06.12.17
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Even Slobodan Milošević knew better than to commit suicide

Photo licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Credit: Alfredovic.
Summary: Some of the colossally misguided policies of Battistelli leave neither applicants nor workers satisfied — to the point where complaints are being made to European authorities and to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, respectively
BOGUS patents help nobody. They deplete/drain money/resources out of both the plaintiff and the defendant, especially when there’s a lawsuit; patent maximalism may be beneficial in the short term to patent law firms and patent offices, but at whose expense?
In an article last updated 3 days ago, Isobel Finnie from Haseltine Lake LLP wrote about EPO patents pertaining to life (which is of course absurd!). “If your European patent/patent application involves products of essentially biological processes,” she wrote, “such as crossing of whole plant or animal genomes, proceedings may be stayed.”
Not too long ago the EPO disappointed many grantees by saying that their patents had become worthless. The EPO should never have granted these patents. Judging by leaks from the EPO, such as these messages from Mr. Vacca, quality at the EPO suffers considerably from Battistelli’s policies. All that Battistelli can do is lie about it (as recently as days ago). Here is what Marco Lissandrini from Bugnion SpA wrote about amending patents/applications at the EPO:
The trap is caused both by the examiner, who granted the patent, and by the applicant who introduced fresh subject-matter.
In practice, however, due to Battistelli’s policies, examiners are urged to work in a fear-induced rush and barely take into account what the applicant is saying. What does that mean to the applicant? No applicant wants a bogus patent granted (with renewals fees to later be paid in vain).
The following new comment jokes about what Battistelli has done to the EPO. “Customer satisfaction trumps everything else these days,” it says sarcastically. We already covered examples where customers complained to politicians about the unsatisfactory EPO service. Here is the full quote:
Anybody wondering how the Board could conclude that the claimed subject matter exhibits an inventive step should bear in mind that this was a decision on appeal from the Examining Division. The Applicant enjoyed its “right to be heard” but the Division has no such right. It wasn’t there at the Hearing. The Board heard only one side of the argument.
Presumably the Decision made the EPO managers happy though. Customer satisfaction trumps everything else these days, right?
So might the Board’s Chair and Rapporteur now be rewarded with an uptick from the quality managers, for putting DG1 straight?
Well, Guillaume Minnoye, the Vice President of DG1, is leaving this summer. DG4, in the meantime, is about to make things even worse:
More “good news” from EPONIA
A new policy will be presented to the June Council. It foresees that if one does not do his/her job (whatever this means) the EPO can withdraw 1/20 of his/her salary as a consequence for the day during which the job was not done as expected (this opens the door to more arbitrariness eg a manager does not like someone, instructs him/her to do something stupid which obviously the employee will not do, BINGO the manager can then retaliate via cutting a share of his/her salary without the need of a disciplinary board).
But this is not all, more non-sense is in planning:
DG4 currently works on documents for the December Council which foresee:
1- to stop with the “old fashion” concept of duty of care of the employer towards his employees. The aim of the new policy is to replace it by a duty of employability – thus shifting the burden of responsability entirely on the staff’s shoulders (not sure the ILO-AT finds this to its taste).
2 – no more permanent jobs but 3 years euro-contracts for all new staff from January 18 (again provided the AC supports this). Imagine the level of the candidates they will recruit with such stupid rules which solve no existing problems. Who will leave his/her country for a boring examiner job limited to three years where one can be taken his/her salary or fired via abusive discretionary decisions and this with no defense rights ?
All this non-sense stemms from the minds of PD HR and her accolytes. Stunning.
We wrote about this a few days ago. “That all sounds as if the EPO management is pushing for turbocapitalism rules,” another person wrote in another thread. “Despite the most definitely not being a capitalistic company earning money for their owners…”
Pretty much all insiders agree that the EPO is going down/heading in the wrong way, having become one of the world's worst in terms of quality (some professionals say so too, as we shall show in the coming days). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Reference: Ghostwriter
Summary: In an effort to artificially ‘generate’ hype for EIA, or in order to push puff pieces into European media, the EPO seems to be turning to external PR firms yet again (without money trail left for public audits)
It certainly looks like the EPO is now throwing away money again, giving millions of Euros to malicious PR firms that bolster/help the in-house PR team. Did the EPO sign a contract with Shepard Fox Communications? Can anyone leak the contract to us? Was there any tender at all?
“Did the EPO sign a contract with Shepard Fox Communications? Can anyone leak the contract to us? Was there any tender at all?”Jonathan Weinberg from Shepard Fox Communications (he calls himself and his occupation “communications, PR, copywriting and content consultant”) keeps showing up in their press releases as a contact, last seen on the 16th of May (we mentioned him prior to that, e.g. [1, 2]). He used to be a “Freelance Journalist”, so we assume that he currently just pushes fake news and prepared ‘articles’ for others to publish. That’s just what these kinds of firms tend to practically do. The senior PR people at the EPO are not native English speaker (although one of them studied for a few years in the UK), so it makes sense for them to hire people in the UK and push nonsense into British media. We saw many puff pieces about EIA around that time (we’ll omit the links as these can end up being promotional).
We already know that the EPO’s PR team is actively pushing publishers to produce puff pieces and ‘plant’ these in the media, with journalists as stenographers paid to make it look like reporting. We know this because some actors actually told us so. Is the EPO still dependent on FTI Consulting or are there more deals being signed in secret with more PR firms? Please let us know, preferably but not necessarily with supporting evidence. The EPO is already wasting millions of Euros for Battistelli's self-aggrandising events, but how much of that money goes into private hands without even a tender? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
This isn’t how Team UPC predicted it would go down…
Summary: With two of the largest economies in Europe unable to ratify the UPC (oopsie), doubts about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) grow and it’s not clear if it will ever become a reality at all (anywhere)
THE British general election was bound to cause a disaster to the UPC and it definitely was, as we explained yesterday. Now it’s Germany’s turn to deal a death blow, bearing in mind that Germany cannot press on without the UK (as the UPC in its current form is highly if not strictly dependent on the UK).
Some time ago we took note of Constitutional issues regarding the UPC, specifically but not only in Germany. Benjamin Henrion has in fact stressed this many times before. As for Germans, they don’t want the UPC; heck, many of them barely tolerate the EPO and days ago there was a protest against the EPO for granting patents on seeds (photos from the protest in Germany have just been uploaded).
“…British general election was bound to cause a disaster to the UPC and it definitely was, as we explained yesterday.”The latest development we first became aware of thanks to Eleonora Rosati, who wrote a couple of quick tweets [1, 2] linking to this report from Germany. “Major news,” it stated, “German Federal Constitutional Court stops Unitary Patent…”
“So I was right all along,” I told her, “wasn’t I? Unlike Bristows, the liars…”
She happens to write in the same blog as those liars (IP Kat), but she should not be held accountable for Bristows’ record of never-ending lies, including about Germany.
IP Kat tweeted about this and later on Mark Schweizer, whom we trust, wrote a quick blog post about it. Jane Mutimear quickly commented to say: “Our understanding is that this is an agreement by the Office of the President to suspend ratification pending the Court’s determination of the issue in the ongoing expedited proceedings before it. The Court has not yet reached a decision.”
“Now it’s Germany’s turn to deal a death blow, bearing in mind that Germany cannot press on without the UK (as the UPC in its current form is highly if not strictly dependent on the UK).”This is an important clarification and the subject of an ongoing conversation there. Here is Tom Mitcheson explaining [1, 2]: “Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) has asked Federal President not to pass the laws already approved by Bundestag and Bundesrat. Karlsruhe was advocated, because a hitherto unknown private person had brought constitutional complaint.”
Some EPO insiders told us about the seminal article, “BVerfG stoppt EU-Patent,” and others clarified the meaning: “Asked the president not to sign it yet – not quite stopped.”
Well, it’s certainly a barrier nonetheless and Battistelli is running out of time (see the latest report from Heise). “They cannot go ahead without the UK anyway,” I replied, “and it’s in shambles here.” (politically)
Henrion then weighed in and EPO insiders replied with: “Not yet, it’s postponed” (technically yes, but this could be a mortal blow).
“Some time ago we took note of Constitutional issues regarding the UPC, specifically but not only in Germany.”The outcome now depends on what we do about it, always in the face of many lies from the likes of Bristows and politicians they mislead so as to get papers mindlessly signed.
“They postponed the decision,” the insider continued, “but in the end they will not go on with it…”
“Yes,” I responded, “they are losing momentum. The morale games are being played cleverly by CIPA (now INSIDE IP Kat), Bristows etc.”
CIPA’s ‘infiltration’ into IP Kat is a subject we’ll cover separately, hopefully later tonight.
“The outcome now depends on what we do about it, always in the face of many lies from the likes of Bristows and politicians they mislead so as to get papers mindlessly signed.”Axel Horns wrote: “[In English] Tomorrow F.A.Z will run a report saying that German Constitutional Court may object to #UPC, asking Steinmeier not to sign…”
“Let’s wait and see if the FAZ tells us what the case is based on,” someone responded to him after had he reminded folks of Siegfried Broß’s opposition to the UPC: “Within this context, see also http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2017/05/25/rule-law-epo-ugly-writing-wall/?platform=hootsuite&print=pdf … #Bross #EPC”
Hendrik Wieduwilt also mentioned the upcoming FAZ report: “EXKLUSIV: @BVerfG stoppt einheitliches EU-Patent; Karlsruhe hat BuPräsidenten gebeten, Gesetze nicht zu unterschreiben. Morgen in “FAZ”.”
“Anyone in Germany can file such a complaint — a move that we strongly encourage.”Not even Dr. Luke McDonagh overlooked such a major event.
“I guess Ingve filed a constitutional complaint,” Henrion privately told me, adding that he is “looking to file one as well…”
Anyone in Germany can file such a complaint — a move that we strongly encourage. It’s easier for German residents to do so.
EPO staff whom we heard from is generally happy about the news. They know that the demise of the UPC may mean the exit of Battistelli and reversal of at least some of his controversial proposals, which clearly contravene the EPC. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Lack of quality from the European Patent Office creeps into services, examination and even the technical/marketing team
THE above tweet is yet another one of those examples where technical incompetence creeps in and embarrasses the EPO. We have given more examples of this and we often blame this on brain drain — an epidemic which impacts not only technical staff but also examination. Maybe the developers were pressured to up their PACE and they didn’t test what they were about to unleash in bulk. Based on the EPO’s explanation of this error [1, 2, 3], negligence or lack of testing was the cause. How symbolic of the EPO’s problems under Battistelli. Quality does not matter, only quantity, e.g. of E-mails and spendings. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend