Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:27 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Spin if not intentional lying is their business model

Their articles didn’t age well, did they?
Summary: In another desperate effort to give life to a zombie (UPCA), Team UPC relies on paid-for publishers and it is showing that 40 days aren’t enough for litigation zealots to give up on a dream (a nightmare for the rest of us)
THE media and individual journalists have given all sorts of excuses for not covering EPO corruption. I’ve heard all sorts of excuses; sometimes the publishers spike pieces and discourage writers; it’s a top-down ‘thing’…
Putting aside our cynicism and rants about so-called ‘journalism’ (especially in the area of patents), what about blogs? Whose blogs are they? One trend we’re seeing is that scholars’ blogs are being hijacked by litigation firms, whereupon they become marketing (for lawsuits) rather than critical assessors. António Campinos bribes to achieve this, as did his predecessor. They literally bribe media and academia to recite lies.
“They literally bribe media and academia to recite lies.”The founder of IP Kat (before it was hijacked) also founded Managing IP. As a scholar he wasn’t reluctant to blast the EPO for its abuses. But IP Kat of 2020 deletes comments of people who point out EPO abuses. That’s how ridiculous it has become!
We’d note with concern that Managing IP is still taking money to print lies of law firms for a fee, presenting these as “reports” or “articles” (here is a new example) and like Lexology et al (IAM’s parent company) it also publishes as “Opinion” the corporate position of companies. “Laura Gisler,” this one says, “IP head at Volvo-owned startup Polestar, explores the perils of joint IP and suggests better strategies for companies partnering with startups…”
What kind of “press” is this?
Imagine articles about climate being composed by GE and Exxon. This is just wrong. And since we’ve mentioned Lexology, how about this new piece from Team UPC, to which Lexology served as an amplifier (e.g. in Google News) for nearly a decade, printing endless lies?
Tilman Müller-Stoy and Rudolf Teschemacher (Bardehle Pagenberg), who pushed an illegal bill and an unconstitutional coup, refuse to allow facts to get in their way, having just published a truly ridiculous piece pretending the death of the UPC is just an “Operational Accident”. This merits a quick response as it contains many falsehoods. For instance, they say this:
The contentious point within the FCC was whether an obligation in an international treaty exposing German citizens to acts of an international authority can be the basis of a constitutional complaint by an individual before the act conferring the competence has entered into force. The majority of 5:3 judges said yes, taking the position that any conferral of judicial functions on an international court modified the allocation of jurisdiction to the courts as foreseen in the GG and, in this respect, constituted an amendment of the German Constitution in substantive terms. In this context, the FCC accepted a claim of a citizen for having the formal aspects of conferral reviewed, arguing that competences conferred on another entity under international law were usually “lost” and could not easily be regained by the legislator.
According to the majority of the judges of the FCC, the legal basis of this approach is the democratic principle laid down in Article 38 GG allowing a citizen to claim that sovereign rights are only conferred in the ways provided for by the German Constitution.
The refusal and nullification dealt with a procedural issue rather than substance; they didn’t even need to deal with the substance of the complaint because of obvious mischief at 1-2AM in the morning. So the UPC — not the complaint — was tossed out.
On they go with the laughable idea that few little amendments can miraculously salvage the UPCA:
[...]
The process determining whether a Plan B will be pursued, may start now. However, it must not only involve the legal questions addressed above. It should also address those left undecided in their substance by the FCC. It would certainly not be a responsible political approach to establish a court system which will be under foreseeable and avoidable legal attacks before national courts and before the CJEU.
A further necessary element of discussion will be to keep the system attractive for industry. The amounts of renewal fees fixed after years of discussion at the “true top four” level is no longer justified considering that an average applicant desiring protection in three or four EPC member states will have to pay additional renewal fees for the UK. Thus, the restricted scope of the unitary patent should be reflected in a lower level of renewal fees. Otherwise, the unitary patent will only be used by applicants maintaining protection at a large level, e.g. the pharmaceutical industry. Why not use this opportunity to also reconsider the consensus reached among the contracting states that no state should get less from the revenue of renewal fees than under the system of the EP bundle patent (which– frankly – is a consensus at the expense of the users)?
Finally, it could be worthwhile to use the necessary discussions to repair shortcomings of the UPCA recognized in the meantime. The opt-out / opt-in regulations have been criticized as failed in terms of legislative formalities. Further, there are no sound reasons for the compulsory inclusion of European bundle patents in the jurisdiction of the UPC – free competition between the UPC and the national courts would probably be a better solution, and the UPC would prevail if the efficiency of its proceedings and the expertise of its judges are convincing. Otherwise, users would be forced to use (available) indirect ways of maintaining access to national courts. The draft of the rules of procedure could be made leaner by eliminating elements which are based on UK concepts rather than on continental European ones. This might result in a simplification of the procedure and, thus, in cost reductions. It is worth noting that the (high) caps on reimbursable attorney fees have been criticized in particular as they are hardly acceptable for SMEs.
So, in short, they admit that the very substance of this complaint also dooms the UPC/A and will likely necessitate very considerable changes. With Brexit on the horizon (the pandemic lets the limbo linger on further), this is truly impractical. Politicians aren’t working at the moment, the status of the UK in the EU is mostly unclear, additional objections to the UPC have been raised in a number of countries and so on.
Deep inside even the authors of the above text know that the UPC is finished. It’s dead. But 40 days later (after the decision) they still refuse to let go. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 7:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The EPO’s severe violations of the (Rule of) Law are harming the health of innocent, law-abiding people such as Laurent Prunier, who represented his colleagues
Summary: Europe’s largest patent office, the European Patent Office, continues to bully its staff and it carries on breaking the law under António Campinos‘s Battistelli-like leadership, which EPO staff representatives rightly bemoan
THE old days are old, the newer days are rather gloomy. And not just because of the pandemic; it seems rather apparent that the EPO takes full advantage of this pandemic to wage further attacks on staff and on the law. This is done openly and shamelessly. They’re simply not afraid of any consequences. Who’s going to enforce the law? Even politicians are in quarantine.
A decade ago when we wrote about the EPO it was mostly about illegal software patents (same issue at the USPTO prior to 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice) and rarely if ever about treatment of staff, which had already protested outside the EPO.
“Over the years we wrote about half a dozen articles about Mr. Prunier, whom EPO staff in Dutch territories loved (based on what we heard).”The EPO and the USPTO continue granting these illegal software patents, even if courts repeatedly reject those. Over at Watchtroll (“IPWatchdog”), for example, Jose Nunez has just published “The Long Reach of the Mathematics Patentability Exception is Overbroad and Absurd – Part II” and yes, they literally advocate monopoly on maths! So does the EPO; they’re not even pretending otherwise.
We recently saw in Kluwer Patent Blog a comment that said what we had been saying for a long time. A few days ago someone said that EPO staff had been put in a tough position: break the law (or participate in breaking of the law) or lose the job! It’s causing all sorts of mental issues; imagine being forced to harm people for a living; sooner or later consciousness kicks in and then the financial instinct (“gotta pay the mortgage!”) conflicts with morality. No worker should ever be put in such a position/dilemma.
Over the years we wrote about half a dozen articles about Mr. Prunier, whom EPO staff in Dutch territories loved (based on what we heard). We were disturbed to learn about health implications Battistelli’s bullying had on him; he wasn’t the first though and other victims include Judge Corcoran. The bullying is very much intentional; it’s psychopathic. Remember what led to the “Suicide Wave” in the largest French telecommunication company. Management styles play a major role in the wellbeing of staff and executives can be held criminally liable for an over-aggressive approach. But not at the EPO… it’s immune!
Yesterday we learned, based on insiders, tweets and this “Kluwer Patent Blogger” (anonymous) blog post, that Mr. Prunier chose to leave the EPO. SUEPO circulated information about it and here are some key bits (no comments yet and SUEPO has not linked to it):
Prunier was fired in of a period of deep turmoil, protests and conflicts at the EPO during the precidency [sic] of Benoit Battistelli, who was accused of creating a climate of fear, putting workers under intolerable pressure and ignoring the organization’s own rules. His controversial leadership lead to parliamentary debates in the Netherlands, France and Germany, to a conflict with the Dutch government and dozens of court cases at the ILOAT, among others (see, for instance, here and here). Several cases of suicide of staff members were linked to the working conditions at the EPO.
According to Battistelli, Prunier had been harassing a colleague. But the dismissal was widely linked immediately to his activities for the trade union and the CSC. Two other SUEPO leaders were fired in 2016 as well, another was downgraded. Prunier has always denied any wrongdoing and asked for transparency: ‘The easiest solution for the public to assess the truth vs. story-telling is for Mr Battistelli to lift the confidentiality he imposes on me and I will gladly publish all the documents’, he wrote at the time in an open letter.
Although the settlement probably means the EPO has acknowledged Prunier should not have been fired, he will not return at the office, according to the SUEPO’s announcement: “The ordeal, which has lasted more than 3 years, has severely impacted Laurent’s life and health. In light of this impact, and in spite of having been a truly committed and valuable EPO colleague, Laurent chose not to return to the Office to be able to properly recover.”
Since his start in office, almost two years ago, there has been pressure on Battistelli’s successor António Campinos to settle the previous administration’s sanctions against prominent SUEPO leaders. There is widespread disappointment (read this blogpost for instance) that it has taken so long to achieve this in cases like Prunier’s and that some have still not been resolved. “We take this opportunity to recall that two former Staff Committee experts remain abusively sanctioned: Aurélien Pétiaud in Munich and Michael Lund (now on pension) in The Hague. We hope that the President will finally provide relief to them, too”, SUEPO wrote.
Also on other fronts the relation between the presidency and staff has not at all normalized, as was initially hoped after the leadership change in July 2018. Late last year, hundreds of staff members in The Hague and Munich protested against working conditions, for the first time since Campinos took office. According to them, he had failed to restore the social dialogue. They were particularly concerned about plans of the EPO to cut costs.
The EPO needs to cut corruption, not costs. There’s profound EPO corruption that harms Europe, as well as EPO staff.
Will the above settlement help distract from the latest attacks on EPO staff? These attacks intensified during the pandemic. Kluwer has said nothing about these (it covered other angles).
Looking through Kluwer comments in another thread, we find further information on EPO abuses against staff, forcing them to violate the EPC while EPI looks the other way:
It’s a Small World, these days. Tendencies one notes in one jurisdiction are there to see, in many others, when you think of looking for them.
Imagine you are a scientist, occupying a vital post of Chief Scientific (or Medical) Adviser to The President (of the USA) or the Prime Minister (of the UK). The health and welfare of the population of your country depend on your retaining the attention of the President. If you disagree with him, the next thing that happens is “You’re fired”. How shall you then continue to damp down the President’s wilder flights of fancy
Likewise the EPI. Disagree with the EPO’s President and you lose his ear. Is this why the EPI behaves like a rabbit caught in the beam of the headlights?
Or is it that the Institute is frightened of offending its biggest clients, the world’s largest corporations.
When lawyers cease to defend The Rule of Law, what is the consequence i) for democracy ii) individual freedom? EPI officers should mull that over. Perhaps it would help them to find their feet and stiffen their backbone.
“Roufousse T. Fairfly” then added more information, including the (mis)use of Microsoft Skype for legal procedures:
Even when looking beyond the current situation, I firmly believe that video-conferencing can contribute to a more efficient, modern and sustainable European patent system, in line with the goals of the EPO’s Strategic Plan 2023.
“Efficient”, “modern”, “strategic”, “firmly believe”, yadda, yadda, yadda… I call BINGO! This hollow management speak (a.k.a. “xyloglossie” or “Betonsprache”), which has infected the EPO decades before the current regime, drives one to despair.
– Why are you doing this?
– Because.
– Because why?
– Because we can.
The reference to a “line manager” in the quoted text isn’t very clear. I understand that in the last years the responsibility of directors was extended to units of something like 50-100 examiners, where it had been 20-30 in earlier times. To compensate (?) for this, a network of “team leaders” (I believe this is their title) came into existence as a new “management” layer, to which is delegated the implementation of whatever unrealistic target is set from above. In other words: deputy cattle-prods. Needless to say, those examiners who volunteer — or are volunteered — for this job aren’t exactly popular, I heard them referred to with anfour-letter German word beginning with “K”…
Specifying that OPs are to take place by video might upend in some way the case-law denying applicants their choice of location for holding OPs (Den Haag or Munich). What happens if an applicant is adamant to have an in-person OP?
I expect this measure to backfire in another way. Even though conditional requests for OPs are fairly systematic in the European procedures, these are actually infrequently conducted once they are summoned. At that point, applicants often withdraw, or become serious and file new requests, and/or announce they won’t attend. There are only few applicants who will pay travel and board for their EPAs, even if they are next door to the EPO. OPs are therefore often quick, mostly formal affairs.
Since about EPA from Lisbon to Tallin would be roughly on an equal footing with those located closer to EPO locations, I believe that many more OPs would actually take place. I therefore expect the general availability Vicos to increase the real work load of examiners. In my day I already had some examining division colleagues dragging their heels considering that they were doing me a favour by providing “unpaid” work (in production points).
Technology therefore doesn’t necessarily mean progress…
With this new measure, virtually all interactions (filing of documents, requests and replies, payments) between applicants and the EPO are now performed in the electronic space, and official notifications by registered mail can be considered as a backup.
The question arises in my opinion as to the continued relevance of Article 133(2) and (3) EPC, which makes representation compulsory for EPC-foreign applicants. Even though a “Vertretungszwang” is compatible with the reservation of Article 2(3) of the Paris Union, how can you keep justifying it morally, or perhaps even legally in the view of other trade-related treaties?
I would expect new problems to arise. For example, should parties from overseas be allowed to participate in an OP, even under the control of the EPA? Would it be allowable to just pipe the ViCo to the applicant in Beijing or Chicago? After all, many EPAs want to show that they properly defended their clients’ interests. But then, can everyone resist the temptation of making a discreet private recording? After all, it’s 2 AM in the windy city when it’s 9 AM in Munich. An EPA might possibly be expected to respect the prohibition on recording, but is his customer bound by these rules? Or an irate pro-se applicant?
I very rarely use privately Skype, Zoom et al. In general, I find hands-free communications unnatural, and wouldn’t want to be forced to use it. Too many discussions sound like the infamous “cone of silence in “Get Smart”, even on quality facilities like those at the EPO.
The “Business” version of Skype appears to be offered for Windows, Android and Apple, but not for any *nix flavour. Skype has a bad reputation since at least Edward Snowden, and wouldn’t be accepted in some jurisdictions:
[Lexology, CH, 24.04.2020] COVID-19: Einsatz von Video- und Telefonkonferenzen in Zivilverfahren
Bei Video- und Telefonkonferenzen muss der Datenschutz bzw. die Datensicherheit stets gewährleistet werden. Die Übertragung von Bild und Ton muss “end-to-end” verschlüsselt erfolgen. Die benutzten Server müssen sich zwingend in der Schweiz oder der Europäischen Union befinden, was die Wahl der möglichen Provider erheblich einschränken dürfte. Eine unbefugte Datenweitergabe an Dritte muss verhindert werden. Im Rahmen dieser Grundsätze sind die Gerichte bei der Auswahl der entsprechenden Infrastruktur grundsätzlich frei. Es wird jedoch empfohlen, die Vorgaben und Empfehlungen der Datenschutzbeauftragten zu berücksichtigen.
Why should a EPC member state accept a lesser standard from the EPOrg?
But others are apparently less picky: [lto, 02.01.2020, DE] Richter, Anwalt und Zeuge beim Skype-Chat. German justice is however having a rough time currently…
[...]
For OPPO, I just realised there is another problem: language interpreters. How do you fit them in the process?
And how do you prepare them before an OP?
The interpreters are normally supplied with a copy of the paper file, and briefed about the case, important documents, special terminology of the field, and what to expect about the conduct of the proceedings. This isn’t trivial work.
A full two-way translation requires 2 pairs of interpreters (eg: 2x EN-FR, 2x FR-EN), with each pair working closely and taking over. How do you coordinate this when everyone of them sits elsewhere? The setup for the Vico would have to provide different channels depending on the party. Transmission delays would probably be horrendous. Does Skype-for-whatever even provide for this?
“German justice is however having a rough time currently,” the above says, which leads us nicely into our next article (about the UPC). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend