03.08.17

Latest EPO ‘Results’ Should be Grounds for Immediate Dismissal of Battistelli Rather Than Celebrations

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

By Associate Professor in intellectual property law at London School of Economics:

Astonishing. Let me get this straight. #Patent Applications went down marginally in 2016 but patent grants went up 40% ?! 1/2 https://t.co/WVROYEt23o

— Siva Thambisetty (@SivaThambisetty) March 7, 2017

Have we had a spike in innovative activity, or is to do with the primary 'quality indicator' which is customer satisfaction? 2/2 https://t.co/WVROYEt23o

— Siva Thambisetty (@SivaThambisetty) March 7, 2017

If patent law is same & application numbers reduced, is increase due to examiner incentives to grant rather than reject patent applications? https://t.co/JJm6SGRrWY

— Siva Thambisetty (@SivaThambisetty) March 7, 2017

Alongside a 25% decrease in 'stock' (reduction in time spent on patent searching, examination and opposition?) this needs explaining! https://t.co/UO1EhDOBZ6

— Siva Thambisetty (@SivaThambisetty) March 7, 2017

These numbers ought to be pored over & not entirely in a good way. Not all 'productivity' gains are improvements in 'quality' #patents https://t.co/TJvVdP5ish

— Siva Thambisetty (@SivaThambisetty) March 7, 2017

Translation/projection: Prepare for massive, unprecedented EPO layoffs, probably amid what looks like a transition to a much-dreaded registration office (no quality control)

Summary: The quality of European patents, or EPs, should be the elephant in the room next week, but will delegates dare bring up the subject and recognise the irreversible ruin caused by Battistelli, who flushed down pending applications by cursory decisions?

WE have already published numerous articles about the EPO‘s so-called ‘results’ [1, 2], which measure ‘success’ using Battistelli’s yardstick that got ‘hacked’ (it was originally a well-intentioned yardstick, but Battistelli decided to just simply game it). Are European patents (EPs) becoming just (E)arly (certainty) (P)atents, i.e. something granted in a rush under pressure from above?

Low quality of patents leads to a lot of spurious, frivolous litigation. Anyone who has paid attention to the legacy of pre-reform (e.g. AIA) USPTO would know that. Yet this week, so far at least, all we see are puff pieces like “Italy has EU’s second-largest increase in patent requests” (not a word about quality) or this by Kelcee Griffis from Law 360. The latter says that the “European Patent Office both received more patent applications and granted more patents in 2016 than it did in the previous year, according to data released Tuesday, setting a new all-time high.”

“Low quality of patents leads to a lot of spurious, frivolous litigation.”Actually, this is not true. It wouldn’t be the first time the EPO fudges numbers, as we demonstrated repeatedly last year (other people too had spoken about it, including insiders who generally know the raw figures).

Earlier today the EPO wrote: “#Transport registered the 2nd strongest growth in 2016 in terms of patent applications. http://buzz.mw/b1wo0_l cc @Bulc_EU pic.twitter.com/NgaBB1aDE7″

“It wouldn’t be the first time the EPO fudges numbers, as we demonstrated repeatedly last year (other people too had spoken about it, including insiders who generally know the raw figures).”Maybe instead of “growth” they could say weakness — a weakness or weakening of rigorous examination. Earlier today we also discovered that EPO puff pieces had reached as far as English language Chinese media, e.g. [1, 2]. There are press releases from big companies, including tobacco companies like Philip Morris (we are not kidding!). Siemens just seems to think that it’s a popularity contest.

Benjamin Henrion told the EPO “thanks for your software patents, they account for a big part.”

This is true based on what insiders have told us. The EPO still flagrantly violates terms of the EPC and grants software patents in willful defiance of well-understood directives. And what for? Artificial gains?

“The EPO still flagrantly violates terms of the EPC and grants software patents in willful defiance of well-understood directives.”The EPO is either paying Watchtroll, a loud proponent of software patents, for press releases, or maybe Watchtroll just voluntary reposts press releases of the EPO for personal gain. We are not quite so sure yet, but either way, we are stunned at the lack of actual investigative journalism, taking into account input from professionals such as the above Associate Professor. Is every writer out there so lazy and so eager to just copy and paste EPO statements rather than examine the underlying evidence?

Today, being International Women’s Day, the EPO rode the wave (as it did on cancer, in spite of its terrible record on it). In spite of the EPO having a notorious lack of diversity, including the fact that the proportion of female workers at EPO is far lower than the average, it wrote this: “Happy International Women’s Day! Have a look at these brilliant women inventors & their life-changing work http://buzz.mw/b1wr7_l #IWD2017 pic.twitter.com/6UGDFcSOnU”

“The danger to Battistelli is, if appeals are affordable (access to justice), then the erosion of patent quality would quickly become measurable, abundantly evident, and simply undeniable.”Pure marketing and a two-faced attitude. At the same time (also today) the EPO had the audacity to pretend that it cares about appeals, even though it does everything it can to discourage appeals (understaffing, higher costs, shortening of appeal window, distance from airport/Office etc.). The EPO wrote: “What is the best approach to take when objecting to a pending application or granted patent?”

“There is no approach anymore,” I told them, as “Battistelli is killing the appeal boards…”

The danger to Battistelli is, if appeals are affordable (access to justice), then the erosion of patent quality would quickly become measurable, abundantly evident, and simply undeniable. Battistelli just wants a bunch of obedient assembly line workers, just like in INPI. He wants filers, not examiners, or so it would seem based on leaks…

People at IP Kat have begun discussing how to get rid of Battistelli. The basis upon which Battistelli can be fired in 7 days or less, this person believes, is the EPO Service Regulations:

How about Article 53 of the EPO Service Regulations ?

Article 53
Dismissal for other reasons
(1) The appointing authority may decide to terminate the service of a
permanent employee if:
…
(c) in the case of an employee appointed by the Administrative Council in
accordance with Article 11, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention, the
Administrative Council so decides in the interests of the Organisation.

A bit of a no-brainer really I would have thought.

If Battistelli is buying votes (as widely alleged), then Battistelli won’t be fired except by outside intervention (which can potentially induce resignation). As another person put it, replying to the provocative comment above:

Read the small print,
But read the even smaller print about how they make such a decision.i think a simple majority isn’t enough (and you can be sure BB will not fall on his sword from a vote of no confidence.

The “EPO represents 73 per cent of the total number of pending ILO cases,” Henrion wrote, quoting The Register. Is that not enough to show the Council that the EPO is a disaster now (as Board 28 already admitted)?

The next comment says:

Replying to “Read the Small Print” immediately above, you refer to sub-Article 1 of Art 11 of the EPC, reminding us that the Administrative Council “may” decide to dispense with the services of any person appointed under Art 11(1) if that would be “in the interests” of the Organisation.

But Art 11(1) is exclusively concerned with the office of President of the EPO.

As you say, by now it is, for an AC that is mindful of its international responsibilities, using everyday undiplomatic parlance, a No Brainer.

Then the nature of a vote was brought up:

You may need to put your reading glasses on.

Article 35(2) EPC states that a three-quarters majority is required for a decision under Article 11(1) EPC – that is a decision to appoint a President.

http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar35.html

A decision to dismiss a President is a decision taken by the Administrative Council in exercise of its disciplinary authority under Article 11(4) EPC.

UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 35 EPC FOR SUCH A DECISION A SIMPLE MAJORITY WILL SUFFICE.

The only open question is: who would dare to put such a motion on the Agenda?

This next reply noted that “Article 35 EPC limits the requirement for a 3/4 majority to the appointment of a President under Article 11 paragraph 1 of the EPC. The exercise of disciplinary authority under Article 11 paragraph 4 only requires a simple majority.”

A “majority” when small (easy to ‘bribe’) nations are unweighted according to their size? In which case it’s not a majority of people but a majority of mere delegates (or flags)? Battistelli knows how to deal with such circumstances. He controls a lot of EPO budget and can distribute it to control outcomes.

Then, linking to Techrights, one person wrote about the so-called results:

Like a hamster in its wheel said

“Quality is overrated guys see: http://techrights.org/2017/03/07/destroying-the-reputation-of-epo/ ”

only + 40% output in one year. I would have expected more

If Battistelli was not to be judged based on his sheer abuses but only based on performance, would that qualify as a good outcome? It mustn’t. It’s just insane! It’s like selling one’s children for a profit. Such artificial ‘gains’ are temporary and damaging, by the very nature they are attained. Insiders know this and they agree with our assessment on this, but will anyone among the delegates be courageous enough to stand up and point it out next week? Or will they all just worship the invisible dress that covers Battistell’s naked body? Would it be a pain in the butt-istelli to speak truth to Battistell? Possibly. █

Permalink  Send this to a friend