02.15.18
Gemini version available ♊︎Speech Deficit and No Freedom of Association at the EPO
Summary: True information cannot be disseminated at the EPO and justice too is beyond elusive; this poses a threat to the EPO’s future, not only to its already-damaged reputation
THE inability to reform the European Patent Office (after it got derailed by Battistelli) would be costly to Europe. We try hard to expose facts and foster dialogue about the underlying facts, assuming that truth will set us free.
“You can discuss general patent information matters with EPO and other IP experts,” the EPO wrote yesterday. Follow the link. It’s pathetic. Most of these threads have not been updated in a year if not years and have no replies. Ghost town. It’s like nobody really views the EPO as a credible environment for discussion, having perhaps heard about how the EPO gags SUEPO (not just its forums, which were shut down years ago) and even its own staff committee, as we showed yesterday.
The EPO’s attacks on staff too are noteworthy. Those are some among many more scandals.
At Kluwer Patent Blog at the moment there are two strands of posts; there’s fake UPC news from Bristows talking heads and then there are discussions among patent attorneys, i.e. EPO stakeholders. In the latter we see some interesting comments which we believe to have come from EPO insiders. To quote one:
For your readers – with the view to restore Mr Prunier’s damaged reputation since you mention him (after the shameful character assassination he suffered from Mr Battistelli) here is what IAM IP Blog published back then :
http://www.iam-media.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=2141acfb-0254-48ab-a380-31fee0da7f97
After this post Battistelli will not comment any more. Guess why
My thoughts are going to Laurent and also Els, Ion and Malika who all were abusively sanctioned for having had the guts to defend the rights of EPO staff harshly abused by team Battistelli and dared to denounce what needed to be denounced.
Here’s another one:
The decision of Mr. Menessier is a good example why the EPO president has absolutely no incentive to be reasonable. In most of the decisions, he simply wins outright. If the decision is not in the favour of the EPO, as is the case with MR. Menessier, the president gets away with a modest fine which the EPO can pay out of pocket change (considering their budget surplus).
This problem has existed for years, but Battistelli is the first to use it systematically as a feature.
Well, not just examiners are complaining. Mind this new comment:
To give an example of the “support” the EPO gives its examiners:
I am on the waiting list for the course “Chairing in Examination” since at least four years.
Last year, no such course was given at the EPO, to increase the productive working days.Well, coming up are Oral Proceedings in Examination…. Which until recently would have had me required to have followed the second course, usually gven about two years after the first course.
Current training courses consist only of e-learning modules, to fulfil the requirement of the ISO 9001 feedback loop requirement.
But their content is so shallow, that those who would need the teached content cannot have been examiners at the EPO since more than 4 weeks. It is simply such basic knowlegde… Their only advantage is the list of relevant guidelines passages attached as links.
They do not address the issues of the “recorded deficiencies” at all. Besides the last one, which became an issue after a few directors instructed their examiners to not adapt the description for efficiency reasons….Yes, I feel very well supported by the current management. /sarcasm.
Recall our recent article entitled “Job Applicants at the EPO Disappointed, Reference Made in Interview to Slavery”; stakeholders too are feeling like the EPO is almost losing its purpose. What would be left for them to do for a living if patent applications continue to decline in number and value? █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA