07.17.19
Gemini version available ♊︎EPO Looney Tunes – Part 3: The Legal Line-up for G 2/19
“Genius thinks it can do whatever it sees others doing, but is sure to repent of every ill-judged outlay.”
–Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Summary: The deck appears to have already been stacked for G 2/19, a decision on EPO judges’ exile to Haar (veiled disciplinary action/collective punishment by those whom the judges are supposed to ‘oversee’)
IN THE previous part (Part 2) and in Part 1 we explained that the European Patent Office (EPO) not only attacked its own judges but also rigs the process designed to check the legality of it. Battistelli started it and his ‘butler’ António Campinos is eager to ‘finish the job’…
“They just drop a bunch of lies and then pressure media (we know their modus operandi) to shower the EPO with praise to the tune of these ‘prepared’ puff pieces.”As we noted here yesterday evening, there was high density of puff pieces throughout the day yesterday; on the date the hearing began there were, uncharacteristically enough, two EPO puff pieces (“2018 Social Report: key indicators of an attractive, modern and diverse organisation” and “EPO hosts annual meeting of Ethics Network of Multilateral Organisations”) as well as more defamation of Judge Corcoran. See the EPO’s news index (warning: epo.org link) and compare publication intervals; in the latest puff piece (warning: epo.org link) the EPO is trying to wash itself in “ethics” while the not-so-independent judges ‘assess’ its gross violations of the law over in Haar. To quote just some of the nonsense, naming even “whistleblowing” (believe it or not!):
The ENMO meeting provides a platform for open exchange: Members shared best practices and discussed issues of common concern related to institutional ethics. Delegates discussed several key topics, including conflict of interest, whistleblowing and policies for co-operating with investigations and audits.
One could argue that Corcoran was severely punished for whistleblowing. “Delegates discussed ethics related issues at the ENMO meeting held at the EPO’s Munich office,” says the ‘diverse’ image (not representative of actual EPO staff). They’re hoping to generate some distracting puff pieces from complicit and at times bribed media (like Handelsblatt, which the EPO paid). “The EPO strives to maintain an ethical culture within its engaged, knowledgeable, collaborative and respectful workplace,” said Mathilde ten Seldam. Pardon while people grab a bucket to vomit into. They just drop a bunch of lies and then pressure media (we know their modus operandi) to shower the EPO with praise to the tune of these ‘prepared’ puff pieces. Perhaps the best response to that is acceleration of our publication. Henceforth starts Part 3:
As might be expected, in the run-up to the Enlarged Board hearing in the “Haar case” (G 2/19), the German mainstream press is maintaining its usual discreet silence about EPO affairs.
Back in March of this year there was a report on the case in the Handelsblatt but since then it’s been very much a case of “All quiet on the Western front”.
In the run-up to the European Parliament elections in May, the Süddeutsche Zeitung published a thinly disguised pro-EU “puff piece” which presented the Boards of Appeal as an exemplary case of pan-European co-operation although it was forced to admit between the lines that the EPO is not actually an EU institution.
According to the Süddeutsche, the move to Haar initially caused some discontent among the staff of the Boards but in the meantime everything had quietened down and now it was all “Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen” as the Germans say when referring to a situation where peace appears to prevail, at least on the surface.
It seems that the hacks from the Süddeutsche were never told about the pending referral G 2/19 which threatens to re-open the old controversy surrounding the banishment to Haar or else they were instructed to feign ignorance.
In fact the Süddeutsche article reads like it was dictated by the EPO’s PR department.
Such lazy journalism seems to have become par for the course these days.
All that would have been required was a quick look in the EPO’s Official Journal (warning: epo.org link) where the details can be found about the referral and the composition of the Enlarged Board for dealing with the case.
According to the Official Journal, the composition of the Enlarged Board is as follows:
C. Josefsson (Chairman),
I. Beckedorf,
M. Sachs,
G. Weiss,
J. Gröning,
G. Eliasson,
P. Gryczka.
This tells us that apart from the Chairman of the Board, Carl Josefsson, there are two legally qualified internal members (Ingo Beckedorf and Gérard Weiss), two technically qualified internal members (Gunnar Eliasson and Pascal Gryczka) and two external judges (Jochen Gröning from the German Federal Court of Justice and Michael Sachs from the Austria Federal Administrative Court).
The Chairman of the Enlarged Board, Carl Josefsson
The internal members of the Board.
Ingo Beckedorf, Gérard Weiss, Gunnar Eliasson (no photo) and Pascal Gryczka
The external members of the Board.
Jochem Gröning (Germany) and Michael Sachs (Austria)
In the next installment we will take a closer look at the above individuals and consider whether the composition of the Board might give some clues to the likely outcome of the case. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA