11.08.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Benoît Battistelli keeps digging his own grave
Summary: A large bundle of information about the latest horrible actions from Benoît the Terrible, who decided to bust unions also at The Hague, not just in Munich where he resides
TODAY, THE EPO is throwing another stupid and distracting party (an event called Patent Information Conference 2016) and after the social conference from an antisocial boss we expect to see social “workshops”, ones that are supposed to have taken place today and yesterday. But don’t expect staff to have attended or for anyone to genuinely care for this. Staff of the EPO was up in arms after it learned that on Friday the boss had fire yet another staff representative, as first covered in our site with this leak.
Today we heard of yet more “erratic behaviour” from Battistelli, but we shall leave that aside as a subject for another day.
Looking at some correspondence that got leaked to us, “Laurent Prunier is FIRED with immediate effect – no game changer” was the initial word, preceding if not almost coinciding with Battistelli’s announcement. “It has been reported that the EPO president has taken a final decision regarding our suspended Colleague in The Hague,” said one person. “After Els Hardon and Ion Brumme earlier this year it is now the turn of Laurent Prunier, elected Central Staff Committee and SUEPO official, to be fired with immediate effect!”
“One thing can be concluded,” said this message. “Fact is that the clear warnings given by the AC delegates in the last AC (see previous mail below) has had little influence on the President of the Office.”
Well, he certainly doesn’t seem to care.
“Under these conditions, despite many declarations of intent,” continued the message, “it is hard to believe that there is any significant paradigm change in the present management policy. And It bodes bad news for the further two further investigations and disciplinary cases running presently on The Hague Union officials… for the record, there have been also four further downgrades and several additional suspensions not listed over the past two years.”
We happen to be aware of some of them. Things are even worse than it appears to outsiders because de facto gag orders or scare tactics (or even blackmail) are being used to discourage or suppress facts. It’s like those fictional novels that are cautionary tales about totalitarian regimes. Apparently, some say, Mr. Prunier risks losing even his pension if he speaks out too much. What on Earth is this, an authoritarian failed state? At the very heart of Bavaria or in The Hague? How can it be and one can that persist?
At The Hague, told us one source “The Office does not allow demonstrations on the premises, and in the Netherlands public demonstrations cannot be organised spontaneously (the preparation takes about a week, at least). That’s why some staff members organised a spontaneous gathering to protest against the unfair dismissal of Laurent: 250 to 300 persons wearing solidarity T-Shirts spontaneously gathered on Monday morning in the canteen of the EPO’s The Hague branch. Sad and angry, they expressed their disagreement with the emperor’s bullying against their staff reps and the firing of Laurent.”
The protest photos from Monday was posted here yesterday (hours after they had been taken) and these help spread the message to more sites. “Even IAM could finally see the light,” one EPO insider wrote, after IAM said Battistelli had scored an "own goal".
Is IAM finally ‘defecting’? Does it realise that in order to save the EPO change in management is urgently needed?
IAM’s Editor in Chief (Joff) later published in the blog “EPO users and staff need the Administrative Council to get a grip on current events,” albeit he maintained caution, probably because he needs not to get into a fight with his buddies/parters at the EPO. Battistelli does not tolerate any dissent, or even a minor disagreement. To quote a portion:
What’s more, we have continuously pointed out that disputes between the EPO’s senior management and the staff union SUEPO were taking place long before Benoît Battistelli became the EPO president, and that the union has often been its own worst enemy by making explosive, unsubstantiated claims and by being highly provocative in its approach to negotiation. If being an EPO examiner is such a bad thing, we have always asked, why do so few people ever leave?
This was noticed by the following new comment that said:
Joff Wild of IAM writes:
EPO users and staff need the Administrative Council to get a grip on current events
I have always given the EPO’s senior management the benefit of the doubt, but increasingly it looks like I may have been wrong to do so. With the same things happening over and over again, what other conclusion can I reach – especially when I have met many SUEPO members and know them not to be agitating obstructionists, but people who genuinely want what is best for the office and those who use it.
Mr. Müller and I spoke about Joff’s motivations [1, 2] and meanwhile yet another article was written about the subject, arguing that “The Rule of Law (Rechtsstaat) is Endangered and Needs to be Defended!”
Here is the most relevant portion
The first two examples that, in my view, demonstrate how the Rule of Law is currently endangered came from the “ugly world” of politics. So you might not expect that my third one stems from an organisation which ought to be relatively apolitical, namely the European Patent Office. Unfortunately, however, all is not well there either. This has to do with the peculiar “constitution” of the EPO, the European Patent Convention, which only provides for an imperfect system of checks and balances and in particular does not subject the Office President to an independent judiciary, whereas the members of the Boards of Appeal are subject to being proposed by the President for being (re)appointed by the EPO’s Administrative Council. In other words, the Office President has a lot of power and the only entity that can control him is the same Administrative Council that elected him in the first place.
Given how important an independent and fearless judiciary is for a functioning system of checks and balances, an Office President would, in this author’s view, be well advised to exercise utmost restraint in interfering with the Boards of Appeal as the EPO’s judiciary. Yet I am afraid that this is not what happened in summer of this year. Quite to the contrary, the members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the EPO made very clear that they actually felt threatened by disciplinary measures of the Executive Branch of the EPO, i.e. the President, and insufficiently supported by the Administrative Council. The clash came up in proceedings between the Administrative Council as Petitioner and a member of the Technical Boards of Appeal who seems to have been accused of libelling the EPO’s President and Vice Presidents, which he/she has apparently denied. The Enlarged Board stated in its decision this:
As the Petitioner did not clearly distance itself from the Office President’s position, there is the threat of disciplinary measures against the members of the Enlarged Board. It is then the Enlarged Board’s judicial independence in deciding on this case which is fundamentally denied.
I will not bother you with the complete background of this case that is summarized in the EBA’s decision and has amply been reported by IPKat, in my 2014 blog on the same case, and by others. Suffice it to say that the Enlarged Board had ordered to conduct its latest hearing coram publico, which apparently incensed the Office President (why? – honit soit qui mal y pense) to a degree that he felt he should intervene into the judicial proceedings by writing a letter to the Enlarged Board of Appeal which the Board perceived as a threat. Inter alia, the President instructed his lawyer to write that “In view, in particular, of the gravity of the reputational, security, welfare and public order risks identified, there is a strong case for saying that any decision to conduct this hearing in public would be unlawful because it could not be defended as either proportionate or reasonable”. (This may be right or wrong, but is it for the President to decide on whether it is lawful or unlawful to conduct the EBA’s hearing in public, or is it for the EBA itself???) And even more, the letter continued with stating that the President “will not hesitate to take any appropriate steps available to him to ensure the proper running of the Office and the safety of its employees”.
Now, might you argue, the President has just voiced his opinion to the EBA – so why should this be a threat? The problem is exactly the background of the case at stake, i.e. that the President imposed and immediately executed a house ban on a Board of Appeal member for alleged unlawful conduct, without adhering to the procedure prescribed in Art. 23 EPC. Who can guarantee to the EBA that such a thing cannot happen again, if the President feels that some conduct of the EBA is unlawful and sees only himself in the position to ensure the “proper” running of the Office?
I am afraid (and very sorry) to say that even among the EPO’s top officials, the principle of the Rule of Law does not seem to be respected very much. Where are you, Administrative Council?
Given the source of the above, a pro-EPO blog, we can deduce that Battistelli is rapidly running out of allies and regarding the above one comment said that “violation of all principles of due process sadly confirms the damage done to the whole institution.” Here is the full comment:
The following recent contribution refers to the situation at the EPO and mentions the lack of independence of the boards of appeal:
http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2016/11/07/rule-law-rechtsstaat-endangered-needs-defended/
In this respect the evident lack of support by the members of the boards of appeal for their colleague who has been maintained in limbo for almost 2 years now in violation of all principles of due process sadly confirms the damage done to the whole institution.
Looking forward to reading the upcoming decisions of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht on the constitutionality of an european patent system lacking a truly independent higher instance.
And also:
Kluwer Patent Blog has a post titled The Rule of Law (Rechtsstaat) is Endangered and Needs to be Defended!
It refers to the case of the suspended member of the Boa – but I quote:
“I am afraid (and very sorry) to say that even among the EPO’s top officials, the principle of the Rule of Law does not seem to be respected very much. Where are you, Administrative Council?”
Well, maybe it’s busy slaughtering chinchillas in Denmark.
Someone wrote a little poem about the situation:
Plum position falls foul of a one man gang
Representative Prunier dried out to hang
Unless the Muppets wake up fast
No functional office can this last
EPO on a highway to hell
Does the AC need some DC as well?
AC is the Administrative Council and DC is the Disciplinary Committee/s.
Regarding some of the above comments, one person asked “Why pick Germany and the Netherlands to review the cases? What about a UK review, for example? May one be more likely to exonerate El Presidente, I wonder.”
One answer to that was: “How many Epo staff work in the U.K.? Or do you propose to apply U.K. Law in NL, DE?”
Another person responded with “errrrmmmm – none, but then no EPO staff actually work under NL or DE law either.”
“French review,” said another. “And thanks for BB France!!!”
“Do not forget that the delegate from the Netherlands was (is) one of the few AC members that dares to withstand the President. The Netherlands was one of the few countries that voted against the reorganisation of the BoA,” added another person and someone who knows Prunier (presumably from the Office at The Hague) wrote:
I think all we can say is that so far the AC has shown itself to be about as much use as the proverbial one-legged man in the arse-kicking competition. Kicking arse is certainly not their forte so far.
As far as Laurent goes, I’ve known him for a long time: he’s a fiery character with strongly-held opinions who isn’t averse to voicing them. Unfortunately, some seem to think that to do so within the context of a heated discussion amounts to harassment. If that’s true, I have certainly been guilty of harassment in the past. I personally don’t believe that the Laurent I know is guilty of harassment. Harassment is about bullying and spite. He may be guilty of expressing himself too forcefully or of intemperate language, but the Laurent I know is not a bully. Unfortunately, of course, neither I nor anyone outside a certain charmed circle know exactly what he is accused of which is said to amount to harassment. So who knows?
That’s why, in proper judicial procedures, rather than the banana republic/kangaroo courts we have here, evidence is tested in open court in public (unless there is a good reason why not) and weighed by an independent arbiter who considers only the law. Here, as in the (still-unresolved) case of the DG3 judge, we have a bunch of vague rumours and innuendos put out by Batistelli in his latest communiqué to justify his partial and self-serving adjudication.
In Laurent’s case, justice is neither done nor seen to be done. Nevertheless, I have already heard colleagues who should know better opining that they ‘haven’t much sympathy’ with his position, which seems to be another way of saying: ?I didn’t like him much and therefore he had it coming’.
Is this where we are now? Trial by prejudice?
“Has the alleged victim of LP’s harassment not been recently promoted,” one person asked, “consequently should a victim of BB’s harassment not be compensated as well?…WHERE IS THE JUDGE??”
Which judge? The one Battistelli illegally suspended? Nearly 2 years ago? “The EPO is becoming sick by the day,” the comment below says. Here it is in full:
Bingo!
and guess what they did it clever to cover up the reward. Technically this was no promotion but, after a selection procedure to a position designed for a very specific profile matching precisely the domain of competence of the individual concerned, he was appointed to a position higher graded.
And the “funny” thing is that Battistelli in his address email to staff (read smear campaign) on intranet about this sad story dared to complaint that Laurent did not presented excuses!
Well to whom should he do this: to the alleged victim who is not the one who filed the complaint since he is no victim or to the top manager close to Battistelli who filed the complaint and is a true harasser (everyone knows it by now)?
The EPO is becoming sick by the day
“How can they indulge in the EPO being driven in the wall, and forced in expenses,” another person wrote. The comment is fairly long:
It cannot continue this way and at this pace.
It is high time for the AC to make clear to the president and all the yes men and women around him that immunity does not mean impunity.
How can they indulge in the EPO being driven in the wall, and forced in expenses which do not have any other aim than to satisfy the president’s wish for retaliation against the boards of appeal. After all he started by disregarding the separation of powers.
When one looks at the vote in the BFC, it appears that the states which barely contribute to the filings have decided in favour of sending the boards to the outskirts of Munich. That this implies unnecessary extra costs for the users did not seem to have played a role.
That any organism which does not change dies, this is valid as well for the EPO. Any reasonable person will agree that changes had to be carried out at the EPO. But did it have to be in such a ruthless manner?
If the social climate would be as rosy as tooted out by the higher management of the EPO, why did the president not organise Christmas gatherings with staff for many years? This alone is revealing and says a lot.
“Indeed all organisms must change,” wrote another person. “And that applies to top management as well. And the AC. Maybe time for that 5-yearly conference to address failings at the top to deal with issues?”
No doubt changes are necessary at many levels as Battistelli’s departure, which is inevitable, won’t be enough to restore a decent working atmosphere. “Can’t we simply vote to leave the EPC? It would make things so much easier,” one person proposed, as if the Brexit effect now spreads to the EPO, not just the EU. One person, on the day of the US election, wrote: “Battistelli is the Trump of the IP world. Be careful IPpussyKat. Early Uncertainty…”
Well, both Battistelli and Trump manage to stay in the race no matter how extraordinary the scandals. Battistelli kills the EPO (Office) as well as the Organisation by suspending members of the Boards of Appeal. See this new legal article titled “Disclaimers face an uncertain future at the EPO: new Enlarged Board referral”:
The EPO Enlarged Board in G 1/03 decided disclaimers that did not have basis in the application as filed were in some cases allowable, but only where a disclaimer was required to: i) restore novelty over an A54(3) document; ii) restore novelty over an “accidental” prior art document, where the anticipation was “so unrelated and remote that the person skilled in the art would never have taken it into consideration when working on the invention”; or iii) disclaim subject matter that was excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons. This allowed a disclaimers to be made that would otherwise fall foul of Article 123(2), in other words the language of the disclaimer was not included in the content of the application as filed, but only in quite limited circumstances.
A further Enlarged Board decision in G 2/10 related to disclaimers, but instead to those that were based on subject matter disclosed in the application as filed. The Board did, however, state that the test to be applied is “whether the skilled person would, using common general knowledge, regard the remaining claimed subject-matter as explicitly or implicitly, but directly and unambiguously, disclosed in the application as filed” (point 4.5.4 of the reasons). This test was, according to G 2/10, the generally accepted “gold standard” for assessing any amendment for compliance with Article 123(2) EPC.
Without the boards, especially without their complete independence, the EPO will certainly continue to fall into the abyss as patent quality declines and there is not enough capacity to correct this. A company called BioPorto has just issued a whole press release [1, 2, 3] to brag about a European Patent (EP) being approved at time of EPO turmoil and lack of quality control. How long will the perception of high value of EPs last? Based on Dutch attorneys, clients already start asking them troubling questions about the EPO.
This later comment, also posted in the above-mentioned thread, is alluding to a Battistelli Chinchilla, Bergot, and says the following about the HR angle:
Merpel,
Thanks for picking this up. Was beginning to wonder if you had been gagged.
With regard to your final witty comment “Of course this presents a shining opportunity for ambitious, concerned members of staff to take up the banner and step forward into leadership roles in the staff union. Those without dependent families and who are financially independent would be best suited to take on this career-ending role.”, I don’t remember if you previously noted that:
A. Standing for staff representation is at the president’s agreement and there is a ban on those at the end of their career. Staff don’t simply get to choose their representatives. Being close to retirement and likely to say what the heck, as you joke, is a good reason to prevent you from being a position to do so.
B. Being a representative means being moved administratively into a separate department run by his well-known HR Director. She must approve all your ‘work’ and its related travel etc. And sign off your holidays, sick leave etc. All a bit strange that staff are deliberately moved under the control of the person with whom they should negotiate/interact. Certainly one way to stifle the ‘awkward squad’ and, if all else fails, you can accuse them of harassment of each other and get them sacked (I don’t refer to Laurent’s case since that is secret).
C. And the threat to cut your pension at the presidents whim could take a column and a half to deal with as a final blunting instrument.
A “Fine Social Balance” (sarcastic) says:
BoA: “Madness is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”
SR: “Messing with madness is one thing, when madness is messing back, it is time to call the whole Social Conference off”
Someone then spotted “another report on the topic,” this time from IP Watch. “IP-Watch also reports that the Union Calls “Flash Demo” After EPO Fires Another Union Representative,” wrote another commenter, noting that “it was the first day of snow in Munich today.”
We’re expected to have our first day of snow in Manchester on Wednesday, but anyway, here is a portion from the article:
The Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) called a 7 November “flash” demonstration in Munich after the office fired Laurent Prunier, SUEPO secretary in The Hague. The move dismayed employees encouraged after the Administrative Council (AC), made up of the office’s member states, last month pressured President Benoît Battistelli into backing off from two unpopular proposals for investigating and disciplining staff.
via the term “snipers of the Hague,” the source said.
[...]
The communiqué “is another example of an attempt of character assassination made by the president,” a source known as “epoinsider” told Intellectual Property Watch. Battistelli linked two disciplinary cases, the one against Prunier and one against Elizabeth Hardon,
We particularly like the part which says it “is another example of an attempt of character assassination made by the president” because we saw so much of this. In fact, the EPO even accused me of “defamation”, without even providing a clear example. They just can’t help shooting the messengers everywhere (even foreign/overseas). They’re like Stalin!
SUEPO’s public Web site has been updated to include much of the above and it currently says:
“Firings will continue until morale improves – Merpel revisits the EPO” (IPKAT, 7 November 2016).
“EPO users and staff need the Administrative Council to get a grip on current events” (IAM, 7 Novmber 2016).
“Union Calls “Flash Demo” After EPO Fires Another Union Representative” (IP-Watch, 7 November 2016).
“The Rule of Law (Rechtsstaat) is Endangered and Needs to be Defended!” (Kluwer Patent Blog, 7 November 2016), especially section 4 of the article dealing with the EPO.
“Fresh Euro Patent Office drama: King Battistelli fires union boss” – EPO president ignores his own admin council (The Register, 4 November 2016).
Earlier today someone asked the EPO if they “have a response to http://www.iam-media.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=85178c62-24df-403f-990d-f3f5f5c4ce51 … ?”
‘Do you believe in Fairytales,” an insider replied with a rhetorical question. “Me neither!”
The EPO will just pretend none of this is happening. What kind of social workshop actually took place on Monday and Tuesday? What a sham! The only “work” was Battistelli working on (or stroking) his big ego. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The race to the bottom of patent quality continues…
Photo credit: EPO Patent Information Conference 2016
Summary: European events that strive to expand the scope of patents so as to grant ever more patents, essentially by lowering patent quality, broadening range of applicability, and ‘automating’ translations
THERE ARE MANY PATENT events in Europe and some of them, as we mentioned last month, promote software patents in Europe, regardless of the Parliament’s opposition.
Some of the proponents of software patents are Team UPC, and despite Brexit, which effectively killed the UPC (it’s in a limbo now and cannot proceed), these bunch of people live in a fantasy land. There is no sign of the UK ratifying the UPC any time soon (or ever!), but the patent microcosm never gives up and it has just published yet another piece on the subject. Folks, get over it. Move on, the UPC is dead.
“Sadly, a growing number of EPO events and UPC events promote the software patents agenda and put at tremendous risk the frugal software industry, not to mention invite patent trolls to attack European programmers.”More relevant to today’s focus, however, is Grant Philpott, one of the (growing number of) people who came from the military and now work for Battistelli (we covered examples other than this).
People can see in the above photo (source) that much/just as we predicted (based on the abstract), he was talking about software patents using the misleading term “CII”. There are more photos in [ 1, 2] and while we don’t have the transcripts we can imagine what he said, based on the abstract which we remarked on before (there are more EPO events that interject this cheeky terminology). Last year we wrote several articles about his software patents agenda and at the end of last year we were threatened to remove an article with an E-mail from Philpott — one in which he urged his colleagues to grant patents to Microsoft faster (not all applicants are equal).
Sadly, a growing number of EPO events and UPC events promote the software patents agenda and put at tremendous risk the frugal software industry, not to mention invite patent trolls to attack European programmers. That includes yours truly. Later this month we can expect these people to congregate again and attempt to push the Trojan horse of software patents right through the gates of Europe. Someone sent us the following message earlier today, showing us that people like Winfried Tilmann (covered here many times before) will take somewhat of a lead:
Subject: Finalising the Unitary Patent Package – 30 Nov, Brussels
Finalizing the Unitary Patent Package:
Challenges and Ways Forward
Manos Hotel Premier
Wednesday 30th November 2016
Willem A. Hoyng, Partner, Hoyng Rokh Monegier
Pierre Véron,
Lawyer, Member of the Paris Bar
Véron & Associés
Frank Van Coppenolle
Head of High-Tech Patent Team, Gevers
European Intellectual Property Architects
Bruno van Pottelsberghe
Economist, Solvay Chair of Technological Innovation
ULB
Prof. Dr. Winfried Tilmann,
Of Counsel
Hogan Lovells, Düsseldorf
Darren Smyth
Partner, Patent and Design Attorney, London, EIP Europe LLP
Author for The IPKat & IP Alchemist
Member of the Editorial team for the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
On December 2012, after a 40 year long quest, the European Parliament and the European Council finally reached a formal agreement on two EU regulations, making the European Patent with Unitary Effect (EPUE) an achievable prospect. With almost all EU member states – except for Spain and Croatia – participating in the enhanced cooperation, the legislation is supposed to come into force by the end of the year 2016/beginning 2017.
Experts, however, argue about the intended cost saving factor as well as the theoretical simplicity the EPUE package will bring, being mostly concerned about the patchwork nature of the system. Also, with the recent Brexit vote, additional straits are adding up, making the future of the Unitary Patent unclear.
This timely Symposium will offer an opportunity to inform and find out more about the current developments and challenges regarding the Unitary Patent and the Unitary Patent Court. The conference will evaluate advantages and disadvantages, build strategies for businesses on how to proceed and support the exchange of information and best practices with experts, practitioners and policymakers at EU level.
Delegates will also:
Identify the latest developments regarding UP & UPC
Qualify various issues, opportunities and challenges regarding UP
Prepare for any eventuality and develop a successful transition strategy
Analyse ways forward and challenges for the industry in Europe
Examine practical issues such as the recruitment of judges, court procedures, fees and logistics
Find out more about methods to prevent UPC bifurcation, infringement and revocation
Develop strategies for protection and new portfolio creation under the new system
Discuss the potential impact of the Brexit vote on the future of the EPUE package
For further details, please refer to the enclosed event abstract and programme. Do feel free to circulate this information to relevant colleagues within your organisation.
In the meantime, to ensure your organisation is represented, please book online or complete and return the registration form at your earliest convenience in order to secure your delegate place(s).
Kind regards,
Conference Team
Public Policy Exchange
Tel: +44 (0) 20 3137 8630
Fax: +44 (0) 20 3137 1459
It’s stuff like this which motivates us to work even harder against the menace of patent maximalism — that same misguided plan which threatens to undermine not only the EPO but the whole of Europe. And for what? Foreign multinational corporations and their patent law firms (like the above people)? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.07.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It's dead, Jim, take the blinders off
Summary: Team UPC (the pro-UPC “conspiracy” pursuing self gain through legislation) continues to mislead Europeans by putting the wheeled carriage with the wooden horse on it at the gates of the city, hoping that hundreds of millions of Europeans are clueless enough to let it in
EARLIER TODAY some anonymous people (possibly from the EPO) pinged me regarding the UPC, hinting that it may not be dead just yet. I responded by reaffirming that if it gets renamed and rebranded (as was the case at least thrice in the past), then the conspirators will try to pass it again, under a different umbrella, new marketing, slightly different politicians and so forth. That’s just how so-called ‘free’ ‘trade’ ‘agreements’ (not free, not about trade, and definitely more like secret collusions than agreements) typically work their way through the system. Compare TTIP to TISA, for instance, and recall the recent controversy over CETA in Belgium (and by extension the whole of Europe).
“As for the UPC Preparatory Committee (part of the “conspiracy”), it’s already pressing the brakes after this “conspiracy” advertised bogus openings/vacancies, for jobs that essentially did not exist and will never exist, unless some miracle happens.”Bristows, which is sucking up to the EPO and promoting the UPC (with software patents) to the great detriment of their country and continent (often at IP Kat) sees an opportunity to enrich itself from UPC and continues with its pro-UPC drivel. “Meanwhile,” it says, “regarding the UPC project, the topic is expected to be discussed by the EU Competitiveness Council in its meeting on 28 and 29 November 2016, and the UPC Preparatory Committee is meeting in early December 2016. The UK has yet to announce any decision regarding whether or not it will ratify the UPC Agreement.”
It won’t. That’s why nothing is going to happen. As for the UPC Preparatory Committee (part of the “conspiracy”), it's already pressing the brakes after this “conspiracy” advertised bogus openings/vacancies, for jobs that essentially did not exist and will never exist, unless some miracle happens.
We’re frankly tired of seeing all that propaganda and the lies from Team UPC. The EPO too repeats its own lies today (we wrote about these before), saying that “60 million Europeans are employed in IPR-intensive industries – out of ~216 million…”
Did you know that ~216 million Europeans use the toilet?
Did you know that more than 60 million Europeans occasionally eat Pizza?
Yes, it’s true.
Thus, defend pizza! It’s crucial to Europe’s future.
These industries do not exist because of patents; in fact some of them — like software — exist in spite of patents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Rumours also swirl regarding Battistelli’s mental health
Summary: Protests in Munich at lunchtime (photos above are a couple of hours old) and a response from Laurent Prunier himself, as posted a short while ago in a blog
“Aaround 800 members of staff turned up for a “Flash Demo” today in Munich,” a source told us, “in support of Laurent Prunier.” People in the Munich branch standing for The Hague, in the same way The Hague’s staff showed solidarity for Munich staff?
As we mentioned here before, even Prunier's pension nearly came under attack. But instead they use it to control him, to silence him. “Some people say (in private) that Battistelli mental health gives reasons to worry,” says this new comment about Battistelli. To quote:
What the Register, Techrights and French MPs seem to forget is that:
-the dismissed person was already unable to do any union work, he has been sick for months. Dismissing him makes no sense whatsoever.
-the timing is strange, right after the administrative council budget committee showed little support for Battistelli and (that part was already reported) after the council clearly asked for no more dismissals.
-the timing is also strange because the so-called “social conference” restarts to morrow Monday. I know few people are convinced that the “social conference” is little more than an exercise in propaganda, but announcing a dismissal right before there are talks with the staff seems peculiar to say the least.
Some people say (in private) that Battistelli mental health gives reasons to worry. I don’t know whether that is true, but maybe now is the time to ask the question.
Another person says that Battistelli is “man with such a childish behavior [who] controls an International Organization with a budget of 2 billion euros.” Here is the full comment:
Battistelli mental health gives reasons to worry.
Nonsense. This is the behavior of a perfectly sane … bully.
Denied his last “reforms” by the AC – in particular new disciplinary measures whose withdrawal has been welcomed by the staff – Mr. Battistelli with the firing of a further staff representative – against an explicit request of the AC in March not to do so – reminds the AC who is Boss here.
The most worrying thing is that, by doing so, Mr. Battistelli does not give a s*#t to further tarnish the reputation of the Office, and in particular of the AC that clearly looks like has no control on him. His personal goals are more important than the reputation of the Organization he’s presiding.
As even IAM acknowledges “If the reports are accurate – and that is not certain given all the agendas – this does look like a needless own goal.”
Yes: a man with such a childish behavior controls an International Organization with a budget of 2 billion euros.
Ah, and at the next AC in December, the fate of the suspended member of the BoA must also be decided.
Here again is the rumour we’ve been hearing about the pension, in spite of de facto gag orders:
It’s a shame. Another elected staff representative has been dismissed, the third now. He is not allowed to speak about the whole procedure as he would risk the loss of his pensions rights by telling details. Reminds me of a totalitarian regime. And nobody seems to care (apart from a few people).
People then wondered why Merpel wasn’t covering any of it. This is expected, but not all comments show up. Here are a few:
Where is Merpel?
Merpel is here:
“Firings will continue until morale improves – Merpel revisits the EPO”
At around 10:30 AM today (11:30 CET) Merpel finally wrote about it, for the first time since summer. At long last, IP Kat writes something about the EPO that’s not a puff piece or UPC promotion. Merpel said:
It is worth recalling that, in a recent independent study commissioned by SUEPO in which about 40% of EPO staff participated, 98% of respondents rated their confidence in Mr Battistelli as either “low” (6%) or “very low” (92%). Currently, Mr Battistelli is running a Social Conference to address the concerns of the AC. Merpel can save readers the bother of waiting for the inevitable press release at the conclusion of this process. In an atmosphere where dissenting voices have been silenced, and only the foolhardy or very brave would risk their careers by speaking up for the 98% who have lost any confidence in Mr Battistelli, the Social Conference will be hailed as a resounding example of constructive, open dialogue. All it’s missing is the leaders of the staff union who are being eliminated, one by one.
Of course this presents a shining opportunity for ambitious, concerned members of staff to take up the banner and step forward into leadership roles in the staff union. Those without dependent families and who are financially independent would be best suited to take on this career-ending role.
The first few comments are interesting as they raised yet more examples of EPO violations:
Thank you IPKat for keeping the wider (concerned) community informed. If Article 20 requires mandatory co-operation with the German and Dutch Authorities, what is to stop a independent investigation from said national authorities under national labour laws without consent of the senior EPO management etc? Do the national authorities have the power to independently inspect an establishment to determine that workers rights are being respected? If not, they should do.
I seem to recall that after a staff member jumped out of a window of the office in The Hague, the Dutch labour inspection was not even allowed to enter the premises. So far for cooperation. I have not heard of any action by the Dutch government or the AC concerning this blatant violation of Art.20.
A much needed gratitude:
Anonymous in Munich Office (all others are already at the Demo) says:
Thanks Merpel. Welcome back to the EPO…
And then came Prunier himself with a strongly-worded message (strong considering the threats he has been subjected to, even after his dismissal):
Dear Merpel,
Being the person concerned, I would like to thank you for your message, which I would like to endorse, and for the concerns you voice.
I can confirm that no “external review, arbitration or mediation was considered”. If I were allowed to make my file public, any person with even the most rudimentary legal training would be horrified by the kafkaesque procedure. But I cannot make it public without facing immediate retaliation by Mr Battistelli and his associates, who in the meantime feel entitled to caterwaul to the world their righteousness, and my sinfulness (which I categorically denied and deny).
Mr Battistelli pronounced my dismissal in spite of an unambiguous “request” (read: instruction) of the Administrative Council not to do it. The reality is that he and his gang are completely unable to take “no” for an answer. When the Administrative Council tries to draw a line and impose some healthy boundaries against his wishes, Mr Battistelli throws a hissy fit worthy of a spoiled toddler in a candy shop. And, most of the time, he gets his way. Parenting may not be one of the Council’s strong points.
It is really disheartening to see the EPO, once one of Europe’s institutional crown jewels, being brought to its knees by a clique of questionable integrity. Fortunately, each day that passes is a day closer to Mr Battistelli’s departure – and with him, hopefully, also the more toxic elements of his crew. I wish the EPO wisdom and strength in its recovery phase, which will be long and difficult.
Needless to say: i will of course challenge this decision.
With feline admiration,
Laurent Prunier
This is far from over. People we have been hearing from insist they will fight for Mr. Prunier. A fight for Prunier’s rights is a fight for justice and the Rule of Law. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.06.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: IAM ‘magazine’, one of the most pro-EPO publications out there, seems to have reached somewhat of a tipping point as it too is getting fed up with the misguided President who drives away all the valuable staff and rejects patent quality in favour of quantity
IAM, Battistelli's favourite source of misinformation, seems to have been rather quiet about the EPO. It’s not as though there’s a lack of stuff to cover.
The Register, by contrast, continues to do a good job covering key events, even though unlike IAM it’s not a site about patents. There are some more new comments in The Register, which attracted a lot of attention, including from Mark Summerfield who wrote: Every time I think things can’t sink any lower at @EPOorg, Battistellius Rex finds a way!”
“Roland Grossenbacher too has begun distancing himself from Battistelli.”IAM responded with: “If the reports are accurate – and that is not certain given all the agendas – this does look like a needless own goal.”
So even allies of Battistelli (like IAM) are increasingly cautious now; they don’t wish to look gullible, or like fools who are blindly loyal to Battistelli with his chronic lies. They’re more like, “I’m not so sure about this one…”
Roland Grossenbacher too has begun distancing himself from Battistelli.
Some take the approach of silence, i.e. don’t cover, don’t mention anything. Pretending not to know doesn’t make it OK. It’s almost like complicity by passivity, especially when one’s job is to report the news.
An EPO insider responded to IAM by saying: “What a nonsense, there are no different agendas except one, respecting the rule of law & respect towards staff!” The person was later adding this remark that “TheRegister report is 100 % accurate, no distortion of facts found, check.”
“A lot of staff can understand our frustration because having followed this for a number of years, it seems perfectly clear that it’s Battistelli who should be dismissed, not those who say the truth about his incompetence and/or his terrible policies.”Yes, it’s accurate. SUEPO has in fact just linked to it in its front page, editing that page for the first time in quite a long while. People who know the facts and are close to the action seem to confirm what we wrote in our previous three articles about the dismissal (plus parody video) [1, 2, 3, 4]. There’s no misreporting in it, maybe some partisan language, but that is all. A lot of staff can understand our frustration because having followed this for a number of years, it seems perfectly clear that it’s Battistelli who should be dismissed, not those who say the truth about his incompetence and/or his terrible policies. These people love the EPO much more than he ever did.
Regarding the judge that Battistelli tries to dismiss even though it’s outside his scope of authority (so he leans on his Chinchillas at the Administrative Council), a comment has just been published to say:
Blundering forward says…
AC [Administrative Council]: “Of course, BB [Battistelli] and his VP’s always look forward to the day when they can do a big courtroom case!”
SR [Staff Representation/tive]: ” Each in the BB team seem to have two perfectly good legs but, however, they have never learned to walk forward”
PwC [context here]: ” If we can’t begin to agree on fundamentals such as the elimination of the most abusive forms of staff reps, then we are not ready to march forward into the future.”
BoA [Board of Appeal]: ” Dismissal is never the way forward on our shared path to free speech and justice”
How many more people (or families, or spouses in the judge’s case) will be emotionally exhausted if not destroyed before the crazed President is removed from his position? Does anyone still genuinely support this maniac or does everyone feel as though pretense of support is essential? The video below is for those who missed/overlooked it last night. █
YouTube version
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.05.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Thorny business over patents on seeds, plants etc.
Summary: Yet more debunking of the ludicrous notion that the European Patent Office (EPO) maintains patent quality when grants go through the roof, sometimes irrespective of applications’ quality
THE EPO was once the world’s best patent office. Almost nobody would deny that. A lot has changed, however, and further exacerbated (accelerated decline) by Battistelli, who made the Office an unbearable place to work in.
What on Earth is an EP worth these days? Probably nowhere near the value of an EP even a decade ago. An EP is not so hard to get; it’s no longer a ‘trophy’. A whole paid-for press release about one such EP has just been published by Reuters (at great expense) only to say: “European Patent Office (EPO) has announced the intent to grant Respiratorius patent for VAL001, “A Pharmaceutical Composition Comprising a HDAC inhibitor and a steroid and the use thereof.””
So what? Here is another new example:
In the third quarter, The European Patent Office (EPO) confirmed that they had not received an appeal from the opponent regarding BioPorto’s NGAL Forms patent. This means that the patent remains valid. BioPorto has appealed EPO’s decision on the Exclusion patent, which was ruled invalid earlier this year. The NGAL Cutoff patent application has been amended according to the response from the EPO and BioPorto expects an approval to issue the patent within months.
But what is the validity of EPs once tested by European courts in the future? It may be hard to tell until half a decade from now.
“But what is the validity of EPs once tested by European courts in the future? It may be hard to tell until half a decade from now.”Be very careful repeating these latest lies from the EPO (some still repeat these). See our previous posts about gross mis-evaluation of EPs. This latest example links to this puff piece generated by lies, soon to be repeated over and over again by the EPO. These lies and bogus (misleading) numbers from the liars of the EPO would have us drooling over € 5.7 TRILLION, but only a fool would believe that. See this tweet and two more that say [1, 2]: “IPR-intensive industries generated a trade surplus of € 96.4 billion for the EU” and “IPR-intensive industries directly generated 28% of all jobs in the EU” (linking to epo.org).
IAM ‘magazine’ too is dropping some extraordinary numbers, but expecting IAM to lie is more natural than expecting the EPO to lie (until more recently, especially this year).
This brings us to the issue of patent scope. Here is EPO saying: “These are the topics we’ve prepared for this year’s Indo-European conference on ICT-related patents” (pushing for software patents again, clearly against the rules).
“Europe does not really have software patents, except in cases where examiners don’t do their job properly. They’re tricked or misled into thinking that a device — such as a general-purpose computer — makes the supposed invention “hard” rather than “soft” (or abstract).”See this recent article about software patents in Spain and take into account the situation in Germany and in the UK. Europe does not really have software patents, except in cases where examiners don’t do their job properly. They’re tricked or misled into thinking that a device — such as a general-purpose computer — makes the supposed invention “hard” rather than “soft” (or abstract).
EPOPIC too, on the face of it, includes talks about software patents where Philpott promotes/defends these. “We’ll be discussing what clients expect from patent searchers at #EPOPIC,” the EPO wrote, “For conclusions stay tuned!”
They separately wrote: “The Patent Information Conference 2016 starts next week. We look forward to your comments at #EPOPIC” (epo.org links again).
They don’t care about comments. Battistelli listens to and obeys nobody. “There has been enormous progress in Asian patent information in recent years,” the EPO wrote. “Follow #EPOPIC to learn more…”
Naturally, they have said absolutely nothing about major news that we first found out about via Dr. Glyn Moody, who alerted us to this article in German. The EPO’s patent maximalism problem is getting noticed; it makes politicians furious or at least antagonistic. Petra Kramer said about it that it’s “a further indication that patent quality is deteriorating under Batistelli” and she prepared a translation of this article in Dutch, her mother’s tongue. Source here (must accept cookies and other barriers).
European Commission invalidates EPO’s decision to patent tomatoes and broccoli
No patents can be filed on plant breeding in principle. “Improved” properties obtained through conventional, biological breeding methods are not patentable. That is what the European Commission decided on Thursday in an explanatory statement of a 1998 directive designed to protect biotechnological inventions.
The European Patent Office decided in March 2015 that enhanced products may be eligible for a patent under conditions. This would apply, for example, crossed broccoli or tomato species. Brussels now says that it was never the intention of the direction and that it leads to legal problems.
The European Parliament expressed itself last year against the decision of the patent office. MEPs as Jan Huitema (VVD) and Bas Belder (SGP) [both right wing, big business friendly parties – Petra Kramer] would prevent European farmers and growers who breed plants without biotechnology. EPO’s decision prevented them from using patented seeds of their home-grown plants.
Innovation
,,Patents on natural properties of plants stifle innovation and are a threat to the food supply and crop diversity,” Huitema responds. ,, The first battle has been won, the European Patent Office will have to comply by adapting their guidelines based on this new information.”
Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agri-food products worldwide. The Ministry of Economic Affairs has organized a symposium in Brussels in May with the aim to correct ,,imbalance ‘between the rights of patent holders and producers’ rights. There the conclusion quickly came forward that a pragmatic solution had to be made to put an end to the legal uncertainty.
Soon thereafter we also found coverage of something related to this from Switzerland (but in English). Quality of patent examination at the EPO obviously fell under Battistelli. It is now worse than even the USPTO, according to this new report. To quote:
A recently published study finds that, contrary to a conventional view, the United States Patent and Trademark Office undertakes more rigorous patent examination than the European Patent Office and the Australian Patent Office.
The study, published in the John Marshall Law School Review of Intellectual Property Law, provides “an answer to a question that, rather surprisingly, has not been addressed in the academic literature to date: What is the practical effect of patent examination?”
Petra Kramer asked: “How is EPO’s court appointed? Is it private (like ISDS) or public?”
“You mean boards or courts or tribunals maybe,” I replied, but she insisted on “[t]his one: the highest court of the European Patent Office has declared that plants are patentable.”
It’s a 2015 article/report about something that we covered here before. IP Watch has just covered this latest development (behind paywall) and it doesn’t look good for the EPO, which is increasingly disgraced. It grants patents on things that should never have been considered in the first place. Here is a report in English about it:
In a long awaited explanatory statement, the EU Commission takes the view that plants and animals that are obtained by means of “essentially biological” breeding are non-patentable. This statement is in strong contradiction to the current practice of the European Patent Office (EPO), which has already granted more than 100 patents on conventional breeding, e.g. on tomatoes and broccoli.
The international coalition No Patents on Seeds! has for many years been demanding that these patents are stopped. With the support of many thousands of supporters, they have filed petitions and oppositions. They are seriously concerned about the increasing monopolisation of the seed and food production. The organisations in the international coalition are now calling on the political decision-makers to ensure that the EPO fully adopts the EU statement, and the rules for the interpretation of patent law become legally binding.
Next time Battistelli brags about maintaining patent quality (probably next month in the Administrative Council’s meeting) show him the above. Battistelli is a chronic liar who turned the EPO from world leader into a public fiasco. This tarnishes Europe’s reputation and severely harms its competitiveness. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA