06.26.18

^{Gemini version available ♊︎}

Something is Clearly Wrong and Patently Defunct at ILO/ILO-AT (Updated)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

It’s almost like the EPO controls ILO (a symptom of Battistelli infiltrating and meddling in everything)

Summary: The decisions from ILO-AT have just been posted in ILO’s Web site, but quite a few decisions are missing and it’s not entirely clear why (albeit the culprit seems to be EPO management)

As expected, ILO decisions regarding the EPO (European Patent Organisation) are out, but not all of them. As someone points out to us, half a dozen are missing. We do not yet know which cases and why. SUEPO might provide some explanation soon. Are the Hardon and Brumme decisions out? They’re both staff leaders, unfairly fired by Battistelli (against the recommendations from the disciplinary committee). Are they suppressed? Is Guy Ryder and his suspicious workers in the Tribunal (the subject of much debate lately) trying to spare António Campinos the embarrassment? We shall update this post as soon as we have more details. “Think Ion B [Brumme] and Malika M won their cases at ILO,” one source told us, but we’re not sure about Hardon (needs digging). We also have not seen the pertinent outcomes just yet. Will Brumme get his job back and manage to provide for his family? █

Update: The omitted decisions turn out not to include (or not entirely include) the staff representatives.

On Malika Weaver (SUEPO): “The EPO shall restore the complainant with retroactive effect to the grade and step she would have held but for the imposition of the disciplinary sanction, with all legal consequences.” (full decision [PDF])

On Ion Brumme (SUEPO): “The EPO shall reinstate the complainant to the position he held immediately before his dismissal with all legal consequences.” (full decision [PDF])

On Els Hardon (SUEPO): “The matter is remitted to the EPO to enable the charges against the complainant to be considered afresh by a differently constituted Disciplinary Committee and the President of the Office to make a new decision.” (full decision [PDF])

And someone else: “The EPO shall reinstate the complainant in accordance with consideration 14 of this judgment.” (full decision [PDF])

The EPO has said nothing about it. The EPO‘s PR people are linking directly to the PDF of the latest publication of the Office. It’s the same old lies. Page 4 is pure propaganda for Battistelli. I’ve told them already, “you need to reboot the whole Organisation,” otherwise they’ll continue to lionise the very person who ruined the Office and António Campinos will go down the same route. Will Campinos give Hardon and Brumme their jobs back? Will Weaver get her old position/pay grade? Or will Campinos — like Battistelli — defy court orders? Many will be watching…

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.