (actually a press release) about an EPO patent coming under fire, EP1575758B. It’s likely to happen a lot more after Battistelli’s regime has led to the issuance of many bogus patents and has damaged the appeal process.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Remember what they did right before Brexit?
Summary: How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles
THE EPO gives over a million Euros per year to a US-based and rather notorious PR firm. The EPO is essentially corrupting the European media at the expense of EPO budget, i.e. taxpayers and/or fee payers.
A very core part (if not flag bearer) of Team UPC, Bird & Bird, gets a platform or gets embedded in a new article (behind paywall) and then brags about it by saying: “Our @twobirdsIP partner, Rob Williams, speaks to the @FT about the effect of Brexit on the Unitary Patent Court” (“speaks to” means it’s a puff piece in the form of an interview, like those puff pieces that Managing IP has been doing with Battistelli, after prefiltering questions based on what some other journalists told us the EPO likes to do — a form of sanitisation).
The Financial Times was paid (one might even say bribed) by the EPO for UPC puff pieces several months ago, with a huge budget at Battistelli's disposal derived or extracted for lobbying purposes. The EPO gave money to media companies including the Financial Times and it even did this at a strategic time, almost certainly in order to influence the British referendum. Political meddling from such an institution should, in its own right, be a major scandal.
Regarding the piece itself (behind a paywall, so we must go by clues), based on the headline it’s once again the Milan fantasies, pretending that Milan can magically become London. It’s utter nonsense.
A more realistic take on the UPC came today from Dr. Glyn Moody. Unfortunately, his main citation points to CIPA, which has been working closely with the EPO on this (to undermine/steal democracy). Here is a portion of his article, which links to IP Kat:
It will still be possible for the UK to participate in the pan-EU Unified Patent Court (UPC) system after Brexit, according to a new legal opinion, but only if the UK is willing to “submit itself to the supremacy of EU law in the field of patent disputes.” Once established, the UPC will rule on cases involving unitary patents, which proponents say will reduce the costs of using and litigating patents in the EU.
Before the Brexit referendum, the UK was one of the main supporters of the idea of setting up the UPC. The UK government has already signed a lease for the London section of the Central Division and the UK Local Division of the new court system. Whether or not it can still participate in the UPC is therefore a crucial question.
A post on the IPKat blog explains that the legal opinion was put together for the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA). The institute has been “lobbying for positive participation in the UPC after putting in so much work in advance of preparing the system,” and therefore is keen for the UK to remain a part of the UPC system even post-Brexit.
Benjamin Henrion already told him, “too bad you did not mention Stjerna paper. And Council meeting in 2 days.”
Based on Bristows of Team UPC (update today): “The UPC Preparatory Committee is meeting on 10 October 2016 in Paris. Regarding the Competitiveness Council, as the UPC is an ‘AOB’ item for this week’s meeting there is not likely to be any substantive discussion; the Council’s next meeting is on 28/29 November 2016.”
The “EU Council [is] to meet this Thursday, 29 September to discuss UPC and unitary patent,” they noted separately. As a reminder, Bristows of Team UPC is scheming to undermine both British and EU democracy. All it cares about are its own selfish interests. More patent litigation would mean more business for Bristows and its ilk (companies like Bird & Bird)
Here, incidentally, is a person in favour of the UPC saying that the UK should not ratify and explains why. The following comment was published today (“Meldrew” seems to be a British patent attorney):
I agree with Meldrew that it is better to be in the system than out – but otherwise disagree. Ratifying now creates problems we do not currently have (and we have plenty as it is) – it could lead to the UPC and UP commencing when it is uncertain whether the UK can or will remain in the project. If it can’t, but the UK has ratified in the meantime and the system commences, the situation for UPs covering the UK, the existence and locations of the UK local division and central division branch, the position of the UK judges and the enforceability of UPC judgments handed down pre Brexit are all unclear. None of these are sensible uncertainties to create in the hope that it will all be sorted out through some pragmatic political discussion. Nor do I believe the remaining EU member states will somehow reward the UK for being neighbourly in allowing the UPC to commence without delay, or punish us for not doing so – it is likely to be an irrelevance in the overall negotiations.
This doesn’t even touch on whether ratification now of what is a treaty between EU member states (even if technically not an EU instrument), which requires recognising the supremacy of EU law (in general, not expressly limited to patent law), is politically possible. It is impossible in my view to reconcile ratification with the referendum vote (which went the wrong way, as far as I am concerned), at least until the Brexit terms are known and agreed (and are such that it is politically consistent to ratify).
I am a realist. And sadly, the pragmatic – and sensible – thing to do is simply not to ratify, then wrap the whole UP/UPC/UK discussion in with general Brexit negotiations. This of course means delay since it is difficult to see how the remaining member states can actually proceed without the UK while it remains an EU member state and a signatory to the UPC Agreement. If we end up out, then the UPC can go ahead without the UK at that point, if the momentum remains. If we are in, so much the better, though I see dragons and lions in the path there.
And for what it’s worth, I am a supporter of the UPC/UP system even though I do not believe it to be quite as good or as “necessary for industry” as many have said it is.
Don’t be fooled by the UPC fantasies. The UPC isn’t happening, but Team UPC wants us to think otherwise so that guards are taken down and opposition reverts back to defeatism. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Quality control is just a theoretical concept in Battistelli’s EPO, where the goose is being slaughtered for a golden egg
Summary: A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral
THE scandals at the EPO are an endless saga and a bottomless pit. Board 28 needs to act fast because the Administrative Council sure behaves like it does not care or like it’s trying to save face for Battistelli.
“Patent scope (limitation) seems to be viewed as a nuisance at the upper echelon/top floors of the EPO’s building in Munich.”“According to the minutes of the last meeting of Board 28,” one person wrote, “the president provided “new elements of information [...] on the disciplinary case of a Council appointee. Following an exchange of views, [the Board] indicated that it would reflect on the information, pending receipt of a legal note from the President.”” the thing about the Board is, it previously said Battistelli's regime had caused an EPO "crisis". We are planning to revisit this subject pretty soon. Has the Board said anything about the decline in quality and loss of stakeholders' interest which is very apparent? Therein lies a crisis as big as the social crisis. The EPO cannot survive without a reputation. It won’t attract applicants or even highly-qualified staff.
Watch this new tweet from the EPO, which links to the EPO’s own site and says: “From today, you can register for the Indo-European conference on Industry 4.0 and patents” (Industry 4.0 is just a meaningless buzzword).
Not too shockingly, software patents (in Europe) have been interjected into it (the fourth time we see it this month alone!). To quote the page (emphasis ours): “The consequences for the patent system are potentially tremendous, and they challenge some of the fundamental concepts of the system, such as the definition of “industry” and “inventor”. There will be a greater overlap and interplay between the types of rights, and as software pervades through all technologies a greater debate on the patentability of software.”
Patent scope (limitation) seems to be viewed as a nuisance at the upper echelon/top floors of the EPO’s building in Munich. These guys are nuts; they’re neither scientists nor good managers. They’re mostly old buddies of Battistelli, loyal to him and telling him mostly what he wants to hear. They attack everything which voices criticism as though it’s an enemy, including the independent (in principle) boards of appeal.
“We understand from correspondence with the EPO that this change in practice has been made following investigations by the Legal Division resulting in an acknowledgement that the current procedures for recording an assignment are not consistent with Article 72 EPC.”
–Lexology“The EPO to bring opposition proceedings in standard cases down from 25,8 months to 15 months,” Nordic Patent (Kongstad-connected) says, citing “Heli Philajamaa from EPO” (the EPO has just retweeted this).
Here is a simple translation for those who believe the lie that the appeals are still taken seriously (rather than gradually crushed): The EPO does not want oppositions. It wants to make them harder, more expensive, etc. It suppresses them. Heck, it does not even want patent quality anymore.
The EPO’s “current procedures for recording an assignment are not consistent with Article 72 EPC,” says this new report, but it’s not as though the EPC ever bothered Battistelli. He ignores it at every turn and corner, as we noted earlier this year. The thugs at Eponia basically declared a state of emergency and are now just doing whatever they please, even when that’s against national and international laws. Here is what contributors to Lexology said:
However, we have been made aware that, with immediate effect, the EPO will only record an assignment if it is signed by all parties to the agreement. An assignment signed by the assignor(s) only will be considered to be deficient. We understand from correspondence with the EPO that this change in practice has been made following investigations by the Legal Division resulting in an acknowledgement that the current procedures for recording an assignment are not consistent with Article 72 EPC.
This change in practice has not yet been publicly announced by the EPO. However we are aware from practical experience that the new practice is already in effect and have been informed that the Guidelines for Examination will be updated shortly. There is no indication that the EPO plans to revisit assignments already recorded under the previous practice.
At this stage it seems almost as though it’s too late to save the EPO. It’s too hard to save something whose top management does not want it to be saved (they just try to save their own career, not the Office, or simply save face). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
All that political UPC lobbying from Battistelli and his cronies (like Margot Fröhlinger) merely served to discredit the EPO
Sailing nowhere, fast.
Summary: While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won’t be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly
THE EPO has done virtually nothing to repair its bad reputation. Paying over a millions Euros to fracking propagandists is hardly a sound plan and as long as union-busting activities carry on, staff of the EPO will perceive the management — not SUEPO — as their biggest enemy. What’s more, stakeholders outside the EPO are paying attention and some take action, knowing that patent quality at the EPO is far from what it used to be. Insiders tell us so as well.
“Team Battistelli lied to the public (and to staff) about the UPC’s inevitability and here in the UK we saw Team UPC (perhaps fraudulently) advertising UPC jobs that did not exist and would never exist.”The EPO’s top-level management put all its eggs in the UPC basket. Team Battistelli lied to the public (and to staff) about the UPC’s inevitability and here in the UK we saw Team UPC (perhaps fraudulently) advertising UPC jobs that did not exist and would never exist. We complained about this at the time. How do they get away with this? They hate democracy so much (or disregard it so blatantly) that they quit caring about — or they’re not paying attention to — the enormous damage caused to their reputation and integrity. What are European companies supposed to think of the UPC and the EPO right now?
“This purely academic exercise is all well and good,” one person wrote in a thread stuffed with UPC hopefuls (Team UPC and the patent microcosm, especially in the UK), “but a complete waste of time and money. There will be no political will to make this work because Brexit means Brexit. Don’t you get it yet? Forget it and move on….”
Indeed, but they have spent so much effort and time on UPC preparations, so they refuse to move on. Another commenter then added that “we will be gradually forced to file our patent applications outside the EPO in the interests of our clients,” so we assume this commenter has moved on already. To quote in full:
The discussion about Brexit and UPC continues to be maddening as not based on the possible (to avoid repeating myself I refer to my previous comments http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2016/09/does-david-davis-want-to-ratify-upc.html?showComment=1474556188098#c99464718469530613 Thursday, 22 September 2016 at 15:56:00 BST )
If financial leviathans in the City are struggling to persuade the UK government to protect their financial passports post Brexit to preserve a status quo in London from which the UK benefits to the tune of tens of billions each year, what on earth makes any realistic observer believe the minnow of the patent community could persuade the UK government to move against the Brexit tide by ratifying the UPC pre-Brexit?
That would be true if the UPC was the best idea ever (which it isn’t), if there was a ground swell of support for it from UK industry and potential users (there isn’t), if it would encourage innovation in the UK or Europe (it won’t) or if the EPO was the most respected patent office in the world (it isn’t).
Indeed, regretfully, I must be even more blunt, the EPO’s continuing flogging of this UPC dead horse is yet more evidence (amongst many examples well known to all) that current EPO management continue to act against the long term interests of the patent community and industry in Europe. The present EPO President has zero credibility as his administration undermines the EPO on multiple levels with increasing irrationality. Reduction in patent quality, horrendous abuse of staff, attacking the independence of BoAs are but three examples and it is to the utter shame of the Administrative Council that he has survived so long.
Rather than focussing short term attention on the fate of the UPC, the most important and urgent action which would help improve the patent system in Europe is for the AC to remove Benoît Battistelli (and his team) from office without delay and bring back humane, credible and competent leadership to the EPO. Only then can a rational discussion of the challenges begin with all stakeholders, and users such as myself can have their confidence and faith in the EPO restored in a post Brexit world with or without the UPC. If not, reluctantly we will be gradually forced to file our patent applications outside the EPO in the interests of our clients and the EPO will begin a slow decline to irrelevance.
“That the EPO still pushes for UK ratification is hard to understand,” wrote one person in response to the aforementioned comments about the EPO’s resort to lobbying (we wrote about that yesterday). To quote:
I could not agree more with the blogger of 12.43 BST.
Ratifying now would be utterly counter-productive and only increase problems.
Sorry Meldrew, but ratifying now has nothing to do with pragmatism, but sheer panic to be left out of a system which could have been so lucrative. Actually, I was expecting better from Meldrew.
That the EPO still pushes for UK ratification is hard to understand. I would say there are more urgent problems to be solved at the EPO than fighting for UK ratification. Seeing the way the AC does not do its job of controlling the EPO and its president, one wonders about a hidden agenda.
How can it be that training for search and training for examination used to be three years for each job, now it is three years for both. Have the newcomers suddenly become more intelligent? Please allow me to doubt. Quality is thus lowering for a long time, but the lowering can only accelerate.
The problem lies with the EPO and its management. I leave here purposely aside any discussion about the ill treatment of staff representatives, but concentrate only on the horrendous production figures which are now required. Here it is not only BB who is to blame, but much more VP1, who has always thought that examination, and hence the grant of solid patents, is of secondary importance.
What matters are production figures. Who gives a damn about the patent quality, production figures have to be according the plan. Basta as would a former German chancellor say. The erosion of quality is nothing new, but when one sees what is coming out one can only shudder.
What good could be a UPC when faced with patent of little or no value.
A court be it called UPC or not, cannot do a good job on shaky patents! Why is it then so necessary to quickly ratify?
In our next post we’ll remark on patent quality again. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.26.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Workers of the EPO can no longer even speak publicly, not without a 100% assurance of anonymity after Control Risks Group (CRG) got contracted (former Stasi staff from Desa hired)
Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation
THE EPO is not an ordinary institution. People have come to assume that it’s supranatural and all-seeing. Fear dominates. It has become epic in terms of its abuses (against its very own staff, just like in WIPO), even if the corporate media does not cover the subject like it covered FIFA. Lobbying events and corrupting influence over the media might be playing a role here because the corporate media did use to occasionally cover the subject (but not anymore, not recently).
“PwC looks very much like EPO,” writes one person (probably an examiner judging by the signature). “Is any official recognition of burnout at EPO? Of course not,” he or she added in relation to the ‘social’ ‘study’ released late on a Friday. To quote the whole comment, which contains link about the so-called ‘study’ and its preparation (commissioned by Team Battistelli):
EPO Social Study by PwC? Just released this Friday.
Look who’s talking:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-PwC-RVW6640457.htm
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-PwC-RVW9485971.htm
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-PwC-RVW1377116.htm
http://offbeatchina.com/25-year-old-auditor-at-pwc-shanghai-worked-to-death-time-to-rethink-work-life-balance
http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/Bengaluru-Techie-Jumps-to-Death-From-9th-Floor-Flat/2016/04/17/article3384729.ece
PwC looks very much like EPO.
Is any official recognition of burnout at EPO? Of course not (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/worker-burnout-worldwide-governments_n_3678460.html).
Dumb and Dumber Examiner
Another person is obviously “uncomfortable by the fact that the EPO appears to be lobbying strongly” and asks if others are equally uncomfortable, in a thread which is stuffed with comments from the patent microcosm (they too are lobbying, e.g. via CIPA). Here is the comment in full:
Is anyone else left feeling very uncomfortable by the fact that the EPO appears to be lobbying strongly for the UK government to take prompt and decisive action in connection with the UPC agreement (ie to either ratify or withdraw)?
The EPO is a non-governmental, international organisation that was created by, and is controlled by, the EPC contracting states. The UK is one of those contracting states. In my view, it therefore beggars belief that the servant is telling one of its masters what to do.
I would have thought that the EPO really ought to be scrupulous in maintaining political neutrality. This is because being seen trying to exert influence over decisions made by a national government (and over which that government has sole authority) would surely raise questions about whether the EPO employees in question were acting beyond their remit. There would also be questions about whether such lobbying could be seen as undemocratic.
Perhaps BB is so used to obedience from the members of the AC that he has mixed up the identities of master and servant. However, if the lobbying efforts of the EPO come to the attention of Brexiteers within the UK government, I have no doubt that they will waste no time reminding him of the natural order of things.
The UK government has a difficult decision to take. As made clear by the Gordon and Pascoe opinion, participating in the UPC post-Brexit could have profound consequences (including signing up in perpetuity to the supremacy of EU law in a significant number of areas) that may well be unpalatable for many of those in government, let alone the electorate. Whilst I am certainly no Brexiteer, my firm belief is that the UK government should be left alone to mull over these consequences and to reach a decision in its own time. If the other contracting states to the UPC agreement cannot wait the time this will take, then so be it.
Meanwhile, this new press article was released at the start of the week and the first section covers the EPO in light of Brexit. There is no issue at all, except for Team UPC. To quote the relevant parts:
The good news is that Brexit will have no effect on European patents or patent applications. European patents are granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), which is not an E.U. institution. E.U. membership is not a condition of membership in the EPO, and non- E.U. member countries, such as Switzerland and Norway, have long been EPO members.
As a result, you will continue to be able to validate your granted European patents in the U.K., and European patents that have already been validated will continue in force. Similarly, U.K. patent attorneys will be able to continue acting as representatives before the EPO.
We certainly hope that politicians won’t get bamboozled by Team UPC. “Stjerna,” as Benjamin Henrion put it (pointing to a long paper which we mentioned the other day), suggests that the Unitary patent and court system is like “squaring the circle after the Brexit vote” (impossibility).
We certainly hope that nothing will change with regards to the UK’s membership in the EPO, but judging by the alarming recruitment figures (the EPO nearly halted hiring British staff and many of them left) one cannot rule this out. The UK might eventually be left out of both UPC (which will likely never happen anyway, with or without the UK) and the EPO. The UK-IPO, based on British sources of ours, gave them better services than the EPO (where quality can no longer be assured, only the high fees are a certainty).
The EPO is in trouble. EPO insiders know this very well. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.25.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
At the EPO, from anonymity comes transparency and honesty because in some countries, including Eponia, journalism strictly requires anonymity (fear of retribution)
Summary: Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become
OUR previous post spoke about growing concerns about EPO layoffs that would eliminate much of the brainpower and set the stage for rubberstamping (or very superficial examination, maybe by machines rather than professionals). We sometimes hear from insiders who let us know just how terrible things are looking from the inside. Airing some concerns seems imperative if the goal is to better inform not only staff but also applicants, politicians, and the general public.
Patent Quality and End of Stock (Potentially Staff Layoffs)
Regarding patent quality, an EPO examiner told us that he or she “got a list with EP grants that are not new where the search work was soooo appalling you can hardly believe it [...] because that is the latest development, Munich-style searches become standard…”
This examiner further explained that “for us quite easy to find in the overall workload system… our guess is, within 2 to 3 years we are out of stock (also for examination) and than the big question is what next with us examiners…”
This relates to a topic we covered earlier this month as well as in our previous post.
Software Patents
When asked about software patents, which the EPO typically calls “computer-implemented” in order to dodge the negative connotation and explicit exclusion, this examiner told us that the Office would “sometimes grant controllers, but it is always linked to an apparatus (a control for …)” (that’s the loophole set up in the Brimelow days, now exploited also in India and New Zealand).
So, in simple terms, both patent quality and patent scope are being compromised. What gives? The examiner confesses that “there are plenty of bad grants, but it is now getting an epidemia” (maybe epidemic).
Some examiners begin to wonder what the EPO is trying to accomplish under Battistelli. This examiner said, “the question is, are patents a goal or just a means?”
“Minnoye is the Real King Slayer”
Asked about Battistelli’s role, this examiner clarified that “in our opinion he is not the worst but that is Minnoye … he is the real king slayer, the one who makes the big damage to the EPO.”
“CPC [the classification project with the US] is killing us,” this examiner added, “basically, a lot of the “production increases” got paid by putting less man hours in the classification activities … we say; He who controls the classification in fact controls the patent quality … this year 2016 will see an enormous rise in grants … [we] now (as in today) grant a lot of stuff that was 10 – 15 years ready on the shelves … meanwhile we neglect collectively the classification system, no maintenance, no new development, no one feels responsible anymore … meanwhile a lot of window dressing is going on, it is incredible the production goes up sky high and the quality also… [examiners] had to wipe some dust from the yellowed file folders… IAM is in our opinion not important at all, that is only our own specialist peer group (per technical field)…”
This serves to confirm some of what we said about so-called ‘production’ increases. They’re just clearing the shelves (old applications) without paying much attention to quality of patents. It cannot go on for much longer and when it’s all done and finished there’s expectation of massive layoffs, never mind the collateral damage of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of poor patents in Europe, serving to ensure a climate of frivolous litigation and patent threats.
“Only the “Recognised” [Yellow] Union, i.e. FFPE, is Invited”
Remarking on the so-called ‘social study’ (which was released late on Friday; there are 3 reports on the intranet), the examiner told us that “the next funny event to come is 14 Oct. a social conference one day before AC meeting … it will go from top to root … it will be sold as a success” (to influence delegates with a pile of lies).
Adding insult to injury, and ensuring no dissent, “only the “recognised” union, i.e. FFPE, is invited (SUEPO of course not),” the examiner noted. So it’s truly a Kool-Aid event. The whole thing “is in a way a media war … for most EPO issue money is not really a problem , but just a means … for us, it is the whole setup with this weak AC on top of the water head that is the problem … plus that seriously not a single politician is interested…”
Those who say SUEPO tries to undermine the Office are clearly not paying attention; the aim is to actually save the EPO. “I do not want to harm,” the examiner told us, “but what we need is a transparent system without secret working contracts, without paid coverage, and without badly searched applications…”
The examiner explained that “money is no 1″ to these people, “but in our opinion it should be simply that we do our duties, not more and not less.” To the management, says the examiner, “money money money that’s what it is all about,” but “renewal fees for the Office will sink dramatically (in the report called NRF),” so the gains are short term and will be extremely costly once the stock runs out and many bad patents have been granted. “Theoretically,” the examiner added, “the Office will collect 50% of the state renewal fees (which can be zero)…”
“More Useless Stuff”
According to what we learned, not only did the EPO get scanners to treat the staff as though they’re boarding the plane; They got some “more useless stuff” (for bags).
Regarding “20 million [Euros] for the reward package,” the examiner called it “a shitty deal for us” as “we are being separated in the Have’s and Have-nots” and in “2015 all directors and principal directors got heavily rewarded… but the examiners not [as part of] 9 million for pensionable awards like salary step increases, and the rest for 2 types of bonuses and one-off rewards [...] they did nothing, it was the examiners and the administrative staff, you should have seen the huge piles with grants, it was incredible …] I mean piles to the ceiling, earlier this year … we are now basically emptying our stock (examination) and it is going pretty fast … and the good news is, we are even rewarded in case of oppositions! The bulk that is granted now still has pretty good search reports, but that is going to change quickly … in case of an opposition, we get time like 2 or 3 days [and] that is good for our productivity … some directorates got 3 times more oppositions as their counterpart (which should be kind of identical) … the new mantra is: Timeliness. But not a single applicant is interested in this, they want quality … believe me, if you put so much money in your patent portfolio you want a certain quality I have been in at least 20 huge companies and they all conveyed this message (think of: Philips, Daikin, Mitsubishi, Honeywell etc etc) … there are still capable courts active in Europe who decide on the validity of a patent … EpiPen in the US is another perfect example, complete bogus of course … they got a patent on the safety cap, and now charge like 150 dollar for something costing 10 bucks before (thanks USPTO)…”
“UPC is a Lame Duck”
When asked about the UPC, the examiner told us that the “UPC is a lame duck, but the duck does not want to know this.”
We were kindly asked to “realise that a UPC judge is going to earn less than an experienced EPO examiner, so they can forget about attracting skilled people except from Eastern Europe.”
Speaking of judges, there will soon be a verdict (at the end of the week) from the Dutch High Court. SUEPO will probably be writing something about it, but examiners expect nothing out of it. Either way, the EPO plans to disregard the court’s decision anyway (thanks, Mr. Minnoye, for an epic confession on Dutch television).
“By laughing the misery away we survive,” the examiner told us, “like being in the trenches … not all is true in the end, but where smoke [there] is a fire.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA