06.29.16
Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 12:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Dr. Christoph Ernst is claimed to be the successor (interim or permanent) of the notorious Battistelli, but these claims have little or no evidence to support them
THE EPO‘s President should get sacked this week, but he attacks anyone who gets close to even suggesting so. For quite some time now people have hypothesised that Christoph Ernst would replace Battistelli and Tilman Müller-Stoy’s letter to Ernst a few days ago brought these hypotheses back to life.
Some rumours today (coinciding with the meeting of the Administrative Council and the protest in Munich) suggest that Battistelli effectively got fired. We heard those rumours and there is even a comment about it. As it is just a rumour for now we have said nothing about it and fast-checked instead. “Latest rumour from the EPO,” as one person put it, is that in order “to avoid any further harm to the institution the CA envisages to discharge BB [Battistelli] of his duties in respect of the boards, with immediate effect. M. Ernst the German representative will act ad interim. Too smart to be true?”
“Some rumours today (coinciding with the meeting of the Administrative Council and the protest in Munich) suggest that Battistelli effectively got fired.”It would be smart, yes, but it sounds unlikely to be true and all the responses to this comment are jokes, e.g. one about Battistelli being interim replacement for Ernst and this one which says: “An ad libitum [Latin for “at one’s pleasure”] President replaced by an ad interim President?”
Another said “You mean: A partial dismissal? (Is that like a partial pregnancy?) A president for the EPO, and a separate president for the BoA? The separation achieved by a mere vote of the AC?”
That can never happen of course. Here is a hypothetical humorous scenario:
Too smart to be true? Really?
[Enter two delegates of the AC]
[First delegate] Let’s stop the kid from entering the glass department – he can still play wrecking ball in the other departments …
[Second delegate] You are right, this way we don’t have to deal with his temper tantrums …
[Exit delegates]
Whatever happened today at the meeting will probably become public knowledge pretty soon. The rumour about Battistelli getting (in effect) fired may be baseless, based on private sources and also this comment which not too long ago said: “According to discreet contacts, the rumour is now that the above rumour on stripping BB of his powers over the BoA is nothing but a canard.”
“Well, with one day remaining for the meetings/sessions there is still time to contact the national delegates (they can read E-mail whilst away) and tell them why dismissal of Battistelli is crucial for saving the entire Organisation.”Rather than celebrate something that has not happened (at least not yet) let us look at new reports like this one (“Russian IP Industry At Center Of Massive Scandal” from IP Watch). This sounds eerily similar to things we heard about DZIV and SIPO under leadership of the EPO Vice-President who now faces many criminal charges in Croatia. The article is behind a paywall, so it’s hard to say what exactly the similarities may be…
As another scandal du jour, it seems apparent that some commenters at IP Kat read Techrights and one of them made a joke about the Dutch press report, which we translated before noon. “What a nice image of the European Patent Office,” said the commenter, “the Bailiff, a public official of the Netherlands, escorted off the premises of the Office by five guards without even being told where the mailbox is…
“But hey! if it is all fine with the Dutch delegation in the AC, why should everybody else complain, right?”
Well, with one day remaining for the meetings/sessions there is still time to contact the national delegates (they can read E-mail whilst away) and tell them why dismissal of Battistelli is crucial for saving the entire Organisation. Not only the survival of the Office is at stake and delegates certainly don’t want to be left out of their job. Some of them would have to — gasp — start paying dentists. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What was once illegal (abuse of animals for entertainment purposes) is acceptable under Battistelli, who treats his workers like few people even treat animals
Summary: Battistelli’s attack on justice and on the rule of law is debated among insiders who have grown increasingly impatient with the Administrative Council’s tolerance of Battistelli and sometimes even Kongstad’s amazing complicity
A terrified and/or complicit Administrative Council has been persuaded by the Office to break the rules and help break the law. This is Battistelli’s truly ugly legacy at the EPO (the Administrative Council ought to sack Battistelli, but it looks as though financial strings now exist to prevent this).
To make matters worse, as we first noted last year, the Administrative Council has itself done things which are against the rules, so maybe it too should be sacked. Its Chairman, Mr. Kongstad, helps hide Battistelli’s contracts and he continues (through inaction) to protect the thug/ringleader with his Secret Service. The EPO is now indistinguishable from state-sponsored Mafia or vigilantes, where the state is the equivalent of the Administrative Council (unwilling to step in to intervene or put an end to gross injustices).
“The EPO is now indistinguishable from state-sponsored Mafia or vigilantes, where the state is the equivalent of the Administrative Council (unwilling to step in to intervene or put an end to gross injustices).”Today the Administrative Council is meeting and right now there is a protest by staff (the weather in Munich seems acceptable for a change). They have so much to be angry about and Battistelli has so much to be punished for (if his immunity gets removed as it ought to). He is breaking even his own rules at every turn.
The one truly interesting discussion at IP Kat right now revolves around the leaked decision (we even translated the whole thing into Spanish — all 33 pages of it). To quote one new comment:
So let me get this right. You are suggesting that the ability of the President of the EPO to initiate disciplinary proceedings and/or impose a “house ban” against a member of a BoA (which was the basis of the EBoA perceiving the President’s letter as a “threat”) means that the BoAs are not “independent” from the rest of the Office.
Have I understood that correctly? If so, are you not talking more about a perception of independence? I would rather have thought that the EBoA rather demonstrated their independence in this case, by not taking the decision that the President so clearly wanted.
Of course, the point about perception of independence is an important one to address, and so I would suggest that it is essential that the procedure for removing a member of the BoA is changed (again) to eliminate all possible influence of the President of the Office on the process.
The “EPO President once more obstructs justice,” wrote one person, “and fails to inform the AC” (Administrative Council).
Is this a sackable offense? Does Konstag have the sack (pardon the vulgar pun) to do something about it? He privately (discreetly) complained about Battistelli a few months ago, but nothing came out of it. Here is another comment on the subject:
Headache old chap it might be that the construction noise is befuddling one’s brain ?
Unless I am very much mistaken the term “judicial review” when used in an international treaty like TRIPS means the review of an administrative or other decision by a judicial instance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
A “judicial instance” is commonly understood to refer to a tribunal which is independent of interference by other branches in particular the executive.
If the BoA are not free from interference by the executive then arguably they no longer comply with the TRIPS requirement.
Compliance with TRIPS is not the EPO’s problem.
But it could be a problem for the member states.
If you can’t or don’t want to understand that I suggest that you concentrate your mind on trying to fulfill your five-year plan targets and leave such issues to others. Just don’t blame me when your government is sued by the US or some other non-European state for breach of TRIPS.
Here is a reply to this:
Where does TRIPS limit itself to states having the judicial powers independent? It is NOT a requirement, however much we westerners want that to be…. See Poland, as example….
Also:
Compliance with TRIPS is not the EPO’s problem.
But it could be a problem for the member states.
Do the member states care, if they do not even care for breaches of the ECHR?
“It says “judicial”, not independent,” one person pointed out. “But by arguing that the BoA are not judges, King B. argues himself that the requirements of Art. 32 TRIPS are not fulfilled. One may ask why? Doesn’t he realise the implications or doesn’t he care at all?”
Unless Battistelli is indeed a “King”, action against him is well overdue. “Meanwhile,” one person wrote, “it appears that SUEPO is attempting to take the EPO to court again in the Netherlands. When can we expect a decision in the already-existing Dutch legal proceedings?”
As Battistelli and his minion (Minnoye) refuse to obey orders from even the highest Dutch court, where might this lead?
“Let´s not care about independent justice,” one person wrote, “but instead let us spend the applicants fees having nice and glamorous little events” (this refers to EIA and yesterday’s tweet from the EPO makes it clear that Battistelli wants to flush several more millions of Euros down the toilet, having begun preparations for another expensive charade, EIA 2017).
Under Battistelli, as this one person noted, “by no means can it be concluded that under such circumstances the EBoA is independent.” Here is the comment in full:
“I would rather have thought that the EBoA rather demonstrated their independence in this case, by not taking the decision that the President so clearly wanted.”
The EBoA apparently was forced to terminate the proceedings because their envisaged course brought a threat upon them.
Termination of the proceedings and not taking a decision on the substantive merits was the only option because both, an “unlawful” and a “lawful” decision in any case would have been vitiated (items 44-46 of the decision).
This, in my view, cannot be called “independent”.
Following your suggestion in principle the EBoA´s proceedings could always be forced to be terminated without issuing a decision on substantive merits merely by threatening the Board´s members.
Such a decision (termination of the proceedings), however, would be the direct result of the threat. Since the threat can be brought upon the members at will of the threatening party such an outcome of the proceedings (termination of the proceedings) could be brought about by the threatening party irrespective of any substantive merits of the respective case and fully at the discretion of the said threatening party.
In such a case the threatening party would be in the “driving seat” and by no means can it be concluded that under such circumstances the EBoA is independent.
One person then asked: “Aren’t you mixing up independence and partiality here? The EBA HAS made an clearly independent decision insofar as they operated in the range they considered to be free from threats. The decision also does not at all read that they took position for any of the parties involved (and parties means AC and Petitioner)”
Well, we already showed the sorts of threats issued on Battistelli’s behalf. There’s no ambiguity pr doubt about it. Here is another comment on this subject:
As long as a threat can be used by either a party to the proceedings or a third party to determine the outcome of the said proceedings (i.e. to cause termination of the proceedings at will by threatening the judges) I believe the judges cannot be independent.
I think in the present case they were impartial (The decision also does not at all read that they took position for any of the parties involved) but in order to be independent they would have had to be in a position to conduct the proceedings in a manner the board saw fit. This they were not. Had they been the outcome might have been different and a decision whereby they take position for any of the parties involved would most probably have been the outcome.
Another person asks: “Has it occurred to anybody that the EBoA took the decision not to propose dismissal of the accused member in order to terminate the proceedings and to prevent yet another attempt by the AC?”
In response to this another person wrote:
I don’t agree with you [...] As I see it, they terminated the proceedings because of the threat of the president. Since the proceedings could not be continued, they could not propose dismissal – as they were requested to.
If next time they will be able to hold proceedings in public and hear the witnesses of the IU, there should be no reason why they will not be able issue a decision on the merit of the accusations.
The guy cannot remain in a limbo without his name being cleared – or not.
Why do you think that their decision precludes another attempt by the AC – i.e., Battistelli?
“The members of the EBA should not feel threatened by any party other than the appointing authority,” wrote a person called “Barbi” (prolific commenter). Here is her (or his) message with corrected spelling mistakes/typos:
There is only one party other than the appointing authority that can propose to the appointing authority disciplinary measures in respect of the EBA members.
Therefore, when that only other exceptional party indicates that it considers the EBA to be wrong and further indicates that it intends to apply measures available thereto, then the one arguing that there is no threat to the EBA is hard-pressed to explain why the members of the EBA should not feel threatened.
The members of the EBA should not feel threatened by any party other than the appointing authority which at the same time does not have the right to propose to the appointing authority any disciplinary action. This can be accepted.
However, the only exceptional party that enjoys the explicit right to propose the disciplinary measures to the AC also “enjoys” the responsibility not to use it as a threat to the EBA.
If I wrote to the EBA that I considered their decision wrong and that I would propose disciplinary measures to the AC, the EBA would and should laugh at me, but the EBA cannot do that in case of the one exceptional party. Thus, as I do not have the right to propose any disciplinary measures, I do not have the responsibility. I can freely indicate that I will propose disciplinary measures, but this, coming from me, is not a threat to the EBA. This, coming from you-know-whom, is a bit different.
“Good luck everybody for this meeting of the Administrative Council,” concluded a comment, but we doubt much will come out of it. People we speak to do not believe that Battistelli will get sacked, so the best many people hope for is that his horrible proposals will get shot down by the delegates. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Like asking an umbrellas salesman about the upcoming weather
Reference: Peter Popoff
Summary: How patents-centric sites (some of which are in bed with the EPO) have responded to the ‘Brexit’ vote and why they’re not telling us the truth about the Unitary Patent scam (often created and promoted by the same people who run and/or fund such sites)
THERE’S increasingly strong evidence suggesting that Battistelli’s EPO is in a state of meltdown and lockdown (like an army base). It would be hilarious if this wasn’t so serious an institution (unlike FIFA), on which a lot of Europe’s future rests and where people’s lives are being severely ruined by one reckless manager who has a God complex. Recently, Battistelli’s biggest project caught on fire [1, 2] and the conspirators behind this project now rush to put out the fire (if they can). In this article we intend to show that this is still going on. Rebuttals are necessary if not imperative.
“Recently, Battistelli’s biggest project caught on fire and the conspirators behind this project now rush to put out the fire (if they can).”Putting aside some spammy press releases about newly-granted EPO patents (insiders say that patent quality significantly declined), let’s look at what UPC propagandists who are in the EPO’s (or Battistelli’s or the EPO's PR agency's) pocket say about ‘Brexit’. Their slogan right now is “keep calm and continue”. They are still trying to wish people’s way into the UPC (also in the UK!) even if it’s dead/dying as a whole. IP Kat, which spent years promoting the UPC (not Merpel but mostly her Bristows colleagues), published yesterday “A possible way for a non-EU UK to participate in the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court?”
This wrongly assumes/insinuates that the Unitary Patent can happen (any time soon) without the UK.
Quite a few revealing comments are in there (regarding the bias of the audience on this matter, as a lot would personally benefit from the UPC at the expense of everyone else in Europe). We don’t wish to amplify the UPC promotion by quoting much from there, but to quote just one comment: “Self-serving wishful thinking at best, given that Prof. Tilmann is “member of the UPC Rules of Procedure Drafting Committee and of the Expert Group for the UPC Preparatory Committee” as well as being part of a legal profession eager (to put it mildly) to start work in the UPC.”
We wrote about Tilman Müller-Stoy’s letter two days ago. He has been part of a conspiracy of patent law firms that tried to pass the UPC. To quote another comment:
It is amazing how imaginative some members of the legal profession, starting with Mr Tilmann, try to avoid the consequence of the Brexit when it comes to the UP/UPCA.
I fully support the anon/Charley of 20.39BST when he considers Mr Tillmann’s position as self-serving wishful thinking at best. I have rarely seen such a pro domo statement.
The day Points 4,a) and 4,b) in the “way forward” will be implemented pigs will fly. Amending Art 84UPCA is a no go!
The same applies with point 4,d). Do you really think that the UPC is such a fundamental point that it will find its way in the Brexit agreement as it is wished here? Please come back on Earth.
What is superbly ignored here is Opinion 1/09. The UP and the UPCA is not open to non-member states of the EU. That is the end of any loop-hole for keeping the UK in the system be it before or after the actual Brexit (Art 50 Lisbon Treaty).
Anything else is not only wishful thinking but clear nonsense.
It is difficult to understand why “The IPKat is delighted to receive [such a] paper”. I am disappointed wíth IPKat in view of this statement.
“UPC without the UK might be opening a box of Pandora of new language-based arguments,” this one person explained (there’s plenty more in there) and “English is one of the 3 languages used for EU patents,” Benjamin Henrion argued yesterday. “This gives English-speaking companies competitive advantage” (see the article titled “The EU may drop English as their official language” in light of ‘Brexit’).
“To pretend that ‘Brexit’ has no implications and that the UPC would be just fine in spite of it isn’t just wishful thinking. It’s deliberately misleading and it puts patent law professionals in a bad light.”Don’t believe even for a second that everything is OK for the UPC. The UPC propagandists spent years telling us that it was unstoppable and inevitable, but guess who was realistic all along? We were actually right about their optimism being little more than a self-fulfilling prophecy strategy, which included setting up courts and advertising jobs before there’s any confirmation of UPC in the UK. What a bundle of scandals. What an utter attack on democracy, both European democracy and British democracy (what remains of it).
We are quite frankly fed up with all the UPC propaganda and we hope that people will realise that the UPC circles — those who stand to benefit from it — are not credible or reliable on this matter. They try to mislead the public and induce defeatism among their opposition. Watch FB Rice’s Steve Gledhill stating in his new ‘analysis’ that after ‘Brexit’ it is “Business as usual for IP rights” (to quote the title). The reality is, a lot is about to change, whether those who are in denial care to acknowledge it or not. “Despite the significant political upheaval Brexit has caused, it is business as usual for European IP rights,” Gledhill argues, but he does not deal specifically with UPC (probably because that would completely shatter the whole premise of his ‘analysis’).
“Dishonesty isn’t what people pay $400/hour for.”As a Remain supporter myself, I am not happy to see ‘Brexit’. We may be losing our competitive advantage soon (English going down the languages ladder, Ireland notwithstanding). To pretend that ‘Brexit’ has no implications and that the UPC would be just fine in spite of it isn’t just wishful thinking. It’s deliberately misleading and it puts patent law professionals in a bad light. Dishonesty isn’t what people pay $400/hour for. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Entering ‘bunker mode’ (or paranoid mentality)
Summary: Battistelli has essentially turned the European Patent Office (EPO) into a barracks, where he continues to enjoy immunity from the rule of law and discourages those who wish to challenge this immunity
THERE IS a new NRC article about Battistelli’s EPO today. It helps reveal just how far the EPO’s “lines of defense” would go to protect the ‘King’, who has been busy defaming a truth-telling judge and breaking many of his own rules in the process.
“At the European Patent Office,” says yesterday’s article from French media, “the French boss ferments anti-Union culture” (that’s what the headline says, albeit a proper translation is needed). The article should say he’s against the rule of law, not just unions. The man has gone totally off the rails and he now wastes a fortune on personal bodyguards. Instead he should resign, sparing these costs and giving the EPO a chance at long-term survival. “Unfortunately,” told us one person about the French article, it is “not fully complete (no indication of the firing of staff representatives) but at least a bit of coverage” (there’s more coming in English for sure).
“It helps reveal just how far the EPO’s “lines of defense” would go to protect the ‘King’, who has been busy defaming a truth-telling judge and breaking many of his own rules in the process.”This morning, for a number of hours in fact, quite a few people told us about this article. It was published earlier this morning and Petra Kramer, a Dutch speaker, has said “it’s the same story again.”
“There is a juicy bit about the office gestapo,” she added. “A bailiff who came to deliver a subpoena was escorted out by 5 guards.”
Here is Kramer’s translation with highlights in yellow:
Union wants to repeal Battistelli’s immunity
EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE. SUEPO, the union representing EPO staff, subpoenaed the patent office. The union calls on Member States to take action against President Battistelli.
Eppo König
June 29, 2016
The immunity of President Benoît Battistelli of the European Patent Office should be repealed. SUEPO requested the 38 Member States of the Agency to do so through lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld on Tuesday.
The reason for the call is the further escalation of the labour dispute between the union and Frenchman Battistelli. The union, which represents half of the 7,000 workers, has now taken the patent office to court because of sanctions against trade unionists.
The agency grants European patents and has offices in Germany, Austria, Netherlands and Belgium. As an international organization, the patent office does not fall under national labour law and enjoys immunity. The Hague Court contested the immunity, but Battistelli has ignored that ruling. The case is now before the Supreme Court.
The administrative crisis will take center stage as the management board, meets the highest body with representatives from the 38 Member States, Wednesday and Thursday in Munich. The patent office does not want to speculate on the agenda of the management board, says a spokesman.
The management board instructed Batistelli to normalize the relation with the union in March. Instead SUEPO-Secretary Laurent Prunier was recently suspended for alleged misconduct. There are “disciplinary inquiries” for seven union officials, more than a third of the total SUEPO officials, says lawyer Zegveld. The procedures could result in dismissal or reduction in salary or pension.
The union has filed a lawsuit in the Hague court to let the judge investigate the disciplinary measures independently. The bailiff who came to deliver the subpoena was escorted off the property by five security guards. They even refused to tell him where the mailbox is.
A number of important countries, such as Germany, France and Switzerland, are very critical of Battistelli. Their irritation was recently enlarged by Batistelli who personally exercised pressure in dismissal proceedings against an Irish patent judge. Battistelli demanded in a letter that the judge would not be granted a public hearing by a Board of Appeal. The Board of Appeal stated that its independence was at stake and did not accept the dismissal.
The patent office does not respond to individual cases, said the EPO spokesman.
The EPO’s PR team is too blindly loyal to Battistelli and this isn’t too amusing. Its cowardly behaviour inadvertently reinforces/maintains the perception of secrecy at the EPO, which helps it not at all. As for half a dozen bodyguards escorting one single person, we cannot help evoking the video below again. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Europe, Patents at 3:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Lobbyists are preying on public indifference
Summary: The policies over which Indians and Europeans have kept guard are being ‘stolen’ by vested interests
Typically, when patent lawyers say they offer an analysis on something it means they try to sell something. This applies to lawyers in many areas and patent lawyers are no exception. So-called (derogatory label) ‘grease monkey’ garage workers are a suitable analogy here, as there’s a reputation among them for leaving things poorly repaired at times, in order to have returning clients and more expensive products (or services) sold.
The patent lawyers in India still lobby on software patents in the country, as usual. Seeing their list of clients helps explain why. This new ‘analysis’ titled “Aspects of Patentability of Software Programmes in India” talks about software patents in India and it is basically more of the same.
“Software patents are not entirely dead in Europe.”“Alignment with the position in US,” notes the author, as if the two system are connected somehow (except perhaps for wishful thinkers).
People need to recognise that the interests of patent lawyers are rarely the same as people’s (at large) interests. This is especially true in India and to a lesser degree in Europe, where at least many of the applicants are in fact European. Pay attention to this EPO tweets from yesterday (one among several such tweets as of late). It is almost as though they allude to software by another name now, “ICT” (not just telecommunications), and they reach out to the USPTO (as if there are foreseeable unification plans, not mere technical collaborations). Battistelli’s EPO would love to expand patent scope and unless people work hard (tirelessly every year) to prevent this, it might actually happen at the end. Software patents are not entirely dead in Europe. There’s work to be done. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Click for full view
Summary: A glimpse at what Benoît Battistelli will shortly attempt to do to the EPO, in order to cement his power in the face of growing opposition from many directions
“The proposed regulations in CA/52/16,” we have learned, “on “standards of conduct” and investigations – would give even more power to the Investigative Unit. These regulations would also impose on staff the obligation to denounce their colleagues for any behaviour that is not in line with ill-defined “standards of conduct” or a long list of possible misconducts. Significantly, this obligation does not apply to “documents, deeds, reports, notes or information covered by specific requirements of confidentiality under the legal framework of the Organisation”, i.e. to misconduct by the Investigative Unit or other parts of the administration. Previous references to data protection regulations have disappeared. The list of possible misconducts does not form part of the service regulations themselves but of revised Circular 342, the “Investigation Guidelines”, which the EPO president can change himself at any time, without approval of the Council. The non-exhaustive ‘list of possible misconducts’ is in Article 2 of the president’s proposal for a revised Circular 342 – Investigation Guidelines” (shown above, click to focus). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 12:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Another new caricature regarding the President of the European Patent Office (EPO) and lack of effective oversight from the Administrative Council (European Patent Organisation)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 12:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The latest caricature regarding the President of the European Patent Office (EPO)
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