12.23.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Do pigs know they have been patented at the EPO?
Summary: The EPO comes under fire from yet more stakeholders, after the EPO belatedly realises that patents on life are utterly absurd
AMONG many EPO scandals we have patent scope and specifically the patenting of living organisms. The EPO should never have extended the scope of patents to the point where seeds, plants and animals become subjected to patents. This led to a public relations disaster and now to a sort of retraction that harms the EPO’s reputation even more. As the law firm Marks & Clerk put it this week:
The European Patent Office (EPO) has stayed all examination and opposition proceedings relating to plants and animals obtained by essentially biological processes. This pause will give the EPO time to consider a Notice of the European Commission relating to the relevant provisions of Biotech Directive (98/44/EC). Search proceedings are not affected.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) has previously held in the Broccoli II (G2/13) and Tomatoes II (G2/12) decisions of March 2015 that Article 53(b) EPC excludes from patentability essentially biological processes for the production of a plant or animal but that the plant or animal produced by this process may be patentable. It was decided, in effect, that the exclusion was directed to the process, not the products of that process as exclusions under the EPC must be interpreted narrowly. Our previous article discusses this in more detail.
“So, let me get this right,” one person wrote about this scenario yesterday, noting that “whoever at the EPO took this action clearly never heard about the concept of separation of powers?”
Here is the full comment:
Step 1: some “concerned” groups with political clout apply pressure upon the European Commission.
Step 2: the Commission bows to that pressure and issues a note (based upon questionable legal analysis) interpreting certain legislation.
Step 3: solely upon the basis of the Commission’s note, one of the bodies tasked with “enforcing” that legislation stops following a ruling from the judiciary upon the very point covered by the Commission’s note.
Forgive me, but would I be right in thinking that whoever at the EPO took this action clearly never heard about the concept of separation of powers?
Of course, this is also another instance in which a decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal is effectively ignored by the EPO management. How long can this continue? And what will the judges in Karlsruhe make of it?
Another person wrote: “Shouldn’t it be Art 52(3) EPC (patentability) instead of Art 54(3) EPC (novelty)?”
Yet another person added: “There may be some serious Treaty impacts to deny patents in this field of technology (“reproducible” or not)”
If the EPO, led by a crazed yet totally unaccountable non-scientific autocrat like Battistelli, was left to decide on patent scope on its own, then obviously it would totally lose control, just like SIPO did (in the name of “production”).
Marks & Clerk has just published another article about the EPO, this one about Directorate Quality Support (DQS) — not to be confused with patent quality.
Complaints to the European Patent Office (EPO) are dealt with by a central EPO department known as Directorate Quality Support (DQS), which is also solely responsible for drafting and sending the official EPO response to the complainant. The default position is that both the original complaint and the reply thereto issued by DQS on behalf of the EPO are not made public, but rather are kept in the non-public part of the file to which the complaint pertains. This default position was apparently established by a decision of the President of the EPO in 2007. On the face of it, this would not appear to be a particularly contentious position, and is possibly justified given that complaints could be prejudicial to the legitimate personal or economic interests of third parties. Presumably the EPO would rather not place itself in a position of being a public outlet for any such potentially prejudicial remarks.
However, when it comes to oppositions before the EPO, a potential conflict with the above position arises owing to the conditions set out in Article 101 EPC in conjunction with Rules 79 and 83 EPC which, in summary, mandate the EPO to notify all exchanges to all parties during opposition proceedings. This would appear to include the notification by the EPO to the patent proprietor, for example, of any exchanges between the EPO, including the DQS as part of the EPO, and the opponent.
Some time in the future, potentially next year, we are going to show some letters from dissatisfied EPO costumers [sic] (that’s the term Team Battistelli likes to use, along with “production” and other business-oriented terms). We generally intend to take it up a notch next year, as salvage from Battistelli’s harm seems attainable now that most of Europe's largest economies antagonise Battistelli. The EPO as it stands at the moment is a doomed project; saving it requires major ‘reforms’ (like permanent removal of Team Battistelli). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photo credit: British government (official profile)
Summary: The British economy, which is dominated by SMEs, would be greatly harmed by the Unitary Patent if it ever became a reality, but echo chambers of the patent microcosm intentionally misrepresent such businesses and lobby politicians
THE EPO‘s management, led by an autocrat who has promoted the UPC for many years, would like us to believe that the UPC is an SME ‘thing’ (the very opposite is true).
Yesterday we saw MIP, which organised UPC propaganda events (funded by the usual suspects), trying to piggyback Sean Dennehey for UPC promotion. We wish to ensure that Dennehey knows what/who the UPC really is for, as these UPC propaganda events were set up specifically for the purpose of brainwashing public officials. The people who organise and fund such events are chronic liars, as we have chronicled here for a number of years. “Dennehey took on the role of acting chief executive following the Brexit vote earlier this year,” MIP explains, “when the IPO’s former head John Alty moved to the newly created Department for International Trade.”
Dennehey is actually a good guy. Since he took over the UK IPO (or UK-IPO) he has done something useful for a change — something that can help small businesses. He oughtn’t be seduced into the toxic illusion that the UPC would somehow help SME; it would, in reality, harm them the most.
The article from MIP is behind a paywall, but based on what is said about it (e.g. this tweet which says “Sean Dennehey outlines UK’s ‘very firm commitment’ to #UPC in wide ranging interview in @ManagingIP”), Dennehey simply ignores the fact that UPC is not compatible with Brexit and would definitely harm the UK, all for the gain of patent trolls, foreign companies, and their lawyers, which may (not necessarily) be based in London.
Why is the UPC highly unlikely to happen in the UK? revisit this 7-part series:
We remind readers that Lucy has just left her job, after she foolishly promoted the UPC, defying logic and even getting slammed for it by domain experts. As this comment from yesterday put it: “And the Baroness is now moving on (to presumably greater things rather than as any disciplinary action). New hand on the tiller? And which direction will the joining go? Steady as she goes, or hard about and head for safe waters??”
Even an ode was put together about this (already!) and it spells out “SACKED”:
S o Lucy lasted 24 weeks at full throttle
A UPC genie needs to be squeezed back in the bottle
C ould be a rolling stone gathers no moss
K ing Batters loses a chinchilla,is mourning the loss
E ager beaver sought to lay the ghost
D id Lady Garden apply for the post?
Sean Dennehey ought to know, based on discussions he had with EPO staff, that not everything he is being told by Battistelli is true. That’s applicable to the UPC as well.
He has already resisted Battistelli in the last meeting (disciplinary procedures ‘reform’ in October) and resisted the exile of the appeal boards last week (latest meeting). The latter vote did not manage to sway the overall balance against countries whose vote Battistelli is allegedly buying, but it sends out the message that large European economies don’t act like chinchillas of Battistelli. They increasingly antagonise this crazed tyrant who is burying the Office and greatly harming stakeholders (like EP holders).
The EPO should actually staff the grossly understaffed boards, but all it does under Battistelli is throwing of interns at them (tweet from yesterday, along the same lines as earlier this month); that’s how Battistelli kills them (along with other measures), some say in order to demonstrate their ‘failure’ (same tactics which are being used against the NHS) and then propose UPC as the ‘fix’. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.22.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Just doin’ his Joff…
Summary: Criticism of the continued, ever-accelerating erosion of patent quality at the European Patent Office (EPO) and shameless attempts by Battistelli to cover it up using money (EPO budget thrown at the media)
THE very few times that IAM merely took note of EPO scandals these mentions became top stories, according to figures published today by IAM’s editor. Shouldn’t IAM take that as a clue and actually engage in journalism, instead of persisting in propaganda for Battistelli? (see above)
“Shouldn’t IAM take that as a clue and actually engage in journalism, instead of persisting in propaganda for Battistelli?”The EPO, as even insiders tell us, continues to grant patents it should never have granted at all. This includes software patents. Even examiners who are against software patents eventually grant them (under pressure) and this new article should make furious anyone who has EPs. Values of EPs erode because patent quality ceased to exist under Battistelli. As the article puts it: “The European Patent Office (EPO) continues to grant many patents relating to antibodies, and in doing so applies the same patentability criteria as to other inventions. However, some commentators have suggested that antibodies are regarded as a special case by the EPO when evaluating inventive step / obviousness.”
For those who are not familiar with this domain, antibodies are (based on Wikipedia) “Y-shaped protein produced mainly by plasma cells that is used by the immune system to identify and neutralize pathogens such as bacteria and viruses.”
“The EPO, as even insiders tell us, continues to grant patents it should never have granted at all.”File this under another case of “patents on life” — a subject which even the USPTO has not been all that gullible about. Does Europe want to privatise or monopolise even fuctionalities associated with biology or the human body (naturally-recurring and found in nature)? Where does this end?
Brian Cronin, a Patent Attorney from the UK (who works in Switzerland now), has just published this article about “European inventive step” and having read the whole thing from Watchtroll (the rudest element of the patent microcosm) we are left unconvinced; nowhere does it mention the erosion of patent quality; instead if repeats the empty claims (from EPO management) of leadership on quality grounds, citing IAM of course. It concludes with this paragraph:
The EPO proudly boasts that it is consistently rated number one for patent quality among the world’s largest patent offices based on user surveys. Patent quality is also a major objective for the USPTO, who are striving to improve their lower user ratings. This article suggests that a contributing factor to the EPO’s perceived high quality is the coherent way inventive step is handled, this involving the institution of examining divisions and use of the problem-and- solution approach by the examiners and by EQE-qualified practitioners. As opposed to this, the USPTO’s lower rating can in part be explained by its piecemeal handling of obviousness and less coherent input. Improving patent quality is a mantra of the USPTO management. If they could take steps to improve the coherence in handling obviousness, improved quality would follow.
At the moment what we are seeing is that the USPTO actually does improve patent quality, resulting in less litigation and abuses, whereas under Battistelli the EPO goes in the opposite direction. Weeks ago an international patent law firm publicly stated that it’s now easier to get software patents in Europe than in the US, in spite of Europe’s ban on such patents. Lawfulness is long gone from the EPO.
When will IAM stop producing lies (whilst receiving payments from the EPO’s PR firm) and when will EPO management stop citing IAM as ‘proof’? We have already given examples where the EPO also bribes mainstream European media for puff pieces, which Battistelli later cites to support his dubious claims. Such is the corrupting influence of the Battistelli-led regime. It corrupts the media as a whole at the (very high) expense of people who apply for and maintain EPs (renewal). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.21.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The Chinchilla Man of the Administrative Council too, under Battistelli’s instructions (tail wagging the dog), tried to remove a judge
Summary: The Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation is coming under fire for its role in weakening the appeal boards and the confidence in already-granted EPs (European Patents) continues to erode
EARLIER TODAY we noted that a comments thread about the EPO‘s patent scope had turned more interesting than the ‘article’ (self-promotional piece) itself. People have been noting that this diversionary tactic from the EPO can backfire pretty badly on the EPO.
“Julian Cockbain” (possibly a pseudonym but not for sure) said that “the problem is not with Tomatoes II but with the EBoA’s craven reaction to the Biotech Directive in G-1/98. Correctly decided then, the problem would not have arisen now…”
“One more example of the fundamental lack of accountability of the executive in the European patent system.”
–AnonymousWe have been writing about this for a number of years. The EPO should never have granted patents on plants, seeds and animals in the first place. Now it pays the price and people will lose confidence in their EPs. The following three comments were all posted anonymously, presumably by domain experts afraid of retaliation for their open expression of views. “The decision by the President of the EPO [that's Battistelli] to stay all the concerned proceedings cannot be appealed before the Boards. One more example of the fundamental lack of accountability of the executive in the European patent system,” said one comment. Yes, it helped expose how out-of-control the EPO has become.
Another comment said that “it’s clear that in the long term the Enlarged Board cannot remain independent of the EU, particularly once [sic] the UPC is up and running” (that should be if, not once). The boards are in general under attack from Battistelli, who is pushing hard for the UPC and will sort of oversee the boards until a UPC booster finally becomes their President (see some background on Carl Josefsson's role in UPC training). To quote the full comment: “The EPO chose to bring itself under the jurisdiction of the EU when it brought the Biotech Directive into the EPC rules. Now it has to stay proceedings to sort this all out. There is no point granting/maintaining patents which are not valid according the Biotech Directive. It’s clear that in the long term the Enlarged Board cannot remain independent of the EU, particularly once the UPC is up and running and presumably the CJEU will then be looking at patent cases at lot more regularly as the final appeal court for the UPC. We clearly cannot have 2 final patent courts in Europe and this is a good opportunity to start the process of allowing the CJEU to take over the responsibilities of the Enlarged Board.”
“As the EBA did not abide by the wishes of the AC (and of the president) in this matter, it was relocated to Haar.”
–AnonymousOne person asked: “Why bother about separation of powers? It started with the house-ban of a member of the BA by the president of the EPO a while ago. It continued. As the EBA did not abide by the wishes of the AC (and of the president) in this matter, it was relocated to Haar. As long as the AC has not amended the Rules, there is no objective reason to stay any proceeding. By staying the proceedings, the BA are also touched. Another good way to retaliate.”
We recently argued that the Administrative Council was complicit and under the control of Battistelli rather than it being the other way around (as it ought to be). As the Administrative Council is controlled by Battistelli's pet chinchilla (alluding to the darker side of his life), this is hardly surprising. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
So long Lucy and thanks for nothing…
Summary: ‘Battistelli’s women’ seem to have been removed from their job, only days after Battistelli’s Vice-President Mini Minion (Minnoye) quietly announced his early exit from the EPO
THE EPO‘s management is starting to shake up as affairs have been rocky and criticism comes from the European media (except German media) on a more regular basis. As for Lucy, showing off her connections to Battistelli (see photo above), she too is out, not long after we leveled/directed criticism at her, speaking against what she did (as did other people, usually anonymously).
For details regarding what Lucy did, revisit this 7-part series:
Combine this with the planned departure of Minnoye, a principal/key part of Team Battistelli. We are not the only ones celebrating the news about EPO’s Vice-President Minnoye resigning. Here is a new comment (from today) about it:
Let VP1 never forget that life and the world are what we make them by our social character; by our adaptation or want of adaptation to the social conditions, relationships, and pursuits of the world.
To the selfish, the cold, and the insensible, to the haughty and presuming, to the proud, who demand more than they are likely to receive, to the jealous, ever afraid they shall not receive enough, to those who are unreasonably sensitive about the good or ill opinions of others, to all violators of the social laws, the rude, the violent, the dishonest, and the sensual, to all these, the social condition, from its very nature, will present annoyances, disappointments, and pains, appropriate to their several characters.
The benevolent affections will not revolve around selfishness; the cold-hearted must expect to meet coldness; the proud, haughtiness; the passionate, anger; and the violent, rudeness.
Those who forget the rights of others, must not be surprised if their own are forgotten; and those who stoop to the lowest embraces of sense must not wonder, if others are not concerned to find their prostrate honour, and lift it up to the remembrance and respect of the world.
Lucy Neville-Rolfe is out too, only a few weeks after her UPC debacle. Here is the only report about it (that we have found so far). Interesting timing. Perhaps she didn’t like what people said or maybe her supervising authority took into account what people had said about her appalling decisions. Hard to tell without some leaks that help shed light on that foolish, ill-informed move from Lucy…
“Out,” MIP says this afternoon, “Baroness Neville-Rolfe.” This news is evidently very fresh: “The government announced today that Baroness Neville-Rolfe has been appointed as Commercial Secretary (Minister of State) at the Treasury, meaning she will leave her current post at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).”
What will that mean for the Unitary Patent? Nothing good, that’s for sure. The assurances came from Lucy (intention to ratify), so what happens now?
This following new comment suggests somewhat of a chaotic situation in EPO HR (and by extension the management) right now, just shortly after Bergot had another go at entrapping SUEPO (only to be rebuffed). Someone who looked at the phone book said this about Bergot and Nadja Merdaci-Lefèvre (mentioned last year):
Also heard another interesting development so far remained rather unoticed but which shows that there are big cracks in Battistelli’s galaxy:
The FR ex Lieutnant-colonel from intelligence services (don’t laugh) who had been recruited at administrator’s level by PD HR to officially deal with “social dialogue and communication” (actually she worked at preparing files to charge SUEPO officials to get them fired) and then bombarded within no time at director’s level (after another fake selection procedure), would now be back to square one (see the phone book).
Game over, exit the “social dialogue” work with PD HR.
Apparently a sudden and rather unexpected change of both dept and function (now she is simple Private “head of service” position in charge of security). At first glance this position would suit better her profile but when one remembers the shamble around the dismissals…one may worry for “security at EPO”.
In any case something big must have happened between the two ladies who once were the best pales in town. Trusting PD HR is a risky bet: the later acts exactly as her mentor (Battistelli) does: find one to blame with her wrongdoings.
Loyalty is really overrated
If anyone could kindly take it upon him/herself to investigate this and send us some information, we would greatly appreciate it. Where there is smoke there is usually a fire. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Those who will suffer the most are investors in EPs that no longer have a high perceived (or even practical) value
Summary: People correctly point out that the institutional crisis at the EPO extends to aspects other than fake trials against staff and affects actual stakeholders, who have pumped billions of Euros into the EPO only to see EPs turn to dust (or their value diminish considerably)
THE EPO has been rather quiet after the latest meeting of the Administrative Council, but union-busting attempts are still being made, even a week or so before Christmas.
At IP Kat, writers are still publishing friends’ and colleagues’ pieces. First it was Bristows that 'hijacked' IP Kat for UPC propaganda (to reach a broader audience and promote an agenda); now it’s EIP that sort of does the same with Darren Smyth having a colleague over, at least with disclosure (“This Kat is grateful to his colleague Andrew Sharples”). As a reminder, Smyth too is part of the UPC echo chamber and this article about the EPO was mentioned here briefly earlier this week. We will cover this today because the comments are noteworthy, more so than the article itself. As nearly everyone points out, the EPO behaves irresponsibly, as usual, probably in preparation for spin about patent quality at the EPO.
“One could argue that there is no provision in the EPC to deny applicants the patent they are entitled to by staying the proceedings and that the EPO is therefore acting “contra legem”,” one person wrote. Here is another take on it:
It is outrageous that the EPO is staying proceedings, whilst presumably still collecting renewal fees. I would love to know the legal basis for doing this.
The staying of opposition proceedings is perhaps even more absurd. This will simply mean that opposed patents will remain valid and enforceable unless and until a national court decides on their validity. If the EPO thinks the patents aren’t valid the indefinitely staying opposition proceedings is achieving the exact opposite as it has completely removed an Opponent’s opportunity to invalidate a granted European Patent.
“I can understand the EPO carrying on with searches for first applications and PCT filings but for other EP application,” another person insisted, “it does not make sense. If the EU guidance finds its way into the EPC, applicants might wish to withdraw their application and the search fee will only be refunded if the search has not yet started. Further, with publication of the search report, the applicant would be required to respond to the objections raised, for which they would not have the benefit of knowing how the rules were to be changed.”
“Jurisprudence is not highly esteemed in the EPO These days,” noted another person. “The EU-Commission, responsible for the BioT Directive, the model for Rule 26 EPC, can dictate how Article 53b and Rule 26 EPC are to be applied. Separation of Powers?”
Well, that is long gone! Look at the EPO itself. It’s a clusterfunk [sic]. Another person wrote that “the evidence, moral argument or even legal basis for “Patent protection is not appropriate for such procedures and their products” appears nowhere. Wish I could say that this surprised me.”
Lack of respect for actual laws is now a hallmark of everything that happens at the EPO, including so-called ‘disciplinary procedures’. A comment from another thread claimed that the attack on actual “independent” judges (collective punishment) whom Battistelli does not like “is mere retaliation, not only from the president but also from the AC.” Here is the full comment:
By no means I approve the transfer to Haar. But one thing has to be clear: it is mere retaliation, not only from the president but also from the AC.
Both have never accepted that the EBA has not acted in the way they wanted in the case of the suspended member.
It therefore remains a disgrace if the legislative and the executive try to interfere with the judicial. Separation of powers is a fundamental guarantee which should not be tampered with.
One of the members of the EBA who participated in the decision Art 23 has retired. Normally when a chairman of a BA retires, there is an article in the internal journal of the EPO (the Gazette). For this chairman, there is nothing. Is this a mere coincidence? I doubt it.
And going back to the other thread, another comment along the same lines:
It would be very interesting to read or watch an interview with the Administrative Council members presenting their vision(s) on the implementation of rule of law at the European Patent Office.
In particular, how the cornerstones of rule of law are seen by the Administrative Council:
Legality, i.e. legislative powers belonging to a representative body;
Balance/separation of powers, i.e. balance of legislative, executive, and judicial powers;
Independent judiciary, i.e. review of decisions and interpretation of law by an independent body.
The European Patent Office is in charge of taking generally binding decisions for the territory of 38 European countries, which implies adherence to rule of law as a fundamental principle of governance.
“The European Patent Office is in charge of taking generally binding decisions for the territory of 38 European countries,” says the key part, yet not many people — certainly not the German media — ever bother reporting about the many scandals. A comment posted in The Register offered the following advice to EPO staff (similar to advice from Florian Müller):
Find alternative work?
Those who really matter, those who scrutinize patents, are highly skilled. Surely they would be warmly welcomed in almost any tech company. When the EPO just grinds to a halt that should concentrate a few of those flabby minds.
Leaving the EPO can actually make things worse in the sense that it lets Team Battistelli replace veteran staff with temporary, clueless, inexperienced “rubber-stampers”, fulfilling what seems to be his awful vision for the EPO (replace the “P” with an “R” for Registration). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.20.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Union busters in sheep’s clothing (another couple of traps from Battistelli and his mate’s wife)
Summary: Battistelli and his goons continue to try exploiting the politeness and good manners of staff representatives, but perhaps it’s time to step up the activity of the union (making it akin to activism, as they’re clearly not dealing with an ordinary ‘partner’)
SO THEN… Elodie Bergot, the mistress of injustice at the EPO (Battistelli’s henchwoman who throws false charges at people in order to render them unemployed, especially if they’re in the union), has been trying to entrap SUEPO again, in order to save face or keep up appearances, making it appear as though Battistelli is interested in union recognition while in reality he busts the unions like a madman, even when explicitly asked by his ‘supervisors’ (turned chinchillas) to refrain from doing so. What an evil woman! It’s not exactly surprising considering how she got her job at the EPO [1, 2, 3, 4]. Perfect fit for Battistelli. Here is the latest letter, dated yesterday, sent by SUEPO in response to the above letters, which are laughable at best given some of the latest developments.
19 December 2016
su16141cl – 4.6
Re-opening of discussions
Dear Mr Battistelli,
We refer to the letter of Ms Bergot dated 12 December 2016, inviting SUEPO to “resume discussion on the recognition of unions”. Before any return to the negotiation table, we need to clarify what the discussions should be about:
- Any discussion on how to “negotiate” would, we believe, be superfluous in a system that was broadly “in line with fundamental rights”.
- Any further discussion to try and persuade SUEPO to accept the same MoU signed by FFPE is pointless when, as stated in Ms Bergot’s letter of 14 November 2016, the Office is unwilling to deviate in any way from the existing text. If the Office is not open to negotiating a MoU to the satisfaction of both parties, there is nothing to discuss. A MoU should be the formal, written acknowledgement of a negotiated and agreed procedure on a particular issue: it is not a capitulation from one party to the unilaterally determined terms and conditions of another. For the avoidance of any doubt, we believe your MoU is so biased, that it practically asks the Union to abdicate its fundamental rights. Under these circumstances, there would appear to be nothing further for us to discuss on the current proposal.
- However, as you stated in the last Administrative Council meeting you would be prepared for to hold discussions without any precondition. Thus, this could be a way forward. We would like to remind you that these discussions should be held within the tripartite negotiation framework.
Furthermore, we remind you that prior to resuming discussions, we asked the Office to assure our officials that they will enjoy a safe environment within which negotiations take place. Again, this would normally be a “given” in a system broadly “in line with fundamental rights”. However, as recent events have clearly shown, this seems to be far from the case in the EPO, where the President apparently ignores even the instructions of the highest legislative and supervisory body in the EPO, the Administrative Council.
As already indicated by the staff representatives and repeated in the last Council meeting, the basis to restart any social dialogue is to follow-up and implements the Council resolution of March this year.
One of the stipulations was that disciplinary proceedings need to be “seen to be fair”: this means that pending the provision of revised and new investigation and disciplinary proceedings, any ongoing investigation or disciplinary proceedings must be suspended. Please note that this was reiterated by the Council.
Furthermore, the already imposed disciplinary sanctions against staff representatives and union officials need also to be seen to be fair. Again, in line with the Council resolution, this would require to withdraw or at least suspend the sanctions pending a review of the cases with “the involvement of an external reviewer or of arbitration or mediation”.
We note that in the recent Council you committed to present revised investigation, disciplinary and dispute resolution procedures for approval in the June 2017 Council. We are prepared to contribute to any discussions on these issues within the framework of the tripartite negotiations.
We also note the attempt in the final sentence of Ms Bergot’s letter (of 12 December 2016) to dictate who may or may not be part of SUEPO’s negotiating team. Any such limitation constitutes an interference with our fundamental freedom of association.
To conclude: the reopening of any discussions (including those on union recognition) is in your hands: commit to implementing the unanimous Council resolution; commit to recognising and enforcing fundamental rights; be open to bona fide negotiations through genuine dialogue; treat us as an equal social partner. Under these very normal conditions, we can surely work something out.
Our message to SUEPO: don’t fall for it.
Readers of ours have been insisting for a while that SUEPO has been far too gentle and courteous with Battistelli, who is an aggressive, manipulative thug. There’s no room for negotiation with someone like this, unless one wishes to be hired by him to become a mercenary.
People we speak to (not even from the EPO) believe that SUEPO should escalate and start treating Battistelli as a combative, irrational person, not as a President. Otherwise they might continue to be crushed and repressed. One thing they can do is represent themselves anonymously (no names, no publicly-known structure).
“Bureaucracy is spreading like cancer cells,” argued another person. So is corruption, bribery, fraud, etc. The EPO is full of that and it threatens those brave enough to point that out. Here is the full comment, which deals with the lack of large countries voting to send appeal boards away (while Battistelli gives "carrots" to small countries whose vote are of equal weight).
If the big ones complain about being outvoted by the small countries, why did neither UK, FR,… request a weighted vote?
This has a financial impact, so they have a right to request it…
What about INCOMPETENCE? why should EPO’s admin council be better staffed than the EU? Bureaucracy is spreading like cancer cells. Those who dispose upon expertise are mobbed until they shut up so that minions and accolytes of the tyran concentrate all power to serve the will of the chosen one…
If you could see them live you would not believe it ! pathetic, sad, and of course self-destructing
At the EPO, as another person put it, “Private Minnoye ends his professional career in disgrace.” The following long comment explained this also in relation to the staff union, SUEPO:
After having served the soup to his master loyaly during 5 years, having endured all kinds of vexatious statements from Battistelli who is known to behave like a spoiled child, having worked 24/7 (even with broken rips!!!) to please his Chef at all costs, Private Minnoye ends his professional career in disgrace.
Sent home some would say kicked out almost like a SUEPO official, “for private reasons” the official story telling has it. However little birds have it that VP1 would have lost his position after numerous failures among which those below for which “a head at to roll” and preferably not that of the Grand Battistelli of course:
- Minnoye would have embarassed himself (no worries: he did not notice it) and the EPO when he gave his amazing interview to the Dutch TV (remember when he stated one day before the Cassatie hearing that the EPO would not respect the decision of the Cassatie should it be against the EPO, or that all investigations against SUEPO officials were a mere ‘toefal’);
- Minnoye would not have been able to manover via his usual ‘free masons’ network and avoid the public debate soon to be organised in the Dutch parliament (about despicable social situation at EPO);
- Minnoye would also pay for the work quality which is going down the drain as never before (major applicants in particular in NL and DE would have complained at the highest political levels);
- A culprit had to be found for the miserable failure of the IT Roadmap (above and over 100 Mio EUR of EPO money (actually applicants’ money) were wasted in a few years by a handful of utterly incompetent actors). Here Battistelli decided to preserve his personal friend (René Kraft (FR) whom he recruited and bombarded at the head of IM with all freiraum to do what he wanted and who so far pathetically failed to deliver a single IT program worth 1/10th of the price paid). The solution was a no-brainer for Battistelli: protect his friend Kraft and get rid the old flemmish Private Minnoye;
- Finally the EPO ‘Trump-like bling tower’ in construction in TH (by a FR star architect) is late on schedule. This is likely to have a little (read A LOT OF) impact financially with costs sky rocketing soon. Thereto Minnoye is said to have failed (as site manager for The Hague to keep this on tracks).
Remember ABBA’s lyrics ?
Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man’s world
In another thread someone mentioned the yellow union, FFPE-EPO, as follows:
the Union FFPE-EPO always points out, that the beloved MoU is a “Gentleman’s Agreement”.
Now it becomes clear, why the “official union” never complains. They knew right from the start how they’ll be treated, and are happy to sit at a table, to discuss things that are neither urgent, nor in need of their input anyway….
Here is a message about Mr. Prunier (LP) from SUEPO. Ion Brumme and Laurent Prunier are currently receiving bread funds (“Broodfonds”) from colleagues whom they represented and defended (with one-off donations and standing orders). The message said:
I supported IB with a one-off, and subsequently supported and will support LP with monthly donations for the next years to come. But I only get feedback from LP, as I am not in the mailing lists for Munich…
They both risked a lot for us, and for that I would be more than ungrateful if I would not spend a bit…
I hope they continue their fight, and see the money as a kind of salary to invest their time for the union and the fight against the way the rules have been implemented.
But life is frustrating, and I do understand that they may need some time to take a step backwards.
Especially LP with what happened in his private life recently.
The EPO is not a patent office. It has become something political and something deeply disturbing where budget is thrown at relatives, friends, and is increasingly used as a vehicle for corrupting the media, buying ‘favours’, mislead the public and so on. SUEPO needs to get even stronger and if fear of retaliation (or “reprisal” as they call it) is enough to discourage some from participating, then harness anonymity-preserving tools and give the EPO’s management a good fight because the EPO simply self-detonates under Battistelli (that’s exactly where the EPO has been heading).
Staff unions exist to exercise of exert control over the institutions staff works for; right now there is one person turning not just the Office into a toy (for him to break) but also the Administrative Council into a toothless laughing stock. The whole Organisation is compromised and staff has a duty to serve stakeholders, including Europeans, not just some lunatic in a suit.
Save the EPO before it’s too late. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Driving away the senior staff and bringing in temporary staff to just rubberstamp applications? Good for lawyers, no doubt…
Reference: Loose Patent Scope Becoming a Publicity Nightmare for the EPO and Battistelli Does a China Outreach (Worst/Most Notorious on Patent Quality)
Summary: The EPO is quickly turning from the world’s leading patent office (on quality criteria) into one of the worst (as European patent lawyers too gradually dare admit)
WHEN this Web site was founded (2006) the EPO had already accepted that software was not patentable (before loopholes “as such”). The EPO was the least of our concerns! We were actually proud to say that software patents were no longer (much of) a problem in Europe.
Battistelli ruined the EPO in so many ways, including patent scope. He treats patent-granting (or examination) processes like a production line, where the goal is to produce as much as possible as quickly as possible (patents were never like this!) and this is what he calls “success”.
What can a President do when staff realises that examination is no longer being done improperly because of unrealistic “production” expectations? A reasonable President would listen to the staff and correct/rectify the error. But Battistelli is no President but a King and a ruthless tyrant. He’ll never ever admit an error. He’s crazy!
“Thinking of applying to Praktika Intern? Applications close on 31 January 2017,” the EPO wrote today, promoting that same trend of picking interns rather than experienced full-time employees (who are walking away or find themselves illegally dismissed based on trumped-up/made-up charges, or simply fail to reach impossible-to-fulfill quotas).
Make no mistake about it. The EPO grants A LOT of patents IN ERROR. Insiders told us so. They know so. They’re embarrassed to say so, but they feel compelled by ethics.
Last week the EPO pulled off a publicity stunt ahead of the meeting which was supposed to bring up the subject of patent quality. It’s about patents on plants. Here is a new article about it (shallow because it’s composed by the patent microcosm):
The European Commission Disagrees with the European Patent Office on the Patentability of Plants and Plant Parts Produced by Essentially Biological Processes
Following last year’s decisions by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) on referrals G 2/12 and G2/13 (“Tomatoes II” and “Broccoli II”), the European Commission (“Commission”) issued an interpretative Notice on certain articles of the Directive 98/44/EC—known as the Biotechnology Directive—stating their view that when adopting Directive 98/44/EC, the EU legislator’s intention was to exclude from patentability products (plants/animals and plant/animal parts) that are obtained by means of essentially biological processes.
[...]
The European Commission Disagrees with the European Patent Office on the Patentability of Plants and Plant Parts Produced by Essentially Biological Processes
Following last year’s decisions by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) on referrals G 2/12 and G2/13 (“Tomatoes II” and “Broccoli II”), the European Commission (“Commission”) issued an interpretative Notice on certain articles of the Directive 98/44/EC—known as the Biotechnology Directive—stating their view that when adopting Directive 98/44/EC, the EU legislator’s intention was to exclude from patentability products (plants/animals and plant/animal parts) that are obtained by means of essentially biological processes.
Andrew Sharples, head of practice group EIP Life (patent microcosm), wrote for IP Kat about this a short whole ago and said:
The EPO announced on 12 December that it has stayed all examination and opposition proceedings relating to plants and animals obtained by an essentially biological process. This is because of a notice of the European Commission questioning the availability of patents in these fields.
Following the Broccoli and Tomato cases (G2/12 Tomatoes II and G3/12 Broccoli II, discussed on the IPKat here), the Enlarged Board of the EPO ruled that even where an essentially biological process for the production of a plant or animal is not patentable, the resultant animal or plant may itself be patentable. This was on the basis that, effectively, the exclusion under Art. 54(3) EPC was an exclusion of a process, and there was no basis for giving this Article a broader interpretation.
This decision did not go unnoticed by the powers of the EU, and in December 2015, the European Parliament adopted a resolution asking the European Commission to look into the patentability of products of essentially biological processes. This resulted, on 3 November, in the Commission adopting a Notice on certain articles of the Biotech Directive (2016/C 411/03), in which the Commission took a different view from that of the Enlarged Board.
Well, the Enlarged Board of the EPO may not last much longer. Battistelli is in the process of squashing it because, based on a growing mountain of evidence, it doesn’t blindly accept Battistelli’s views and to make matter worse it’s actually granted — GASP — independence from the Office. That is absolutely not acceptable in Battistelli’s view, which is why he insisted that the chinchillas of the Council should send those people to exile (as they finally did a few days ago).
Battistelli has totally dismantled the EPO even on technical grounds. Battistelli is far from a technical person, so he can probably lie to himself about it with ease. █
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