08.09.16
Posted in Europe, Finance, Patents at 10:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Benoît Battistelli is wasting money and is driving the EPO into a wall
And with the UK’s diminishing hopes of UPC, what would he have left to show for it?
Summary: Based on the latest financial statements of the EPO, Benoît Battistelli would have to declare bankruptcy if he wasn’t so unaccountable and dismissive of accounting
THE EPO does not appear to be doing too well under Battistelli’s management, even from a fiscal point of view. He made his contract a closely-guarded secret with some saying that he doubled (or more) his salary (a massive salary in the context of any public office in the EU), he is wasting millions of Euros on his ludicrous lobbying events, he hired PR agencies even from the US (over a million dollars on that alone for just one year), and he pretends all is well and the money flows in like water while many senior examiners take early retirement to escape him.
“Benoît Battistelli will surely be remembered as one who crashed the EPO as we once knew it, emitting lots of worthless patents in haste like Robert Mugabe printing lots of worthless banknotes…”Extensive surveillance (Control Risks) and militarised forces including unnecessary bodyguards that cost a fortune are among other ‘luxuries’ of Battistelli, even if some of these defy European laws. Then there are the massive contracts without tenders (even tens of millions of Euros for each contract), the terrible IT spendings that make it into a black hole, and other budgetary issues that we have covered here over the years.
Suffice to say, those who will pay the price are past and present (and maybe future) employees; none of that stuff, as listed above, is free/gratis after all. Battistelli runs the EPO like Bush ran the US (into debt, into totally avoidable war, and into the ground on grounds of credibility). Here is a comment that showed up today, claiming (with evidence) that “the EPO shows an operating loss (of EUR 145 million), largely due to an increase of over EUR 260 million in “Employee benefit expenses”.” Here is the full comment:
What do you mean by a surplus? I am no accountant, but it appears to me that the latest financial statement (for 2015) produced by the EPO shows an operating loss (of EUR 145 million), largely due to an increase of over EUR 260 million in “Employee benefit expenses”.
http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/6C4CC693A4FAA752C1257FE2004A2CE8/$File/financial_statements_2015_en.pdf
I know that the figures presented need to be taken with a pinch of salt, especially due to the lack of oversight in the preparation of the figures. However, even the “sanitised” figures show what appears to be a huge hole in the pension fund. That is, there are liabilities of EUR15,828 million relating to “defined benefits”, which completely dwarfs the EPO’s current equity of less than EUR8,000 million. It also dwarfs the current assets of the pension, which were reported as just under EUR6,600 million.
I would be keen to know what “Remeasurement defined benefit obligations” means, though. This is because the EPO appears to have found over EUR4,750 million down the back of the sofa in 2015 thanks to that little accounting trick.
This does raise an interesting question, though. Has BB been brought in to deal with the black hole in the pension fund? Can the major effects of his policies be understood as being aimed at maximising current operating profit and minimising pension liability? If so, it would appear that EPOnia is a microcosm of society at large, with current workers (and users of the system) effectively paying the price for the over-generous benefits awarded to the generation that preceded them.
A lot of these expenses are associated with early departures — something which, as we pointed out yesterday, happened a lot in the past two years because of Battistelli and his ‘reforms’.
Benoît Battistelli will surely be remembered as one who crashed the EPO as we once knew it, emitting lots of worthless patents in haste like Robert Mugabe printing lots of worthless banknotes (“231 million percent peak hyperinflation in 2008,” according to Wikipedia). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Under Battistelli, the European Patent Office (EPO) simply neglects examination and turns examiners into machine operators
Context: “The Luddite movement emerged during the harsh economic climate of the Napoleonic Wars”
Summary: Benoît Battistelli is breaking to pieces the world’s leading patent system, which took decades to build and refine, in order to increase what he foolishly labels ‘production’ (a race to the bottom)
THE EPO, based on insider knowledge, is not just repeating the mistakes of the USPTO but becoming even worse than the USPTO. Patent quality, say workers, is declining to the point where things will become irreversibly grim. “Apparently,” one person wrote yesterday, “the EPO is quickly turning into a registration system,” which means that Battistelli has killed the EPO as an examination office. Do people high up in Europe even care? Do they realise how much damage this would cause? The PR drones are keeping Battistelli in house and calling, now on a daily basis (sometimes several times per day), for European Inventor Award 2017 nominations. It is a wasteful lobbying event which promises to do nothing but empty the EPO’s coffers for publicity points (scored by Battistelli himself, at the expense of the EPO). They are also propping up a dead forum and advertising an event organised in “close co-operation with” a think tank/lobbying group (warning: mouse-clicks can be spied on by EPO) that is in favour of software patents and is connected to the world’s largest trolls (like Intellectual Ventures). It’s the same IPO (not to be confused with UK-IPO) which was against patents in ACTA and is against Alice. “This high-level event is organised in close co-operation with the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO),” the EPO says. What does that tell us about the EPO’s neighbourhood now? Patent trolls, proponents of software patents, and US businesses that favour software patents? The EPO does not care about patent quality and scope anymore. All it cares about is so-called ‘production’, even if that means fudging the figures and throwing away quality control (including the appeal boards, which are being thrown overboard).
Sooner of later all this ‘cheapening’ of patents will result in garbage quality and people may start asking questions like, “was your EP a pre-Battistelli or post-Battistelli one?” (in other words, is it of high quality of just rubberstamped for quick and temporary gains?). As one person put it yesterday:
The private suepo web site can only be accessed from within the office, so I had no access during my holiday. Back to work, I checked the post from Berlin and can indeed confirm what “BoardMember” has cited.
Apparently, the EPO is quickly turning into a registration system…
Well, Battistelli has killed the old EPO and created a new kind of monster. Would people be willing to pay the high fees anymore? If so, for how much longer? Here are some more details from SUEPO Berlin, which resemble the vision of people replaced by primitive machines for vastly inferior prior art search and for corporate profits through outsourcing:
Back to work, I checked what people think about the future of the united patent. Apparently, management is still confident that they can push the UK to join before the end of the year.
How do they think they can achieve that, I do not know. But we have had so many surprises in the past year, that I would not take a bet either way.
Something else: there is a rumor that the EPO will change their examination ways. It is true. It is on the Berlin suepo website and there is a powerpoint around, which will be presented to the examiners. Basically, the examiners are supposed to run an automatic search, not object clarity, send one single communication to the applicant if there are doubts about novelty or inventive step, simply accept the response and grant. All this within a year. The other members are instructed not to check any more and they will get warnings if the granted file lingers too long. Management wants the complete backlog gone in 4 years.
There will also be an assessment center for recruiting new examiners (not sure about that, decision is not out yet). Apparently, some directors are refusing to recruit many candidates for lack of competence and recruitment cannot meet their targets. Therefore the responsibility of recruiting will be taken from the directors and put into the hands of the new assessment center.
It is a completely different Patent Office that is being created under our eyes. What I don’t understand is where the money will go: at present, the EPO is producing a plus of several hundred millions Euros a year (and that with the costs of a new building in the Hague). If we are suddenly producing many more patents a year, the surplus will shoot to the roof. That, and we are paying the new examiners a lot less and nudging the more expensive older ones to early retirement and retirement benefits will be cut massively. In 4 years, when we have no stock left, how much will the surplus be? A billion a year or more? Maybe that is how Battistelli plans to convince the UK to stay?
It sure looks as though patent examiners now share the same concerns we have (for a number of years now). Patent lawyers get their way by lowering the bar and as noted yesterday, a post by a Bristows employee (i.e. part of Team UPC which lobbies the British government along with Battistelli) said that “The Intellectual Property Office [the other IPO] responds to Brexit, highlighting that EU-derived protection is still in place while the UK remains a Member of the EU, and that the UK is looking into various post-Brexit options.”
This is about attempts to ratify the UPC in spite of Brexit and in spite of UPC being squarely against the interests of British citizens, not just British engineers.
There is a lot of nefarious stuff going on these days and the EU is piggybacked to advance the interests of few shadowy groups, essentially by legislative laundering. SUEPO, as of yesterday, expresses concern about revolving doors and systemic corruption in the EU. “The USF issued a Communiqué on 20 July 2016 in which they reproduce an open letter (EN, FR) sent to Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission about the Barroso case,” SUEPO wrote. Here is the original in full:
An open letter to: Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission
Re: The Barroso case
Mr Juncker, is the « last chance » you gave to this Commission being used up?
The recruitment of Mr Barroso by the sadly notorious Goldman Sachs investment bank sent a shock wave through European public opinion.
As several Press media have pointed out, this shameful move is further widening the gap between two worlds, of the elites on the one hand and the citizens on the other and is likely to strengthen and consolidate the persistent –and most recently highlighted by Brexit– blame thrown on the EU institutions: that of acting in collusion with global finance to the detriment of the European citizens’ interests.
According to Article 245 of the TFEU, the Members of the Commission give a solemn undertaking that, “both during and after their term of office, they will respect (…) the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits”. The case of Mr Barroso is so blatant that no internal document, such as a ‘Code of Conduct’, besides introduced by Mr Barroso himself, can be relied upon to defeat a clear and unconditional Treaty provision.
Union Syndicale Fédérale1 requests President Juncker that his Commission –“the last-chance Commission”, to put it in his own words– proceed without delay to the preliminary acts in view to applying to the Court of Justice.
It will then be for the European Court to judge whether Mr Barroso, by accepting a position of responsibility with Goldman Sachs, has broken or not his “duty of discretion” required by the Treaty and to determine possible consequences (including loss of the right to a pension).
Bernd LOESCHER, president USF
Over the years we wrote quite a few articles about Goldman Sachs. If entities like these get access to EU corridors through the likes of Barroso, why wouldn’t US businesses be able to gain access to institutions like the EPO, where discriminatory practices are already rampant under Battistelli (after Microsoft pressured the EPO)?
The EPO is under attack. It’s under attack from Battistelli and his masters, who are evidently not European taxpayers or European SMEs. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.08.16
Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 5:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Willy/Guillaume Minnoye (VP1) was at one point rumoured to be on his way out, so maybe that is still the case
THE EPO is probably Europe’s most notorious institution these days (worse than FIFA). This isn’t the fault of patent examiners but of top-level management which decided to treat examiners like an enemy and impose unreasonable demands.
“For a person his age, it would not count as early retirement but as late retirement (he was never supposed to have this post in the first place).”Working for Battistelli is difficult enough as an examiner, but even for those working for him at top-level management it has become hard and stressful. Recently, as we wrote earlier this summer, Ciaran McGinley resigned (set to retire early). As Principal Director of Patent Administration, his departure is a very big deal, but he’s not alone. Many people are leaving the Office and there are ways for retrieving some statistics; there are staff changes published every month and anyone in the office can read them. Based on these, one can easily see the increase in retirements over the last couple of years (we don’t know if anybody has already done that) and some people told us that it is indeed the case. Several sources told us the same thing and some people wrote anonymous comments about it online.
Earlier this year we learned that Principal Directors were starting to scrabble around with an eye on the VP1 post (that would be Minnoye’s post, around the time he embarrassed himself on Dutch TV). It was premature at the time to circulate rumours that Minnoye might be leaving and in fact he did not leave*. Given his age (past retirement age), maybe it’s just a matter of time. For a person his age, it would not count as early retirement but as late retirement (he was never supposed to have this post in the first place). █
_________
* “Mrs Elodie Bergot has apparentlly [sic] resigned,” one person claimed at the time, but it turned out to be false. We never published this rumour; we refuted it.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 4:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No transparency, no accountability (more greed and lawlessness)
Summary: Rumours about the amount of money Benoît Battistelli gets paid to ruin the European Patent Office (EPO), which has become more secretive and accordingly reckless
FOR a number of years now (not just months) people have wondered how much money Battistelli gets paid (money extracted from EPO budget without any proper oversight). Staff of the EPO does not trust Battistelli at all. Asking for transparency/details of Presidential salary should not be out of the ordinary as previous Presidents, a la Alison Brimelow (Battistelli’s predecessor at the Office), openly stated their salary and there was no confrontation about it. Battistelli is different because some say that Bergot, his friend’s wife (Elodie Bergot), increased his salary and/or bonus. We want to catch him in a lie right now, not because we have something against him personally but because the secrecy he brought to the EPO (definitely worse than in Brimelow’s days) hurts the credibility of the Office and damages — by extension — Europe’s reputation for accountability and relatively low corruption rates.
“Someone anonymous got told (a while back) that the salary was actually €42,000 a month (i.e. just over half a million Euros, a lot more than even national Presidents and EU heads receive), but that came through a friend via another friend, thus lacking any documentary evidence for it.”It is worth noting that Mr. Kongstad, Battistelli’s successor in the Council, knows Battistelli’s salary but cooperates in keeping the salary secret (as well as the contract which may include other forms of benefit/compensation). We are not going to go after Kongstad, however, because his role in this secrecy is at best intended to appease Battistelli’s will. Earlier this year we heard that Elodie Bergot gave Battistelli a raise (not years but months ago), so we assume her department too knows the salary but keeps quiet about it. Quite a few people out there know how much Battistelli gets paid, so why does he keep so quiet about it? Maybe because it contradicts what he said to the Dutch press?
Rumours about Battistelli’s salary/ies (contracts change over time) are out there in the wild. EPO workers speak about it, but few have actually seen a document confirming the hard facts. Someone anonymous got told (a while back) that the salary was actually €42,000 a month (i.e. just over half a million Euros, a lot more than even national Presidents and EU heads receive), but that came though a friend via another friend, thus lacking any documentary evidence for it. “The problem I have found,” told us this anonymous source, “is that almost everything I find out that I don’t actually see in a document has the risk of being false. That is what happens, I guess, when there is no transparency and people have to rely of rumors (very USSR). The most reliable rumors come from getting the IT people drunk in the EPO bar. They have access to everything.”
Half a million Euros annually (gross) contradicts other rumours we have come across, including some which say €1,000,000, €1.2m, or close to €1.5m.
What is the real salary? We may never know unless or until the contracts get leaked or Battistelli comes clean like his predecessor, Alison Brimelow. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.06.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Entering corridors of Power (for connections and influence)
Summary: The latest example of what’s so utterly wrong with a bunch of conglomerates and their patent lawyers steering public policy and meeting in private to shape the law in their own favour
THE Web site Managing IP (MIP) is nowhere as bad as IAM, the EPO‘s mouthpiece of choice which sets up events for the EPO (funded in part by the EPO’s truly malicious PR firm).
“Their fear is probably an informed public which is abreast of their protectionist schemes (like ISDS).”Patent ‘elites’ must heed the warning of populist rage against injustices like the UPC, but they don’t. They just try to keep things more of less secret or in the shadows. Their fear is probably an informed public which is abreast of their protectionist schemes (like ISDS).
Based on IP Kat‘s “Friday Fun” [sic], MIP sets up a dubious event (covering “UPC and Brexit”). It is encouraging the attendance of patent maximalists and, as usual, leaving critical voices shut out through prohibitive costs and no chance of a speaking position, impact etc. Here is the direct link and here is how IP Kat put it: “MIP European Patent Reform Forum. Managing IP’s upcoming European Patent Reform Forum will be taking place in Munich on September 6 and in Paris on September 8. There will be plenty to discuss this year, and with topics like the UPC and Brexit on the table the forum and dialogue promise to be exceptionally interesting. The programmes also offer presentations on FRAND terms, enforcement and evidence of infringement from an impressive selection of speakers, so this event is really not to be missed.
“In-house, patent and IP counsel can attend the Forum for free, and other private practice IPKat readers can attend for a discounted price of €820 + VAT (usually €1095). To register for Munich, it’s here – for Paris, here, or you can email or contact Managing IP.”
“It’s the kind of congregation that’s typically encouraging collusion and/or conspiracy against public interests and with fees so high (over a thousand pounds for just a little chair… for one day) don’t expect public interest groups to attend.”“Why is it that,” asked one person, an attendant “who works in-house in a multi-billion dollar global company, get to attend for free?” Well, Team UPC and others inside the patent microcosm wish to be of influence for big businesses and for big money (they are, after all, their biggest clients). These events are, in practice, primarily about making connections in corridors and behind closed doors. The fee lets one brush shoulders and make contracts/contacts with potential clients, partners, officials etc. That’s just how lobbying works, too. It’s the kind of congregation that’s typically encouraging collusion and/or conspiracy against public interests and with fees so high (over a thousand pounds for just a little chair… for one day) don’t expect public interest groups to attend. It’s worth noting that FRAND, which is against FOSS, will be discussed at the event. Will there be any opponents there? Opponents of FRAND? Unlikely. It’s an echo chamber.
Having mentioned Lucy Neville-Rolfe just a few days ago, it’s worth noting that the above from IP Kat takes note of her too. She is considered the person to influence (or lobby) right now.
MIP is not an evil site, but when it comes to business models (like firm endorsements and recommendations or even lobbying opportunities) it needs to be careful as it jeopardises its integrity. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:27 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Attacks on whistleblowers and/or on staff unions inside international organisations is not just an EPO thing
Summary: The actions of Francis Gurry discredit the UN and do a disservice to everyone in the same way that Battistelli’s terrible actions discredit Europe and threaten Europe’s industry
THE EPO‘s members of staff are having breaks this summer (there’s no shortage of those), so SUEPO has not been saying much in nearly a month. It would be hard to organise protests right now. Those who should be held accountable are probably not even at the Office.
This morning SUEPO mentioned USF [1, 2, 3] (yet again), having also caught up with AMBA’s response to Battistelli's persistent attacks, culminating in ‘exile’ (see this leaked message).
“Those who should be held accountable are probably not even at the Office.”No doubt we’ll return to covering the EPO affairs pretty soon (there’s a lot more in store). In the mean time, here is the bit about WIPO, whose staff's situation is in many ways similar to that of the EPO's staff (including Battistelli-Gurry overlaps).
“The USF published an article entitled “WIPO – Stop union-busting and stop retaliation against whistleblowers”,” SUEPO wrote today (there is also a French version). To quote the English-speaking page:
In September 2014 the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Francis Gurry, fired WIPO Staff Council President, Moncef Kateb, as he was about to reveal damaging information about fraud, wrongdoing, mismanagement and theft of staff DNA. Now Gurry is trying to close down the Staff Council and replace it with a new compliant, management-friendly model.
Gurry decided to set up his own WIPO Staff Council and is currently preparing illegal elections in order to dislodge the current duly elected Staff Council which is too critical for his liking. This will leave WIPO staff deprived of the last independent voice that is prepared to expose bad practices and abuse of power in this United Nations Specialized Agency.
It is a desperate move by Gurry at a time when attempts are being made to cover up and suppress an investigation report, apparently containing adverse findings on allegations made against him. It follows a public hearing at the US Congress at which he was compared to Sepp Blatter, the former President of FIFA, and a letter from the heads of several bipartisan sub-committees demanding his dismissal.
We need your support.
Please tell Gurry to stop retaliation against whistleblowers and the legally elected Staff Council. Please tell the WIPO Member States to call for Gurry’s resignation. The credibility of the Organization, its Member States and the entire UN system is at stake.
So even Gurry was “compared to Sepp Blatter, the former President of FIFA,” making Battistelli a little jealous perhaps (now they have competition, after Gurry beat Battistelli to the WIPO position). Who will be the first to end up like Blatter? Will it be Gurry or Battistelli? Will it eventually be both? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.04.16
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 2:29 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Defeating the whole point or purpose of a patent (examination) system
Summary: A glance at some of the latest news and developments at the European Patent Office and what the US system serves to teach about the long-term effects
THE world’s patent systems have become a primary point of focus here. It’s not at all limited to the EPO and it never was.
SUEPO has not updated its public Web site in nearly a month (which is rather rare an infrequency), since around the time it had a hearing at The Hague. in Twitter, the EPO’s PR folks promote the EPO’s event in the US, next year’s lobbying event, and various courses, empty forums, etc. Basically nothing new. The media too is mostly silent and we are still working our way through ILO rulings, having recently explained how actions by Team Battistelli undermined the European Patent Convention (EPC). There are dozens of rulings to go through, so this may take some time (these cases are years old anyway, with only the outcomes/rulings being new).
“Will appeals even exist at the EPO under or after Battistelli?”After years of UPC promotion the editor of IAM, the EPO's mouthpiece, says that there is growing interest in Brexit’s impact. The UPC is a colossal threat to patent quality and a potential open door to patent trolls from abroad.
Quality control at the EPO is dying (Battistelli ended it using his utterly misguided policies) and judging by this new announcement [1, 2], it seems improbable that improper patent grants will be revoked fast enough or easily enough. Will appeals even exist at the EPO under or after Battistelli? The appeal boards are understaffed, they will soon be overpriced, and appeal windows will be narrowed (shortened time for appeals). It is already happening (effective a month ago, possibly to exacerbate in the near future).
Chloe Grover, writing in a sponsored “REPORT” (i.e. marketing) from a British law firm, Carpmaels & Ransford LLP, speaks about “designations of European patents where validity is also challenged”. Nowadays, as we pointed out before, it is harder to challenge validity because Battistelli does not wish for the weakness of examination to become apparent.
“The appeal boards are understaffed, they will soon be overpriced, and appeal windows will be narrowed (shortened time for appeals).”Europe is in growing need of a fix. There is a growing danger that low-quality patents will make it through to the point of attracting patent trolls (manifestation or fermentation of them). In the USPTO, as a cautionary tale, patent mazes/thickets and uncertainties accomplished what they’re supposedly there for: protectionism without studying the broader impact (facts-based cost analysis). But they also created a growing niche for patent trolls, to the point where nearly 90% of lawsuits there (in the technology sector) are filed by patent trolls, almost always with software patents. This means little of no progress in high-tech industry, as noted by Professor James Bessen the other day. One person says that it’s “because poor legalities like Patent Trolling [that can] destroy start up businesses” (this person is adamantly against software patents).
Even a new article by Professor Dennis Crouch complains about the USPTO this week. People are clearly not happy with the way things are run over there (the US) and Battistelli is rapidly emulating or copying all the mistakes made there. He brings neoliberalism to Europe, or patent liberalism in the quality sense (if in doubt, or under pressure of time/quota, grant liberally). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.03.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Like the classic…
Summary: Despite her dubious public appearances with Benoît Battistelli, Lucy Neville-Rolfe is still unable to just simply ignore Brexit and rush the UPC through
THE UPC (Unitary Patent) has a lot to do with the unprecedented chaos at the EPO (see background to this), by the EPO’s very own admission. The UPC, created and pushed by Team UPC (not representatives of public interests at all, just a group of circling vultures), is just about as bad as those notorious ‘free’ ‘trade’ ‘deals’ (none of those things), such as TPP and TTIP. Secrecy was all along needed in order to keep everyone but the self-serving conspiracy in the dark, unable to weigh in, antagonise, and report wrongdoing.
Lucy Neville-Rolfe is being approached by Team UPC and organisations (or lobbies) whose memberships intersect/overlap Team UPC. UK IPO has just published a public statement (Tuesday) and MIP has a new article about it. “It remains unknown if the UK will ratify the UPC Agreement,” says the summary and here is the relevant part from the article’s body: “It seems we will have to wait until next year to know the UK government’s decision on UPC Agreement ratification. The IPO did not say anything on this, but it noted: “The UK remains a Contracting Member State of the Unified Patent Court at present. We will continue to attend and participate in UPC meetings in that capacity. There will be no immediate changes.””
The UPC boosters from Bristows (part of Team UPC) pretend that it’s business as usual after Brexit, but it’s not. To quote this new blog post:
Unlike many of the UK law firms [like Bristows] who quickly climbed on board the Brexit bandwagon, the UK’s Intellectual Property Office has been understandably and notably silent. For the past several weeks they have been in listening mode as they hear from stakeholders about their post-referendum concerns. Today, they have published a short guide called “IP and Brexit: The Facts” to dispel the speculation on the future of IP law following the referendum result. The main message is “The UK is still part of the EU so your EU-derived protections continue and we are considering various post-Brexit options”. Unsurprisingly, the brief is short given that the fate of EU-made rights will be determined by the ultimate relationship between the UK and EU.
On patents, the UK IPO confirmed that it was business as usual for UK businesses applying for patents at the EPO and that the referendum result will not impact the European Patent Convention (EPC).
Here is the direct statement from UK IPO: “The UK remains a Contracting Member State of the Unified Patent Court at present. We will continue to attend and participate in UPC meetings in that capacity. There will be no immediate changes.”
Well, UK IPO is sort of contradicting itself on UPC as noted in this comment which says:
One comment in IPO’s post Brexit communication says “The UK remains a Contracting Member State of the Unified Patent Court at present”.
According to the same statement: “There will be no immediate changes” does not give the impression that a quick ratification is on the tablets, as this would be an immediate change.
When considering the overall tone of the the statement, IPO’s first preoccupation seems to lie more in seeing how to leave the existing system of EU laws and regulations on IP matters so that the rights of UK IP owners are protected, rather than trying to add a further problem, UPC, on all the issues which will have to be settled. As far as patents are concerned, the way to the EPO is not changed by the Brexit. A strong enthusiasm for the UPC sounds differently.
When looking at the long list of duties of Baroness Neville-Rolfe, IP does not look as it will be at the top of her priorities.
May be something to reflect upon?
Someone is poking fun at Battistelli with an ode that spells out “BREXIT”. Surely they know that nothing would displease Battistelli more than the demise and possibly death of the UPC — a project he spent over half a decade promoting. Here is the ode/poem:
B eing as UPC stands for UP the creek without a Canoe
R eally not much else we can do
E PO Sun King and Grand Master
X claims it is an almighty disaster
I t is the one good thing to come out of the vote
T hat Batters now has a huge hole in his boat
As another person notes, echoing what we said several times last month, UPC is very low down in the list of British priorities right now:
I agree that the fact that the Baroness has been assigned more responsibilities does not suggest that a great deal of time and effort will be expended by the government upon IP issues (be they Brexit-related or otherwise).
This perhaps indicates that we can expect some delays in decision-making, including on the UPC. This may be compounded by the fact that there will be more pressing matters for the UK to resolve in connection with trade marks, designs and copyright.
These issues aside, I doubt that the IPO’s statement could be said to provide any hints one way or the other with regard to the UPC, which is likely to remain somewhat of a “complicated” issue in the coming months. So I guess that we will all just have to wait and see.
The following comment goes along the same lines:
I think some of these people need to remember that ministers have tended not to stay with IP for any period of time. The Baroness keeping the IP mandate is to be welcomed, even if she has further responsibilities. She knows the stakeholders and the issues, and can be a good ear even if she leaves some aspects to others.
Of course, the shape of the outcome is not really dependent upon IP – it will be shaped by other concerns, and IP will find a way. I guess if you are looking at unusual infringements of trade marks, start the action now whilst judges have to apply EU principles!
Well, as noted by the Bristows Kat: “In the meantime, Baroness Neville-Rolfe will continue as the minister for IP, but her full title is now Minister of State for Energy and Intellectual Property.”
It means more responsibilities. Well, Lucy is being asked to leap/jump through hoops after sucking up to the thug, Battistelli (more than once in recent months), but there would be a huge backlash if she attempted to do so.
This Kat’s colleague wrote: “Forget Brexit and Article 50, forget the Chilcot enquiry, forget whatever sports competition is concerning you at the moment, worry not about the UPC.”
Well, forgetting that isn’t an option, as the conspiracy of patent lawyers actively works behind the scenes lobbying Lucy to sneak the Trojan horse through the back door. We wrote about this before and presented evidence.
Another colleague, Merpel, is quoted in relation to the news about Lucy. Can Lucy be trusted? We doubt it, but she hasn’t much capacity right now to arrogantly ignore Brexit and do the unthinkable. It would be political suicide for her. As a comment put it this morning: “Has she [Lucy] actually stated, in the past, a long-term IP strategy beyond ‘we’re going to join the EU patent system’? That’s a measure rather than a policy so can be dropped as if it didn’t matter. By this I mean, does there exist an imperative to somehow achieve EU patent membership despite all other factors such as preparing for Brexit? If not, then surely this gets referred to the new Minister for Brexit? Alternatively, which vested interest can get to her first/more effectively??”
The Minister for Brexit is David Davis, who is a reasonably OK politician, based on his policies and stances in the areas of technology. He does listen to technology activists and sometimes sides with them, based on his long track record (covered here in passing). He ought to be wise enough to know that the UPC would be a disaster for technology companies in the UK, unlike perhaps patent lawyers from London. █
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