12.02.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:05 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Reference: Haar, Bavaria
Summary: Revisiting Battistelli’s effort to chop off the appeal boards that are necessary for ensuring patent quality at the EPO
THE EPO has this new announcement today (warning: epo.org link): “In its order for decision G1/15, related to the question of partial priorities and so-called toxic divisionals, the Enlarged Board of the EPO held that a generic claim encompassing alternative subject matter may not be refused partial priority, provided the alternative subject matter has been directly, at least implicitly, and unambiguously disclosed in the priority document. The reasoned decision will follow.”
This was actually covered earlier this week at IP Kat, under “BREAKING: Antidote found for poisonous priorities” and to quote:
The Enlarged Board of Appeal at the EPO has issued its order in case G 1/15, but not yet its decision. From the order, it appears that poisonous priorities have been neutralised.
The thing about the Enlarged Board of Appeal, an essential collective of judges and specialists, is that Battistelli wants them eliminated (but cannot because of the EPC).
Based on this week’s exceptional ILO decisions on EPO cases, which turned out to confirm that the EPO offers no justice, anything involving ‘justice’ against the judge from the Boards of Appeal should immediately be disregarded. While we haven’t really touched this subject in a while, there were some discussions about it at IP Kat and these are worth bringing to light (because many of the comments are Internet trolls and people feeding the trolls, which makes it hard to find the “signal” in the “noise”).
Responding to one of the parts (a two-part series from Merpel), one person wrote the following:
The question is: if it is necessary to separate physically the premises of the BoA from those used by the upper management of the EPO, why not relocating the latter to Haar instead? It would be far less inconvenient to all parties external to the EPO, Monsieur le Président would no longer need bodyguards to watch over his bicycle, and if the premises in Haar turned to lack space to accomodate the increasing amount of people working in said upper management, I’m sure that a nice white, padded room could be found for him in the nearby hospital…
The move to Haar — or the suggestion of Vienna beforehand — was always ludicrous. It seems like a clear punishment. It’s not about geography but the symbolism. One person focuses on logistics alone:
I can’t see the issue myself. Haar is only a few stops away on the S4 from the Ostbahnhof, so would be easy to get to from the centre or from the Airport. The proposed building is only a short walk away from the station. Obviously there will be grumbles about room layout and space, but there will surely be some reorganising to do anyway. Perhaps there is such a level of animosity that any suggestion, however, sensible, will always be objected to?
As the following put it, this was “primarily symbolic and designed to be irritating.”
How many parties go straight from the airport to a BoA hearing?
In any case, it is primarily symbolic and designed to be irritating. Oral proceedings before DG1 in the city, before DG3 in the suburbs. I’d be curious about how many legal bodies meet in areas outside cities. Isn’t the UPC court in London to be in Aldgate rather than Hounslow (next to Heathrow for non-local readers)?
We have heard that the intention might be to actually rent out the vacant space in the Isar Building and pay for some space in Haar, which (if true) would be absolutely ridiculous! Here is a long and somewhat informative comment:
So, the President will take over the Isar Building while DG3 is shunted off to the building out on the edge of town next to its hospital for the mentally sick.
I wonder now, how many international visitors to the EPO turn up, every working day of the year, to visit the EPO President?
And how many come to Munich for a Hearing before one of the Boards of Appeal, their professional interest and reason for visiting Munich being to find out whether a patent survives or falls, in one fell swoop, in anything up to 38 Member States and 600+ million consumers.
The justice which the EPO dispenses, at DG3 level, is of pan-European shareholder interest to all the world’s Global Titans. Yet, in a fit of vindictive pique, the EPO’s increasingly out of control President runs it out of town, making it sit like a vagrant on the edge of town, next to the hospital for the town’s mentally sick.
Given the amount of schmoozing BB does, in Davos and other places, with the World’s Top People, you would think the EPO’s current President would want for DG3 (the jewel in his crown) a smart and efficient place of business right in the heart of impressive Munich, where pan-European justice is dispensed efficiently and expeditiously.
Unless, that is, a majority of AC members want to see the EPO decline. If this attitude is representative of the mainland Europe of today, no wonder the UK wants out!
One person notes, pointing to the actual document, that this is likely irreversible at this stage (technically it is not):
I think it has already been approved. See CA/88/16 (23.09.2016)
https://www.epo.org/modules/epoweb/acdocument/epoweb2/232/en/CA-88-16_en.pdf
Then returns the debate about Haar’s reputation for its hospital/s for the mentally-troubled:
Mental health is a serious disease. Sufferers are know to throw themselves out of buildings, including those of the EPO.
Don’t trivialize it with puerile, insensitive comments.
This led to a somewhat distracting long debate about sensitivities, but still, some people insist it relates to the symbolism of this whole move:
Indeed, mental health problems should not be trivialized but it nevertheless remains that to a resident of Munich, the phrase “nach Haar schicken” does have the meaning of having someone detained in the mental health hospital there.
And in response to the above:
That’s ok then. As long as such comments are acceptable in Germany, it must be ok to make jokes at the expense of the mentally ill.
A UK equivalent for those who are less familiar with German culture and history:
I’m not sure that a joke was intended or made. If the UKIPO was transferred to Broadmoor, I think every Brit would recognise the location’s notoriety and would explain the cultural significance to any non-Brit.
Since you object , I will leave it to readers to work out for themselves what Broadmoor is famous for.
Quoting the Web site broadmoor.com, another person writes: “The Broadmoor is a AAA Five-Diamond resort in Colorado Springs, CO featuring an award winning spa, championship golf, meeting facilities, and much more.”
Another person adds: “Have ye never heard of St. Cadoc’s in Newport?”
“If BB was a Scotsman he’d send them all off to Carstairs,” says another person.
“As the local saying goes,” one person notes, “Lieber ein Haar in der Suppe als Suppe im Haar”.
Also this:
Glad to see that Tufty is at one with the president on this. Well done. And with all your appeals not to denigrate Haar, in Munich (and probably the rest of Bavaria, “sending someone to Haar” has the meaning desrcibed above – and you can’t change that! Just nice to see that the EPAs like you will also be sent to Haar in future
A more quote-worthy comment:
By the way, I find the denigrating of Haar due to it being the location of a mental hospital somewhat disturbing and in poor taste. If it was any other type of hospital I am sure it wouldn’t even be mentioned.
Some blame it on Merpel:
Tut tut IPKat, you are not doing yourselves any favours by the tone you are using in this report. The downward slide of the quality of writing on IPKat continues.
Your comment that: “Haar is a municipality on the outskirts of Munich, most famous (not that it is famous at all) for housing the largest mental hospital in Germany” is ill-advised, and you should retract it.
Besides, there’s nothing wrong with Haar. It’s going to be a lot easier getting to Haar from Munich airport than to anywhere in the centre of the City.
Putting aside this discussion about what the name Haar brings to people’s minds, Tufty the Cat got mentioned as follows:
Tufty the Cat presents the workaday, utilitarian view. It is a fallacy.
An Appeal Court on an industrial estate – how modern. Lunch at the kebab van. Taxi to and from the Airport Hotel. Nothing to see here, and it should get the expense bill down too. That’ll wash well at the next IPO conference in the US. Trebles all round.
If you look a little more deeply, the change should worry all EPAs.
The BoA will lose intangibles like the proximity to cultural venues, nice Restaurants, proximity to academic and judicial communities like the Max Planck IP law Institute, the LMU / TUM, the Munich courts. If you think that these points of Judicial sociology are details, don’t forget that 17th century judges mixed in London with people like John Locke, and perhaps that helped them to realize that the idea of a sovereign monopoly might just be put to good use in defence of the product of human minds. So the location of the Judges is important.
For Attorneys, what about the nice Restaurants and Hotels? many American clients love the chance to see Munich on their visits to BoA hearings…). Is a stay at the Airport Hotel and a taxi rise to and from quite the same thing? A Price cannot be put on such intangibles, and the EPO/AC Management only have the blunt managerial Tools of timeliness, total Appeals filed, total Appeals disposed. The intangibles don’t matter to them.
But what is explicitly happening, by design of the senior management, is a demotion of the BoA in the European legal order. In ten years, will the best minds apply to work there? Will seats in the BoA increasingly be filled by people who at one time wouldn’t have stood a chance? Will the BoA just become a glorified second examination instance in an industrial estate?
Once this happens, it will filter down to affect the reputation of EPAs. Our solicitor colleagues get to advocate in the nice city centre venue. EPAs will be left with a tin shed in a windy car park, and not forgetting the kebab van.
What would be the point in bothering anymore? Just file nationally.
And this is by design. BB is thinking 6 steps ahead of everybody else – you have to hand it to him.
It’s tempting to follow Tufty’s utilitarian approach, but the way that a society publically treats its judges illustrates the importance that society places on them. That is why, in the UK, they are so well paid. They cannot return to the free profession afterwards.
We need to view the move from the Isar building to Haar as a demotion of the calling of all IP professionals.
It then got the discussion more or less back on track, with comments including the following:
The new building in Haar is farer (you must take the S6 in addition to the S8) and there are no hotels close to it.
It is clearly a punishment for the BoAs, which affects also all EPAs. Fewer and smaller rooms for OPs too.
Anyway Haar is still nicer than Rijswijk.
The German AC delegation will perk its ears again when the Berlin EPO staff will be moved to Munich, this following the removal of the BoA to Haar. Why has this option not been mentioned in the AC document, bit of money saving…?
The EPO is moving in a very strange way. The root is, is my opinion, that the AC is not able to supervise the EPO, let alone decide what the AC wants and how this aim should be reached. A political question.
The Boards of Appeal move is, excuse the expression, simply insane. The only proper way is a change to the EPC. The documents were worked out back in the ’90, but never implemented. In the “recent” revision 1999, the Boards were not taken up, likely because the location of the Boards would not have been sorted out. A political question.
Now, the EPO has a President not respecting any orders. That should not have come as a surprise, considering the track record. The President very early publicly stated that getting elected is very difficult, but getting thrown out would require an earthquake “un tremblement de terre”. Wise words indeed.
Whether the facilities in Haar are suitable – they are not – is irrelevant for the discussion. The President threatened the Boards, intervened in their functioning and exerted such pressure as to infringe their judicial independence. A strong signal, as Merpel says, would be needed to put the President back in his place. The AC will not send such signal, and if the AC did, the President would ignore it. A political question.
Considering all facts, it is evident that the Boards shall be punished by moving them out of the Isar building. Cost, usability, impact on representatives/applicants, etc.: this is not relevant. It is a demonstration of power, period. The fact that Haar is known for its mental asylum fits quite nicely.
I would be very surprised if the move to Haar were stopped.
“They would have reason to be more cooperative before the first instance or simply renounce to thrash applications which are the vast majority,” writes the following person. “The boards are really redundant.” Well, Battisetlli tries to make it so with the UPC.
Well, they are lucky. There are less sexy addresses close to Munich, or would you want to have Dachau printed on your business card? The hearing room situation will be alleviated by bringing the appeal fees to a reasonable level,with drastically dropping numbers in appeals. The present rate is far too low. With the insane jurisprudence of the Boas to allow very late amendments and auxiliary requests and remitting them to the first instance, the appeal fee is a boon. For a thousand or so bucks you buy some 5 – 10 years in which you keep the applicafion alive without having to reply to pertinent but burdensome letters from examiners which might find their way into parallel proceedings in really important patent jurisdictions like the US. An appeal is much cheaper than a divisional und you may still file a divisional throughout the appeal even if it goes wrong, another BOA absurdity.
Once the fees are increased the appeals stemming from examination will dwindle. This would also increase the quality of granted patents when applicants could not be sure to get a second chance, despite the high fees. They would have reason to be more cooperative before the first instance or simply renounce to thrash applications which are the vast majority,
The boards are really redundant. There is no reason to provide a second level administrative review . With the UPC the European Patent Courts should not only deal with infringement and nullity but also appeal on examination and opposition. The higher cost would avoid abuse in either case. A “court” which is not even able to publish their own verdicts other than on Wikipedia and ipkat does not deserve a more prestiguous location. Afterall Karlsruhe, a rather modest place, is good enough for Germany’s constitutional court and a dreary place like Brussels good enough for the EU.
“Well of course there will be the shiny new UPC to send our revocation work,” writes this person. To quote:
Tufty thinks that “any suggestion, however, sensible, will always be objected to” but I wonder what exactly is sensible about moving the boards from a properly-appointed well-functioning building to one which is less well-appointed and downright inconvenient for all. This is not to mention the disruption to the boards and their staff.
There is nothing sensible about any of this and it has nothing to do with independence since only the wilfully blind would think that geographical distance = judicial independence. No, instead it (relocation and the freeze on new hires) has everything to do with (a) punishment and (b) deliberate downgrading of the boards, as Bottom Feeder has suggested above.
What will happen in future years – with oppositions dumbed-down (sorry “expedited” – but why by the way, since it won’t decrease the number of pending applications?) and the boards seriously weakened and seen as second rate, out in the sticks? Well of course there will be the shiny new UPC to send our revocation work – no need to bother with the quick-and-dirty expedited opposition and the appeal which will take 5 years. No sir – straight to the UPC. Is this one possible endgame?
We find it rather interesting that when people bring up mental health issues in relation to Haar (and the EPO) people say it’s insensitive. Like Battistelli himself. Sure, it does no favour to the place, but then again, the stigma is now somewhat of a cultural issue.
To finish it all, here is a little poem someone wrote about this whole situation:
Bringbackalib. Says…
B oards of Appeal bit the hand that feeded
A Haar of the dog now urgently needed
N ot only exiled out to the sticks
I t’s a ramshackle,depleted unit,a bit short of chicks
S uch wanton destruction at one man’s whim
H is cup runneth over,it’s looking grim
E benezer Scrooge said’What the Dickens?’ Giving a shrug
D oubtless Batters retorted with ‘Bah,Humbug!’
The fate of the boards doesn’t look too promising and it may also depend on the UPC — a subject we’ll revisit this weekend. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.01.16
Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 9:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Further analysis of the latest rulings from the ILO — decisions that were long expected
THE EPO does not quite respect the principles of the Rule of Law and justice. It’s a mirage or an illusion. We covered it on Thursday, based on the latest ILO decisions.
The “ILO sends European Patent Office Director Battistelli flying,” EPSU which has been involved recently writes about this judgment (in Twitter earlier this evening), as it “Validates complaints [of] staff…”
This links to an article that a handful of EPO insiders told us about. One person said ““every single internal appeal” handled by the Appeals Committee in its current composition from Oct 14 to today legally flawed…”
William New from IP Watch wrote:
The judgments are “remarkable” for several reasons, said the source who wished to remain anonymous.
First, they show that the ILO is trying to clarify formal errors that upset procedures and cause major problems, said the source. In addition, both express criticism of the current EPO president, the source said.
Judgment No 3796 clarifies that “every single internal appeal” handled by the Appeals Committee in its current composition – from October 2014 to today – is legally flawed, the source said. That means that many cases will have to be dealt with again, after a new internal appeals system is created, the source said. To fix the flaw, the president will have to ask the CSC to nominate members for the committee, but because two members of the Appeals Committee have been demoted after disciplinary procedures were launched against them by the administration, the CSC has refused to act. “The ILO judgment puts pressure on” Battistelli to make concessions to the CSC, the source added.
In addition, under Judgment No. 3785, complaints by several hundred staff members against the new career system will have to be revisited, and those judgments will be delayed. Both decisions will likely figure into the 14-15 December AC meeting “since they show that employees’ justice is currently denied at the Office,” the source noted.
All of this is “bad for the reputation and credibility” of the European patent system, said the source. It’s also bad for the image of responsible governments such as France, the Netherlands and Germany, so “there will be a lot of pressure on the delegations to finally fix some issues.”
The latest fictional diary from the EPO is based on the above. Many people are likely to speak about this for quite some time to come. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 8:41 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: This is part 5 of a fictional diary from the EPO
November 2016 was looking so good right up to the end. And then came those stupid, stupid judgments from the ILO.
A man of my greatness doesn’t deserve such humiliations. I’ve had a fabulous year. A few morons in the Administrative Council thought they would stand up to me. Well, they soon realised how hopeless their efforts were when all my friends stood shoulder to shoulder with me and pressed the right buttons when it came to the vote. When I say “friends”, I mean it in the political sense, of course. It’s not as though they had any choice. I made it quite clear to them what would happen to their “co-operation” money if they pressed the wrong button.
Once I’d taken care of those hopeless revolutionaries in the Council, I was free to get back to my favourite pastime – bullying staff reps. I’ve made it so easy for myself with all the changes I’ve introduced, almost too easy. It’s like a cat playing with a half-dead mouse. But hey, it’s still fun watching them suffer. I just loved signing that decision to fire Prunier. Not only did I feel a great surge of satisfaction at his pain, but I was also sticking up my middle finger to the clowns in the Council. It was wonderful.
Being unfair to others is part of my nature. It’s a real pleasure to me. Of course, there is nothing like a bit of competition to add some spice and some extra motivation to my evilness. And that is why I like Frankie Boy in Geneva so much. We have a private bet on who can get away with the biggest and most obvious crimes and violations of the rights of others, without getting fired or ending up in jail.
It is not really the challenge, though, that I would like it to be. Firstly, because Frankie foolishly agreed that Lutz the Klutz could be the judge deciding who wins. Secondly, because I am well ahead in the race. Sure, I never ordered to take DNA samples to identify a wrongdoer, and I am a bit jealous that I didn’t think of it first. But, let’s face it, I don’t need scientific gimmicks to catch the scum I want to get rid of. I know myself who’s guilty: the people I dislike. I simply give Elodie their names, she tells the Investigation Unit what they have to do, and they do it. Any kind of garbage is enough, since I am the judge anyway. And – thanks to my immunity – I am clearly a truly independent judge. That gives me the moral authority to explain to the public why the accused is guilty as sin. The public then sees me as a benevolent, loving leader, and admires my leniency in the softness of the punishment I impose.
If it weren’t for Frankie Boy, I’d like to call my system the EPO Kangaroo Court but that would almost sound like I was honouring him and his silly upside-down nationality. Anyhow, whatever you call my clever legal system, thanks to the fact that I can determine myself whether and how to apply the ECHR, all legal requirements are met. That’s at least what I tell my buddy Joff and the Council. They believe everything.
It sometimes happens that Elodie adds a few more names to the list. As in the case of Weaver and Brumme. And that’s good since it leads to persecutions where nobody can understand how I pick my victims. That intensifies the climate of fear in the Office. The higher the level of fear, the higher the production – that’s the secret of my success. The delegations love increasing production numbers since they are addicted to the cash.
Ah, I was having so much fun all month, right up to the end. And then, on the very last day came that idiotic judgment. I must get Klutzy to make an appointment for me with those idiotic judges in Geneva. I bet Frankie Boy has been bribing them to be mean to me. I need to get over there and offer them more than he is paying. Or maybe I’ll take my hunky body guards with me and explain what they can do if they get upset by people being mean to me. I could send them round to Frankie while we’re there. Oh, revenge will be sweet.
So, they think, those scumbag judges, that they have just rendered our Internal Appeal Committee retroactively null and void from the beginning of 2015. Hahahaha. Haven’t they heard of immunity, those fools? What are they going to do if I just ignore them, eh? Oh, this is going to be such fun. I can exploit the situation to my own advantage. After all, they’ve just dramatically increased our appeals backlog, haven’t they? So, I shall just have to be the decisive leader again and put measures in place to reduce the backlog. I shall call it “Early Certainty from Internal Appeals”. The only certainty will be that I refuse ALL of them. HAHAHA – je m’en fous – this is going to be so much fun. I shall prepare a Council document tomorrow, explaining how all internal appeals will be deemed refused. In fact, I shall make them retroactively refused so that the deadline has already expired for taking them to Geneva. I am such a genius. And all the staff can go on suffering.
Being president is so much fun. Je m’en fous. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The famous report where ILO complained about EPO-induced workload
Summary: Years later (as justice is too slow, partly because of the EPO, being the principal culprit that clogs up the ILO’s tribunal system) there is a couple of new judgments about EPO abuses against staff
THE DECISIONS we wrote about 2 days ago were released exactly 24 hours ago. For those who haven’t been keeping track, here are the cases in question:
- Case No. 3785: Fritz No. 2 v. EPO
- Case No. 3796: Vermeulen v. EPO
“In many ways, the EPO will struggle in months to come because the ‘Battistelli era’ EPO cases are reaching to the front of the queue (or top of the pile).”Our initial reaction to the summaries was that it’s just too disappointing to even write much about. But upon further inspection, that’s not entirely the case. One reader told us, “you definitely misinterpreted the ILO-AT 3785 case outcome… [as the] 3785 judgememnt is very positive for the staff. [...] Regarding the 3796, it’s too early to give an opinion. Be patient, and wait for the experts evaluating the judgement/s.”
The initial interpretation was that the latest cases got sent back to the kangaroo court of Battistelli and his goons, following a rather disappointing pattern which we also wrote about 2 days ago (separate case and article). We welcome feedback from within the EPO or outside of it. As we noted earlier this week, we rely on people who are very familiar with these cases to explain their ramifications to us.
“The EPO reminds us of and has a lot in common with SCO.”In many ways, the EPO will struggle in months to come because the ‘Battistelli era’ EPO cases are reaching to the front of the queue (or top of the pile). The EPO reminds us of and has a lot in common with SCO. Instead of dropping a failed strategy (acknowledging that becoming a “bad boy” is bad for business), the management takes itself and the entire organisation into the ground, leading to bankruptcy at the end (after spending all the time and resources in the courtroom, not actually producing anything or attracting any clients, who growingly boycott the organisation because of its tasteless actions). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Pressure from the political systems, the scientific community and from the media is growing, as it becomes abundantly apparent that the EPO cannot go on like this
THE European Patent Office (EPO) has already come under scrutiny from many politicians, but they are unable to do much because of the EPO’s insanely-granted (in retrospect highly irrational) immunity/impunity. Could EPO management get away with robbery, rape and murder as well? Hard to tell unless or until this happens… after 5 suicides the EPO’s management continues to deny authorities access to EPO sites (in order to properly investigate this). For all we know, EPO management can cover anything up, defame the accuser/s, and insist that it is the victim of a “campaign of defamation”. Watch in disgust and recall its appalling response to Bavarian TV coverage about one of the suicides.
Philip Cordery, a French politician who is sympathetic towards EPO staff, has just written in his blog again. To quote the French: “J’ai interrogé ce mercredi 30 novembre, lors de la traditionnelle séance de questions au gouvernement, le secrétaire d’Etat chargé de l’industrie, Christophe Sirugue, sur la situation sociale à l’Office européen des brevets.”
“Could EPO management get away with robbery, rape and murder as well?”We hope that a French-speaking reader can provide us with a reliable translation. Well, perhaps SUEPO will supply translations at some stage, but it doesn’t always happen. More French officials now speak out against the EPO’s management, including Richard Yung, who is also no beginner to this controversy. To quote Yung’s blog post: “M. Richard Yung attire l’attention de M. le ministre de l’économie et des finances sur la dégradation du climat social au sein de l’Office européen des brevets (OEB).”
This one too we could use a complete translation of. Accuracy is important as we strive to maintain a good record and poor translations have betrayed us at least once in the past.
Petra Kramer, our Dutch EPO ‘expert’ (she cares about the EPO’s situation although she does not have any connections to it), translated this new NOS article (like BBC of the Netherlands) for us. Here is a complete translation:
Van Dam: social situation European Patent Office should be better
State Secretary Van Dam wants the European Patent Office (EPO) to take concrete steps to improve the social situation. In a letter to the Lower House, he writes that a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) contains concrete leads to achieve this.
The agency has offices in several cities in Europe, including in Rijswijk. At the institute there are long-lived concerns about the working conditions and the social situation. Staff Office in Rijswijk’s took to the streets to protest several times, even last week. Even the House and the Cabinet have expressed their concerns.
Lack of trust
The EPO has called for the study partly at the insistence of the government. PWC states, several important reforms which have already been implemented, which are successful in part. Named for example, are a sharp drop in sick leave and the introduction of part-time jobs and working from home.
But the researchers are also critical about several issues. They questioned the reforms in the areas of participation and the implementation of the right to strike. They signal an “us-versus-them culture and lack of mutual trust between management and staff.”
Finger on sore spot
According to Van Dam the report puts the finger on the sore spot. The State Secretary is more concerned about the lack of internal trust and will continue to address that issue with the President of the Office.
At the EPO union members have repeatedly been fired, even recently. Van Dam writes that he can not speak about that last particular case, but he believes it is “not a healthy breeding ground for the restoration of social relations.”
Recently, the results of the PWC study were presented to 350 people involved in the EPO. Van Dam states it’s telling that the largest trade union was not invited to that meeting.
“The news is in the last sentence,” Petra Kramer noted. “SUEPO [was] not involved in PWC-study of EPO.”
“Diplomatical approach is certainly not bad,” told us an EPO insider, “however in this case totally useless. Van Dam is a way too subservient!”
Thankfully, the British press (Britain’s leading site in the area of technology) is covering the EPO scandals these days. This is the second time this week (the first one being about the UPC). Kieren McCarthy used the same game of words that we had used, revolving around the word “conCERN”. Here is the latest from McCarthy about Battisetlli’s McCarthyism and the response to it:
CERN concern: Particle boffins join backlash against Euro Patent Office’s King Battistelli
The European Organization for Nuclear Research, better known as CERN, has joined the list of organizations and media outlets calling for action against the president of the European Patent Office (EPO).
In its weekly staff bulletin, the particle physicists’ take issue with Benoit Battistelli for targeting and firing staff. “Over the past three years this organization has been under the rule of a president who imposes productivity targets which hinders the quality of the work done by the intellectual property specialists,” the bulletin notes.
It then accuses him of “degrading” the EPO with behavior “worthy of the 19th century” and endangering both the EPO itself and the European economy.
CERN is not the only organization to use such strong language. The European Public Service Union (EPSU), which represents more than eight million workers in Europe, has written [PDF] to a number of leading French, Dutch and German politicians this week asking them to “re-establish the rule of law” at the EPO citing “continuous threats to union representatives” by Battistelli, and violation of workers’ rights.
If things continue to be this bad, it’s not clear if there is any future at all for the EPO. Some believe that this plays into the hands of UPC proponents, perhaps connected to an attempt to make the EPO a more EU-connected institution, a bit like EUIPO. And speaking of EUIPO, watch the EPO sucking up to it this week [1, 2]; we remind readers that some EPO insiders believe these two institutions will one day be merged. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.29.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A sobering reality check regarding the UPC, no matter what Lucy Neville-Rolfe says under pressure from Battistelli and some selfish law firms that are based in London
“Tomorrow on 11/29,” (that’s today), the USPTO wrote, “EPO shares information on new practices and procedures at #USPTOMidwest.” What practices and procedures are these? Bribery? Union-busting? Corruption? All the above? The EPO has become a den of corruption, bullying, thuggery, lies, bribery and so much more. It’s far, FAR worse than FIFA ever was. But somehow there is no shakeup, at least not in the media. In fact, the media (as we noted in parts one and two of this series) was filled with EPO-leaning propaganda this week. It’s utterly appalling, though not entirely unexpected or unusual. Battistelli wastes a lot of money manipulating the media.
“Finally,” one person joked, “the #UPC is coming into farce!”
Not into force but a farce, as many people out there still don’t believe the EPO and Team UPC, who are liars that use self-fulfilling prophecy strategies. They are far from their objective considering the legal challenges and petitions that are likely on their way. Besides, if Brexit is happening, there are also doubts about what happens to UPC when it happens. As one person said it: “V. revealing that meaningless phrases (cake & eat it) trump imp. Brexit news (UK to ratify UPC). No-one cares about detail. Soft Brexit.”
Brexit for the poor, not for the rich (patent lawyers who grease up our officials).
“So, I am not entirely convinced our UPC participation will survive Brexit,” wrote another person, “despite today’s signal to ratify.”
How much did they lobby Lucy and others to ‘buy’ the UPC proposition and how is that even lawful? Is Lucy just trying to pull a publicity stunt here, in spite of the realisation that it simply boils down to a farce?
Alex Robinson said: “According to “informed circles in London” the UK WILL ratify UPC Agreeement. Huge if true. Confirmation expected later…”
But that’s just what Robinson wants to believe, based on a mere statement from Mathieu Klos who got the story early and wrote “+++Eilt+++ UK beendet Hängepartie + verkündet heute in Brüssel “its intention to ratify the #UPC agreement” http://juve.de/?p=284122″
Combine that with the misleading headline from Bristows and all we have here is an echo chamber accompanied by Lucy, who may be making promises she cannot even fulfill.
Dr. Birgit Clark, linking to the article in German from Mathieu Klos, added that “if this is true, then the UK will today announce “its intention to ratify the #UPC agreement”” (but that alone does not mean it will be possible).
“I think today’s announce brings clarity for Europe wrt #UPC launch,” wrote one person, “but things remain woefully unclear for the #UK after #BREXIT”
Moreover, the UPC cannot be launched once citizens are either better informed or informed enough to realise that they’re being screwed (like with TPP) and thus become angry.
Did British officials get bought by Team UPC or just greased up? Did they even check if their promise is fulfillable? It probably isn’t. The UPC would be the final blow to the EPO’s staff and Battistelli allegedly plans to head the UPC after he burns down the EPO, symbolically pretending to respect the EPC by throwing the boards somewhere at a congested Haar-based office space (more on that another day).
Let’s make sure these people don’t get their way and that the UPC collapses just like its predecessors (the same thing happened with so-called ‘trade’ deals whose texts got reused and expanded over time, only to be rejected when the public found out and responded with fury). “May accepts Supremacy of EU law on patents, UK betrayal of Brexit,” Henrion wrote. “UK wants to ratify UPC, which is not consistent with Brexit,” he wrote on a separate occasion. Well, the UPC is an attack on British democracy itself. May is just surrendering to lawyers who greased up Lucy at al with Battistelli’s help. Set up a petition, I told him, inform the public about this case of the EPO bringing its massive abuses to the UK too and he said “it is a question for the Parliament, and let’s wake up our companies against this monster.”
The Unitary Patent is rejected by SMEs, who are often misrepresented by and misinformed by Team UPC. Writing to a mouthpiece of Team UPC, Henrion suggests they “remember how many companies have signed statements against swpats in the UK?” Selective memory serves them better. They organised pro-UPC lobbying events (we wrote about this during summertime).
“Let’s call for a referendum on UPC ratification by the UK. Any UK citizen can start a petition,” he said. We are currently working on it. Beside this he said semi-jokingly, “what a shame. Let’s ask for a referendum in the UK as well?”
As another person who later weighed in put it: “How can the UK justify handing control of their patent system over to an EU organization after Brexit?”
“So the UK lose all advantages of being part of the EU and leave themselves susceptible to Patent Trolls,” this person added, “not smart.”
Well, the real British industry (not some parasitic law firms) would suffer a lot if UPC ever became a reality. We just need to explain this to them and convince them to work hard to combat the UPC. Remember that patent trolls are best at extracting money out of small businesses, without even having to take them to court for a trial (because it’s potentially very expensive).
The patent “trolls are opening a bottle of champagne today,” Henrion noted, having said something similar before (“Patent trolls are opening a bottle of champagne now”). So do their prospective lawyers, who intend to raid Europe with low-quality patents and maximalise the patent tax everywhere in one fell swoop. Many high-profile figures have already explained very clearly why the UPC would good for patent trolls.
“My first thoughts too,” an EPO insider wrote about our guesses. “My guess is that Baroness Neville-Rolfe is the culprit here or isn’t she?”
We’re expected to believe that Brexit would be good for Britain “because the EU not a democracy” (or something along those lines), but things like the IP Bill and these empty UPC promises serve to remind us that the UK is far from a democracy. I met our Prime Minister many years ago and spoke to her in length; she is clueless about technology and although (probably) well-meaning, she does enormous damage by caving in and appeasing patent law firms. Lucy is equally clueless in these domains of science and technology and one EPO insider chose to say, “Battistelli and “La” Baroness Neville-Rolfe inseparable. Love at first sight!”
Neither of them has a clue!
They actually did publicly pose together for photos — the rare occasion where political people from a large European countries agree to be seen with Battistelli (he’s considered “bad neighborhood” now).
As we said before, we welcome and even need leaks. We want to know what preceded this very surprising if not bizarre announcement.
“Notes to editors,” it emphasised. “The UPC itself is not an EU institution, it is an international patent court. Includes UK judges…”
They should say “would” in the the announcement, but they want people to assume that the UPC is inevitable, which it is not. Someone truly got bamboozled here and we believe we know the culprits. It’s an easy guess, but proof/evidence is required. Following the money here, there is clearly some deeper agenda at play. Photo ops with Battistelli are just a symptom here and one must recall how he buys his way. Only says ago the EPO bragged about (warning: epo.org link) Monaco, which has just 4 EPO patents, playing along with him. This is possibly a case of Battistelli ‘buying’ votes, but it’s hard to know for sure (he sure earned some publicity owing to a ‘country’ (small city) with just 4 patents). Why would Battistelli and his PR people at Twitter brag about another tiny country (with a vote equal to that of the UK) that he pocketed so cheaply? They’re making the monkey business ever more shallow and easy to spot. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Bigwigs like Lucy Neville-Rolfe and Benoît Battistelli, together with Team UPC and its tiny minority interests (self enrichment), are conspiring to hijack the laws of Europe, doing so across many national borders with unique and locally-steered patent policy in one fell swoop
I have personally done a lot to help EPO staff in the face of serious abuses against them. Now that Europeans (citizens and businesses) are under threat from the UPC we hope that EPO staff will help crush the UPC and restore the old order of things, prior to Battistelli’s ruinous arrival. Technically speaking, the UPC is not revived; it’s still hanging there by Battistelli’s side, next to his grave that he keeps digging. Europe will probably need to get rid of both. They already made false predictions about the UPC in the past and here they go again. “I doubt whether it is legal or not,” one EPO insider wrote. “Future Investigations will confirm this.”
“There is no legal basis at the time to ratify the UPC treaty,” this person added.
“There is no legal basis at the time to ratify the UPC treaty.”
–EPO insiderManaging IP didn’t take too kindly this remark from Benjamin Henrion who wrote: “Unitary Patent needs to die, it is an undemocratic court system controlled by the patent mafia, not parliaments…”
He responded to this early prediction/rumour which said: “Former MP & Europe minister predicts UK will pull out of #UPC & #UnitaryPatent in announcement tomorrow https://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/802805432528019456 …”
That’s what should have happened, but it didn’t. Maybe infighting over this? We need leaks about what these politicians did and why.
The term “patent mafia” just led to a joke, not a serious response: “If only there were, like, a handshake or something”
“Unitary Patent needs to die, it is an undemocratic court system controlled by the patent mafia, not parliaments…”
–Benjamin Henrion (FFII)Responding to Managing IP, the anonymous EPO person wrote: “To not be able to identify them, one must be
a) totally unfamiliar with UPC, EPO or the like
b) naïf
c) blind”
Or d) nepotism-driven/corrupt.
The matter of fact is, the term “patent mafia” is more or less equivalent to what we habitually call “Team UPC”. They’re like a collusion of patent firms, together with large clients and the EPO, scheming to change the law in their favour under everyone’s nose and usually behind the scenes or behind closed doors (with very high entrance fees and no speaking opportunity). They’re hijacking the system.
“UK companies won’t be able to freely trade in the EU post Brexit and EU Patent Trolls can extort UK companies… bad deal”
–AnonymousRegarding the UPC bubble, we’re sorry to shatter or disrupt the echo chamber, but the selfies or photo ops of Lucy with Benoît don’t help. Very fishy all around. We really want to know the reason UK-IPO et al decided to suck up to Battistelli and we welcome leaks on the subject. We never compromised a source and we need to understand what happened behind the scenes here (documents or correspondence).
What UPC means for Brits who are not parasitic lawyers is hardly mentioned at all (anywhere!) and as one person put it, “UK companies won’t be able to freely trade in the EU post Brexit and EU Patent Trolls can extort UK companies… bad deal” (horrible even).
Businesses in Britain have nothing to gain from it, but some trade association which claims to “represent the future” says it “welcomes Government’s #UPC confirmation but says now UK will join it must stay in” (prior to it it just said that “The Government have confirmed it plans to ratify #UPC Agreement in the coming months. See more here”). Well, it can’t be both, can it? For the UK to leave rather than stay in Europe it will have to reject the UPC. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A look at the rather one-sided coverage from blogs and so-called ‘news’ sites associated with the UPC and/or the EPO, which would have us believe that the UPC is a done deal although it’s far from it
The previous post focused on EPO-bribed media that covered the latest UPC twist. Some media, however, barely needs any bribes. Its funding is derived from readers who are working for law firms with special interests, much like Team UPC.
“UK to ratify UPC,” said the headline from WIPR, and “lawyers cautiously welcome decision” (just lawyers).
Not only lawyers’ opinion should count, what about the rest of the people? What about patent holders? What about people without any patents?
SMEs don't like the UPC. Did they receive a platform for their voice from WIPR? Probably out of the question.
Battistelli’s buddy James Nurton, whose employer did a lot of lobbying for the UPC (Nurton himself occasionally does softball ‘interviews’ with Battistelli, with pre-filtered questions), doesn’t seem to care for anyone but the patent microcosm. Watch this article and what they wrote in Twitter (to be covered separately). We’re supposed to think there’s no controversy and that it’s all fantastic news. One side is obviously being overlooked if not gagged. It’s intentional.
Here is what a blog that was supported by the EPO to promote UPC (and funded by its PR firm) says about the news. It doesn’t get any more promotional than this and the same author is meanwhile interjecting himself into some British media and bragging about it.
The out-of-control EPO is hoping to expand its scope of thuggery beyond the Netherlands and Germany. Guess who will pay the price. Is this desirable for the UK? Or as I put it earlier today, how many ethical/legal breaches does it take before the EPO can justifiably be called the Criminal Patent Office?
Is it fair to pretend that the UPC has no opposition? Is this responsible reporting?
Probably the worst kind or ‘reporting’ came from Bristows, as we noted in our previous post (part one). Here we have a new example of Bristows staff promoting Bristows staff and another Bristows staff — a symptom of what IP Kat recently became. How long before Bristows uses IP Kat to keep spreading some more UPC propaganda (as it already did for over a year)? Darren Smyth broke the news for IP Kat this time around (via), so it wasn’t Bristows for a change. But Smyth plays a role in pro-UPC events, as we noted a few days. There are many UPC promotions/forums/events these days (one is about to start) and they are basically echo chambers. See this new tweet that says: “The @IPSummit next week could get even more interesting depending on #Monday’s news re. #UPC #UK #Brexit”
There is also one tomorrow. That’s the one Smyth is in. Will Lucy Neville-Rolfe, who is acting like an agent of Team UPC this week, be treated like some kind of hero and be put on a pedestal? In our view, her actions on UPC reveal little less than systemic corruption where patent lobbying is on the line and pressure basically instructs her decisions (which even patent law firms admit was surprising as it was utterly irrational).
Here is a blog post titled “May Accepts Supremacy of EU Law on Patents”. To quote: “In her conference speech Theresa May vowed that Brexit would mean “our laws will be made not in Brussels but in Westminster. The judges interpreting those laws will sit not in Luxembourg but in courts in this country. The authority of EU law in Britain will end”. Well, not quite…”
This is similar to what Glyn Moody wrote. But never mind the issues and conflicts associated with it (likely to derail this plan as we shall show in later parts). Team UPC and/or the patent microcosm (overlaps there) celebrates a potential passage, or looting, from the population of Europe, with patents as a vehicle of taxation. In spite of it being merely an expression of intent one headline we found was “The UK will ratify the UPCA!” Here is what it says:
At the EU competitiveness council meeting today the UK Minister of State for Energy and Intellectual Property, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, indicated that the UK will ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement (see official press release here).
But it may not be able to. Alternatively, it can be revoked once the public backlash starts and it turns out that this is not possible (incompatible with various aspects of UK law, with or without Brexit).
Let those wishful thinkers rest on it for a week or two. The fight over the UPC will likely intensify soon and people who are not patent lawyers start asking all sorts of ‘awkward’ questions. █
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