10.28.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:14 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Leaked E-mail from June 2012 regarding Željko Topić, an EPO Vice-President who reportedly faces many criminal charges in Croatia
THE EPO‘s management insists on tarnishing whatever is left of its reputation. It refuses to accept that Topić is a liability to the Office and even — reportedly at the request of Battistelli — extends the contract of this ‘bulldog’ of his.
As we noted here before, Topić allegedly used SIPO’s Web site to throw in some face-saving announcement. He also uses old buddies to accomplish something similar, never mind the fact that he has lost his defamation case repeatedly. The judge found merit in very serious allegations against him.
The above E-mail is from the 6th of June 2012 and it might be of interest ahead of today’s feature article, which we shall publish later today.
“The E-mail from June 2012 was written by Ljiljana Kuterovac who was at that time the acting Director General of the SIPO following Željko Topić’s departure to Munich and it is addressed to the Administrative Council delegates and to the President of the EPO.”Recall that the decision to appoint Željko Topić as an EPO Vice-President was taken by the EPO’s Administrative Council in March 2012 and he took up his appointment soon afterwards in April 2012.
Around that time rumours were already circulating about Željko Topić’s previous track record in Croatia and some members of the Administrative Council were beginning to ask awkward questions.
So it seems that Željko Topić relied on his former protegée at the SIPO to defuse the situation and silence the critics.
The E-mail from June 2012 was written by Ljiljana Kuterovac who was at that time the acting Director General of the SIPO following Željko Topić’s departure to Munich and it is addressed to the Administrative Council delegates and to the President of the EPO. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.27.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:18 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Battistelli with his sausage factory mentality keeps grinding the EPO for quick cash…
Image credit: Seydelmann, published under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
Summary: A look at the latest reckless step from the Budget and Finance Committee of the Administrative Council (chaired by Battistelli's pet chinchilla), which marginalises yet more oversight or a branch which facilitates patent quality control (thereby concealing the effect of Battistelli’s ruinous sausage factory mentality)
MATERIAL continues to trickle out of the EPO and each day we learn something new about the decision to send the appeal boards to exile (see this week's coverage so far). It’s depressing for me to see and I don’t even work for the EPO. Battistelli is — pardon the pun — absolutely butchering the EPO. Insiders know it and even outsiders like patent attorneys are quickly catching on. They would be right to panic as valuation of their largest clients’ patent portfolios must have collapsed (some of them don’t know this yet).
“It’s an internal announcement and the rest of it includes a lot of budget numbers, which is the sort of thing that they would not like leaked and probably serve no purpose for this post.”Here are the outcomes from the meeting of the 26th of October (that’s yesterday): “Continuing the implementation of the Boards of Appeal reform, the contract related to the lease of a building in Haar / Munich, which will be the new location of the Boards of Appeal Unit, was submitted to the BFC. Although several delegations requested additional technical information, the BFC gave a positive opinion (13 in favour, 8 against and 15 abstentions).”
“The boards have in fact shrunk in recent years, as no new openings (or hardly any) get advertised, probably because of the UPC fairy tales so deeply ingrained in Battistelli’s little mind and Big Head.”It’s an internal announcement and the rest of it includes a lot of budget numbers, which is the sort of thing that they would not like leaked and probably serve no purpose for this post. We therefore omit those numbers — not because they are anything special but because it is more sensitive information which there’s little for the public to gain from. Remember that office space is shrinking with this relocation (or ‘exile’ as we call it), so don’t fall for the spin of accommodating more staff (the EPO experiences brain drain and cannot recruit fast enough!). The boards have in fact shrunk in recent years, as no new openings (or hardly any) get advertised, probably because of the UPC fairy tales so deeply ingrained in Battistelli’s little mind and Big Head.
It is worth mentioning that the Budget and Finance Committee only issues an opinion. The decision about ‘exile’ (they use this term, they prefer euphemisms) to Haar will be made at the next Administrative Council (AC) meeting, which is due to happen on the 14th and 15th of December. So far, as was implied above, only financial matters have been considered. It might not be too late to stop this separation.
“In our view, Battistelli was put in place for fiscal reasons.”One might ask, why does the Haar relocation matter so much? Well, from what we are able to gather, there may be an untold purpose to it. My personal hypothesis for a couple of years now is that EPO management clutches any pretext to dismiss staff representatives to rob the staff of their voices before layoffs. Something very, very big is happening at the EPO (more so this year and last year). The management says too little about it, but one can see some signs on the wall.
Looking at what the EPO has in store at IPSDM, it looks as though Battistelli's so-called "economist" from France is gaining influence. To quote IP Australia: “Yann Ménière, Chief Economist @EPOorg will chair a session on International patent protection & trade at #IPSDM https://www.ipsdm2016.com/”
In our view, Battistelli was put in place for fiscal reasons. He’s not a scientist, he’s pretty clueless about patents, but he sure attempts to cut costs, increase so-called ‘production’ (no matter the cost to quality and reputation) and this appointment of a French “economist” (the word pertains to a pseudo-science with fake ‘Nobel’ [sic] prize that’s banksters’ blatant means for rewarding complicit academics) lends some evidence to our longstanding suspicions.
“Battistelli should be thought of more like an EPO liquidator (trying to squeeze out whatever money is left in it before it implodes), not a manager and certainly not a President.”According to this new comment, the EPO’s HR department (managed by the wife of Battistelli’s buddy) is pushing out longtime staff, replacing these people with temporary or short-term workers with limited skills (hence more likely to just grant patents with little scrutiny, having failed to identity prior art). Sending the appeal boards away while understaffing them, threatening their independence (deterrence) and significantly increasing the cost of their service further complements this strategy or this modus operandi. Here is what today’s comment says (“Latest HR trend says…”): “Publishing new Euro contract vacancies and forcing at the same time Eponians to leave their permanent positions for the sake of gaining excessive HR control (temporary contracts and probation periods galore!). Trust me I am your HR manager!… see you at the next social conference.”
This perfectly agrees with everything we’ve been hearing, publishing and reading (without publishing). Battistelli should be thought of more like an EPO liquidator (trying to squeeze out whatever money is left in it before it implodes), not a manager and certainly not a President. Battistelli is to the EPO what Elop was to Nokia. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Various photos of Topić and Kuterovac. Some more photos with other IP “luminaries” such as Campinos of the EUIPO and Gurry of the WIPO.
Photos of Topić and Kuterovac etc. will become relevant to our upcoming long article as they visually demonstrate some of the points made therein (readers can see where we’re going with this based on this teaser).
Here are Topić and Campinos (EUIPO), who some believe will take over the EPO one day.
Welcome Kuterovac.
Kuterovac and Gurry from the abusive WIPO (both Battistelli and him wanted and applied for this job).
Kuterovac with Campinos.
Yes, that’s Topić and Battistelli, way back almost a decade ago (2008).
Here is Topić a decade ago (2006), meeting the DKPTO for the twinning project [PDF]. The head of the DKPTO is now the Chinchilla man of the Administrative Council.
Kuterovac and Topić in tandem (2010).
More of Kuterovac (WIPO, 2012).
Also the following year (WIPO, 2013).
Also a photo of Jadranka Oklobdžija who is a lead plaintiff in the civil lawsuit against the SIPO and Topić.
A lot of the above will be tied together in our upcoming article on the subject (the gallery of accompanying photos isn’t as critical to the message we’ll tell and the evidence we’ll present). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.26.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The “yes men” of Battistelli, led by his political pet chinchilla, do what’s expected from them
Reference: Yes man
Summary: Crushing of highly-skilled staff, propaganda in the form of new press releases, and recruitment attempts that won’t succeed because the world now knows what goes on inside the European Patent Office
THIS WOULD take a miracle not to happen, given everything we’ve seen so far at the European Patent Office (EPO). This would be almost unthinkable and irrational to suggest that the Administrative Council can say “no” to Battistelli. At best they say nothing and indeed that’s what just happened.
According to this new comment: “Latest news from is that the Budget & Finance Committee of the Admin Council has approved the “resettlement” of the Boards of Appeal to Haar.”
Another person told us [1, 2, 3]: “European Patent Office-BFC meeting: BoA removal/relocation to Haar – Munich Approved! Italy, Switzerland, Ireland, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Norway, France voted against, 13 voted for and 15 abstained! It’s a shame that 15 (yeah read fifteen) countries abstained!!! BIG FAIL! Gruss an Frau Merkel, wir schaffen das!”
Again, we cannot honestly say that we’re surprised. But now it’s confirmed. The future of the boards does not look independent or even promising. Quite the contrary is true…
At the EPO, as another new comment put it today, “most of the people being fired joined long before these new rules” created by Battistelli. This means that some of the experienced and better paid workers and being let go. Here is the full comment:
1. Now you are beginning to understand the problem. To be fair most of the people being fired joined long before these new rules applied so I don’t think you can call them stupid.
2. Don’t forget that this largesse is in the hands of the President. So… Bonuses to the wonderful senior management to start. National offices will be able to find something to do with what is left over.
“Don’t forget that there’s an election campaign coming up in France,” another person added. Remember that Battistelli is Sarkozy-connected and mind this new comment from Benjamin Henrion, who today said that the “EPO is a political animal.” It really is, but it oughtn’t have been. In fact, Battistelli’s involvement in politics should have immediately disqualified him; he should never have worked at the EPO — an unaccountable institution where he pulls political tricks and brings the world of political corruption to an inherently scientific working place. The EPO, working with a secretive budget, is now pushing PRESS RELEASES (i.e. paid-for ‘articles’) into various sites across Europe in order to promote its so-called ‘study’ (self-promotional, paid-for fiction). Here is the latest example of that. Yesterday we wrote about yet another puff piece from the EUIPO and EPO [1, 2]. It smacks of marketing, it’s not a study at all (we rebutted parts of the whole). Is this intended to help recruitment, which is in a very sad state?
As one more comment put it earlier today, “only stupid people would chose to work for the EPO today.” Here is the full comment:
1: I am not saying the people already in are stupid, but that only stupid people would chose to work for the EPO today. Who is going to apply for a job under these conditions? Besides, there are plenty of “normal” employers looking for engineers in Munich, BMW for example. Don’t you think it is a much smarter move to work for BMW, which will pay your pensions and where any experience you get will be valuable in your career than for the EPO? The pay is not that different, especially if one has a few years experience, which the EPO will not take into account. The question is therefore: how can the EPO expect to recruit?
2: “largesses and election campaign”: the EPO is a public administration. That would be embezzlement. Surely, there must be some rules and controls of the finances?
Here is a new comment about the lack of supervision or oversight at the EPO, by Battistelli’s own making (he eliminated the Audit Committee shortly after he had gained/seized power):
“largesses and election campaign”: the EPO is a public administration. That would be embezzlement. Surely, there must be some rules and controls of the finances?
Dream on. The Administrative Council abolished its Audit Committee back in 2011 (about a year or so after it had been set up …).
http://techrights.org/2014/10/31/brimelow-and-battistelli/
But yes, there are “rules and controls of the finances”.
There’s even an “internal audit” department (which is mostly occupied with investigations against staff reps these days).
And just for good measure, all internal audit functions are under the control of the President …
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
The EPO is in a very bad state, even "a crisis" by the Board's private admission. Right now they do everything to just deepen this crisis. It’s painful to watch. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sounds like a threat…
Summary: E-mail that would leave Vice-President Willie Minnoye bashful, as it helps show not only bad policy but also attempts at suppression of discussion about it
THE ABOVE message is almost self-explanatory (it’s an old E-mail). We understand that Willie Minnoye is very concerned about EPO material ending up in Techrights (for reporting that highlights EPO abuses) and it’s not hard to see why he has been vocal about it; the more we find out about him, the more embarrassing it gets for him and some insiders consider Minnoye to be worse than Battistelli.
The above, showing a May 2014 B99 E-mail (cleaned up a bit for obvious reasons), is interesting for numerous reasons. The purpose of the E-mail VP1 sent to a Principal Director in May 2014 was to limit the effect of the industrial actions — which consisted in the retardation of the delivery of granted patents by examiners — on EPO production. He further warned not to forward the E-mail “to avoid any abuse by the staff reps on the statements made about the lack of published patents.”
“He further warned not to forward the E-mail “to avoid any abuse by the staff reps on the statements made about the lack of published patents.””VP1 tried to intimidate individual examiners in order to force them to stop participating in the industrial actions by ranking the examiners with the highest number in retarded dossiers and declaring that “Retaining files on purpose is illegal.”
Nice move, eh?
From the man who boasted he would disregard a ruling from the highest Dutch court.
In addition to this, see the below announcement from this week. It was created and signed by Willie Minnoye (DG1 Strategic Directions 2017).
The text of DG1 Strategic Directions 2017 shows Willie Minnoye’s continuous drive for production. Watch out for terms like “efficiency”, “coping with our workload”, “improving … timeliness”, “Enhancing legal certainty by improving timeliness …”, ”focus on efficiency” and ”continued progress in efficiency”…
In simply term, he encourages degradation of examination and thus patent quality. It makes Minnoye a very major (top-down) part of the EPO’s problems. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.25.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 5:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Entering a rather advanced propaganda mode
Summary: The grim vision of the EPO which is losing all its talent (over time), becomes more like a production line (quality does not matter), and produces propaganda for "media positioning" (or “placements”) — all under the guise of ‘studies’
“Who will be stupid enough to apply to be hired under these conditions?”
This was the question asked earlier today in relation to the EPO under Battistelli’s regime. The full comment says:
1: so they can fire you at will and prohibit you to work afterwards or they keep your pensions? Who will be stupid enough to apply to be hired under these conditions?
2: the EPO will decrease costs but not lower the fees? What will they do with the excess money?
Given the decline in patent quality under Battistelli, we expect fees to have to decline and the same goes for salaries. The EPO is becoming another USPTO and some people believe that eventually it will be another INPI (i.e. no patent examination at all, or only a truly superficial check before filing). Regarding the notion of “excess money”, some figures from the secretive Office actually suggest financial losses/deficit. There’s no likely rebound now or ever, until or unless pensions (long-term liabilities) get gradually cut, well-paid staff replaced by new and relatively unskilled/underpaid/overworked workers (there is lack of interest in EPO jobs either way), and patent applications flow in like water and granted in bulk while they last (to the point of exhaustion, whereupon examiners become redundant). Watch this new EPO job ad (from today). Pay attention to the skills required (just two languages and a Masters degree). The EPO is experiencing brain drain. Managers know it. They’re desperate for job applications now, but they’re failing to attract enough of them, or so we’re told by insiders. Standards have truly declined.
“Staff of the EPO isn’t even being told what’s going on; examiners are constantly being lied to by the management.”How can they possibly attract more interest from the public amid unprecedented scandals? How about puff pieces resulting from a so-called ‘study’ (stooping so low as to generate bogus, self-commissioned ‘studies’ is the latest trend), such as the one we mentioned last night?
The EPO-IPO (EPO+EUIPO) already finds some clueless (or docile, or without any critical skills) stenographers to parrot claims from this ‘study’ of theirs (which they paid for). To quote: “The study, published on 25 October, says this number equates to almost €5.7 trillion annually. It covers a broad range of IP rights, including patents, trademarks, designs, copyright, geographical indications and plant variety rights.”
Wow! “€5.7 trillion annually.” Big numbers there, but what does that allude to? Just a big number to occupy some headlines and add some prestige to institutions with a turnover/profit 5 orders of magnitude lower (i.e. about 100,000th of the above figure). Here is the laughably shallow part (among others):
António Campinos, executive director of the EUIPO, said: “The rapidly changing nature of business in the 21st century means that the EU and global economy relies strongly on intellectual property rights such as trademarks, designs, patents and other rights.”
Will you take over all the above, António? As some believe you would? There’s no telling, only speculations. Staff of the EPO isn’t even being told what’s going on; examiners are constantly being lied to by the management.
“Maybe the EPO will just fire a lot of examiners and hire some more “paper pushers” to cope with the increased throughput (or inflow) of crappy applications and crappy grants.”In other (more minor) news, the EPO is said to have changed requirements. “In the past,” says the article, “it was common for a patent holder to execute an assignment in favor of an assignee, without the assignee signing the document. Under the new Guidelines, the EPO will no longer accept an assignment document that uses the single-signature format.”
Maybe the EPO will just fire a lot of examiners and hire some more “paper pushers” to cope with the increased throughput (or inflow) of crappy applications and crappy grants. After all, it’s not as though detailed, thorough, comprehensive and even exhaustive search (potentially with several appeals to the boards) are what Battistelli wants. He just wants a Chinese production line, akin to what he sees in SIPO (for which he has profound affinity). Work conditions, correspondingly, degrade greatly. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Exile is to “independence” what prison is to “freedom”
Summary: Details of the relatively secret proceedings back in June (belatedly released only a short while ago), carefully abbreviated to demonstrate which delegations helped Battistelli crush the Boards of Appeal and which ones insisted on maintaining the status quo, as per the EPC
EARLIER TODAY we published one particular part of the Minutes referred to herein. The Minutes of the Administrative Council’s meeting at the EPO form the basis of the discussion and outcome, which is usually so abbreviated that it’s rendered quite useless (further sanitised when published in the public site rather than the Intranet).
Below is a very abbreviated version of the Minutes, which we have taken some time to analyse. This is just about the Reform on the Boards of Appeal, whereas the previous article was about the staff representatives. Reform of the Boards of Appeal, or rather the removal of those boards from the EPO’s building, is a subject we covered here many times before. In the EPO’s public site there was nothing but hogwash about it and AMBA’s Web site, understandably afraid, posted a polite protest, refuting that the EPO’s site had told stakeholders like applicants, attorneys, journalists and so on.
Here are the ‘gory’ details from the Minutes of day 1:
FROM THE MINUTES OF THE AC JUNE 2016 MEETING
DAY 1:
On Day 1 of the meeting document CA/43/16 (Reform of the Boards of Appeal) was discussed. It has four parts: A (Structural Reform of the BOA), B (Career of Members and Chairmen of the BOA), C (Location of the Boards of Appeal), D (New Fee Policy for Appeals), and E (Conflict of Interest Rules).
The President started by explaining that transferring powers would mean revising the EPC, so “the only possible solution was a delegation of powers” to the new BOA President. He stated that there were two issues: the perception of independence and the boards’ efficiency. He added that “careers on the boards would be governed by special new rules reflecting the need to make board members aware that their career depended also on how they performed their duties”. Regarding the boards’ location he “remained convinced that a separation from the rest of the Office would increase the perception of the boards’ independence. But in view of the objections raised he was now proposing that although the boards would move to a separate building they would stay in Munich”. Also important was the boards’ rate of cost coverage, and he proposed that “the boards should aim at 20 to 25% cost coverage”.
SECTION A: STRUCTURAL REFORM OF THE BOA
The Croatian delegation was the only delegation that thought that a reform “should cover all aspects, not just independence”. It stated that “the President was always being attacked for various reasons, but to its knowledge he had never been accused of trying to interfere in any of the boards’ cases or decisions”. It added that “some people suspected the President of wanting to interfere in how the boards functioned and took their decisions, but this was completely unfounded and absurd.” The Bulgarian delegation thought that “the boards’ independence had been clearly shown by the disciplinary proceedings exercising the Council for over two years now, with the Enlarged Board so far refusing to take a substantial decision on the matter and give the disciplinary ruling requested by the Council”.
The Irish delegation “noted concerns expressed in some documents about the possibility of the President being able to withdraw his delegation of powers and that the consequence of the delegation being withdrawn is that the independence is withdrawn”. The French delegation agreed, stating that “revocation should not be possible without the Council’s consent”. The Swedish delegation said that “the EPO President should not be able to revoke his delegation of powers solely at his own initiative”. The Austrian, Swiss, German, Slovakian, Icelandic, Danish and UK delegations agreed.
SECTION B: CAREER OF MEMBERS AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOA
The Irish delegation was “concerned about the proposals which introduce a performance-related system which appears contrary to the exercise of judicial functions”. The Italian delegation said that “(re) appointment of board members and chairman should be exclusively a matter for the boards’ President: the EPO President should have nothing to do with them”. The Netherlands delegation said that “the Office’s proposal that reappointment should in future depend on a board member’s performance could only be detrimental to independence”.
SECTION C: LOCATION OF THE BOARDS OF APPEAL
The Swiss delegation “suggests leaving them where they are”. The Irish delegation stated that “even a relocation within Munich would give rise to unnecessary expense”. The Swedish delegation considered that “the boards’ location had little to do with their independence, and the cost of any move also had to be taken into consideration”. The Austrian delegation said that “as far as relocating the boards was concerned, those most immediately affected, i.e. BOA members and users, would have to agree”. The Netherlands delegation stated that “there was no point relocating the boards”, because “this would merely waste money”. The Czech delegation said that “if the majority was in favour of a move, it would oppose it”.
SECTION D: NEW FEE POLICY FOR APPEALS
The Irish delegation was “strongly opposed to any increase in appeal fees at the present time and was appalled at the original proposal for a fivefold fee increase which would be tantamount to a barrier to justice”. The Italian delegation said that “cost coverage had no direct bearing on the boards’ independence”. The German delegation said that “the fees issue had nothing to do with the boards’ independence.” It thought that “the Office’s proposals here were completely unacceptable”.
SECTION E: CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES
The French delegation said that “any former board member or other EPO employee temporarily refused permission to undertake paid work would have to receive appropriate financial compensation”. The German delegation said it would be necessary to “provide at least for financial compensation”. The Polish, Swedish and Austrian delegations agreed. The UK delegation said that the measures proposed “had caused surprise and even concern among UK user circles”. The Danish delegation “could not support at all” the proposal.
The President said that the proposed reform was “a package, to be approved or rejected as such. The post-service integrity measures were an integral part of that package”.
Here are the ‘gory’ details from the Minutes of day 2:
DAY 2:
On Day 2 an amended document, CA/43/16 Rev. 1 was presented. Amended were in particular Parts A (more information about “delegation of powers”), D (“new fee policy” changed to “better cost coverage”) and E (now only limited to the BOA).
The Swedish delegation was “not 100% satisfied” but “was prepared to accept it if its effects were reviewed in three years’ time”. The French delegation and the epi representative agreed. The Austrian delegation said that “increasing the fees should be the very last resort”. The Irish delegation remained convinced that the proposals in Section D “had nothing at all to do with the boards’ independence”. The Slovakian delegation agreed that “the measures in Section D had no bearing on the boards’ independence”. The Netherlands delegation said that Section D had to be deleted, and its vote would depend on that.
The President said that he was not 100% happy either, but this was a compromise.
CA/43/16 Rev. 1 was approved, with the Netherlands voting against, and Hungary and Italy abstaining.
The Council also said the reform and its effects should be reviewed in a few years’ time.
One can see the role played by the Netherlands (opposition), the Croatian delegation (associated with Battistelli’s ‘bulldog’), and the Irish delegation (which might want to protect the persecuted Irish judge). We think the most important message is that the proposal was only agreed on because it should (or would) be looked at again in a few years, probably when it’s too late to salvage the EPO because applications have run out and many workers (examiners in particular) will have been laid off to be replaced by unskilled workers (if any, maybe just machines). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Pessimism becomes realism at the European Patent Office as units are being torn apart, patent quality discarded, “unified” patent courts dreamed of (more patent lawsuits, higher damages), and EUIPO (EU-associated, unlike Eponia) gets closer to the EPO
THOSE WHO have followed this Web site for the past decade know we’re no enemy of the EPO. We actually used to take pride in it, especially after software patents were rejected (2005), assuring the high quality of patents (emphasis on quality, not quantity). We also sent letters and constructive feedback to the Organisation. This is all in the public record.
“Battistelli has already decided — with the usual complicity of the Administrative Council — to eject/kick out the appeal boards out of the EPO’s main building.”We fear that the EPO’s days may be numbered. Maybe it’s intentional, as we shall explain in this post in light of this morning’s announcement from the EPO (as expected).
We will share some of our observations and leave it for readers to decide what on Earth goes on at the EPO. Frankly, it does not look too good and we (even I personally) worry about the fate of the bright minds of EPO examiners (who are scientists like myself), not politicians/managers like Battistelli.
“Remember that EPO judges are already under attack (in a perpetual limbo with a warning sign that’s judge P. C.) and early next year they will have moved out, even though the UPC (the unified court — a threat to their very existence) is definitely not happening (with or without “hard” Brexit).”Battistelli has already decided — with the usual complicity of the Administrative Council — to eject/kick out the appeal boards out of the EPO’s main building. The temporary/rented office space that was allocated to them is meager and there are no long-term assurances, based on articles from the German media (there were very few of those as the EPO’s spokesperson used sordidly evasive language). Remember that EPO judges are already under attack (in a perpetual limbo with a warning sign that’s judge P. C.) and early next year they will have moved out, even though the UPC (the unified court — a threat to their very existence) is definitely not happening (with or without “hard” Brexit).
What does Battistelli envision here? Certainly nothing like the vision of those who actually signed the EPC. Now there’s the EU in place (with the EC) and along with that comes EUIPO (a new name or a rebrand for something older). Here they go again, as expected, strutting together hand in hand this morning, boasting a so-called ‘study’ (link above, but it’s epo.org and it’s propaganda, so don’t bother clicking).
For a moment there, based on tweets like this one, the EPO ‘forgot’ that it’s not really supposed to be part of the EUIPO (trademarks and patents are inherently very different and entirely separable, even if one attempts to lump them together under the propaganda/umbrella term “Intellectual Property”, as in the EPO’s new headline). Here is what the EPO wrote: “Joint @EPOorg @EU_IPO study confirms the economic benefits of IP rights for Europe http://buzz.mw/b199m_f #IPvalue pic.twitter.com/REJQsJ5NKF”
Here is what EUIPO wrote: “How are #IPR-intensive industries contributing to the #EU economy? Find out in a soon-to-be-released study by #EUIPO and @EPOorg”
“How do existing grantees of EPs feel about the status quo?”For a moment there, again, one can easily be led to believe that those two bodies are conjoined, not just in the staff/management sense (there are overlaps which we covered here before). One might crudely ask, when does Battistelli flush the EPO down the toilet and let the EU-centric EUIPO take over? When all impending applications are over? Layoffs imminent? For a while now we have been hearing about end of proper examination and expectation of large-scale examiner layoffs. Insiders tell us it won't be long before EPO workload/backlog/queue runs dry. What happens then? Two key data points cannot be overlooked here; one is the EPO loosening/ending examination and the other is the massive EPO layoffs that are expected unless there’s a dramatic change of course. Yesterday I spoke in length with Mancunian research head (a large local university). We spoke about the EPO and he now compares erosion in patent (EP) quality to rigging of the degree-granting process (undergraduate or postgraduate). How do existing grantees of EPs feel about the status quo? Or about files flying off the shelves and patents getting granted in bulk irrespective of their quality (or only with shallow/superficial checks due to unrealistic deadlines/quotas)? They should be up in arms and demand some kind of refund or compensation from the EPO. They’re not even being consulted about this, even though they’re the primary stakeholders. Battistelli lowered the perceived value of EPs. He ought to know it. So-called intellectual “assets” of corporations took a massive hit because of him. “Production” he says? Tell that to someone with an actual science degree, not an honorary Ph.D. from a university connected to his buddy from Spain.
“Think of software patents, among other families of patents.”A lot of EPO workers rightly feel as though big plans are afoot (other than the UPC, which is a disaster) and nobody has informed them about long-term ‘reforms’. Right now they just see their staff representatives and even judges coming under unprecedented (in the entire history of the Office!) attacks.
“Correct me if I am wrong,” one person wrote yesterday, “but wasn’t the concept of “cheaper patents” (of lower quality) [...] via the UPC?”
Think of software patents, among other families of patents. Here is the entire comment with more complete context:
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t the concept of “cheaper patents” (of lower quality) part of an integral package including the vital component of “cheaper litigation” (for the big players) via the UPC?
Now that the second part of the formula has apparently been “put on ice” for the foreseeable future it seems that we are going to be left with “cheaper patents” (of lower quality).
But “cheaper” for whom exactly ?
Roll up! Roll up! Get your cheap patents ‘ere!
One for everybody in the audience !
At the EPO, as another person put it, “to discuss or disclose a procedure is in itself a crime.” Here is the full comment:
Don’t know if he was/is a union member (DG3 tend not to be), but he was said to have had contact with a staff rep who has since been fired. Whether he did or didn’t and whether that was improper or not I don’t know – all such allegations are not allowed to be revealed by the parties hence any discussion between them could also have been a disciplinary matter in its own right. Such is the system in place – to discuss or disclose a procedure is in itself a crime.
Regarding the illegally-suspended judge, this one commenter says it should be “enough for him to be re-instated, probably with compensation, however in Eponia… ”
It is not actually known what he did as the merits on the case have never been heard. It has been thrown out by the EBoA on at least two occasions due to incompetence and interference by the senior management of the EPO. In any other legal system in the EU this would have been enough for him to be re-instated, probably with compensation, however in Eponia…
“The overpowering stench emanating from the manner in which the Office is being managed and overseen” is noted in the following comment:
When do we expect the decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht in 2 BvR 2480/10 and 2 BvR 421/13?
Also, could the evident failure of the Office to carry out instructions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal undermine any argument that the Boards are independent of the Office?
The overpowering stench emanating from the manner in which the Office is being managed and overseen could well yet reach the noses of the judges in Karlsruhe.
Another person ponders aloud: “So union representatives were fired for reasons they cannot explain to the staff they represent?”
The full comment:
So union representatives were fired for reasons they cannot explain to the staff they represent? What precludes them to do so, if they are out anyway?
History tells us that the only reason union representatives are attacked by management is that management plans to degrade the staff working conditions considerably: reduce salaries, increase working hours or simply fire everyone and get cheaper staff. Probably present staff members should start looking for another job.
It is not necessarily a bad thing for the customers, by the way. Patents will be cheaper if the staff is replaced by cheaper employees.
Some people then brought up the subject of money, as the EPO reportedly has losses (it’s hard to verify this due to the secrecy the Office enjoys). To quote:
What precludes them?
A. Any appeal against dismissal would be before the ILO. It is an administrative tribunal I.e. It only checks that the rules were followed. To do something against the rules, no matter how lacking in justice they are, would be a negative point and endanger the appeal.
B. To do so would endanger the member of the Board of Appeal as it would provide ‘evidence’ to be used against him/her.
C. The EPO pays the sacked person’s pension. That can be reduced by the office so they are still under EPO control.
D. The office is also seeking to veto employment after leaving the office employment. Annoying them is a risky idea.
Does that answer your question?
PS Cheaper staff = cheaper patents? Really? Why? Do you think the saving will be passed on? Remember BB has studies that show the office has financial problems. Saving costs may save money but will that not be needed for his problems? I will leave the issue of whether cheaper staff means lower quality means more litigation means more cost – that needs another and deeper analysis.
Judging by his behaviour (e.g. cutting benefits, reducing illness days, short-term contracts to new staff), Battistelli has been acting more like an EPO liquidator (especially of the unions and appeal boards) than a manager. He threw the EPC down the trash and now he throws the EPO down the trash. If EPO workers genuinely want to save the EPO and secure their jobs, then they’ll need to overthrow Team Battistelli before it lays them off (which will probably happen given the present trajectory which extinguishes a backlog never to be replenished).
Here is a fiscal optimist (whose claims we’re unable to verify):
“We” are making more than 1.000.000 EUR per working day. We are self-financing, not more, not less.
Yet, we are making money on a scale that everyone could go on maximum pensions right now, and for the next ten years there will be absolutely no need for reforms.
And the last reforms (career) already means a saving of several hundred millions per year in 2035….
Nope, you will not see a single cent of any saved money. You can withdraw and get a full refund on exam fees.
That is as far as the AC will go, as that is not their money…
“We are self-financing, not more, not less,” says the above. Even if that was true, for how long? Applications are running out! The backlog will will have reached zero in a couple of year. The writings on the wall are pretty clear to some insiders, who believe EPO layoffs are coming. There is even the belief that examiners will be replaced by machines. Whatever goes on at the EPO these days is rather horrific; many things are happening (all of them bad), the future is growingly grim, and anyone who dares speak about it gets fired (or first “disciplined”, so as to induce depression if not bankruptcy too).
Will someone ever reprimand battistelli or even fire him? He should have been sacked quite a while back, but nobody seems bold enough to do it, certainly not his pet chinchilla. To close this off with a comment:
What did the guy do to justify all this nonsense?
Lèse-majesté ?
See more on Wikipedia:
Lèse-majesté
This link to Wikipedia yields the following image. Picture Battistelli’s face on the wall and it will be a perfect metaphor for the way EPO workers feel about Battistelli and how they get treated for their views about the ‘king’. █
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
