05.22.21

Gemini version available ♊︎

The EPO’s War on Justice and Assault on the Law — Part 16: The Mystery of the “Missing Signatures”

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 12:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Previously in this series:

The missing BoA signatures
Two signatures are missing from the EBA letter of 8 December 2014 protesting against Benoît Battistelli‘s unprecedented attack on the independence of the Boards.

Summary: The independence of the Boards of Appeal has long been compromised (and António Campinos recently exploited that to green-light European software patents), as judges pointed out repeatedly, so we look back at who protested this and who did not

As we mentioned in the last part, there are 35 signatures at the end of the letter of 8 December 2014 from the Enlarged Board of Appeal to the Administrative Council.

The casual observer could easily come away with the impression that the letter was unanimously approved and signed by all members of the Enlarged Board.

“The casual observer could easily come away with the impression that the letter was unanimously approved and signed by all members of the Enlarged Board.”After all, what self-respecting member of a judicial body wouldn’t want to endorse such a call for the preservation of its independence? Surely this would be a clear and unambiguous matter of professional pride.

However, by comparing the signatures on the letter of 8 December 2014 with the business distribution scheme [PDF] of the Enlarged Board for 2014, it can be deduced that there were two persons who did not sign, namely:

• the Chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (Wim van der Eijk) and

• the Chair of Technical Board 3.5.05 (Andrea Ritzka).

This curious omission attracted the attention of IP Kat back in December 2014:

There are already worrying signs that even the members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal do not consider themselves independent. Two signatures on the now-famous letter of the EBA to the AC protesting the suspension of the Board of Appeal member were notably missing.

These are the signatures of Chairman of the EBA himself, and the member of the Enlarged Board still working (the other two have retired) who participated in Decision R19/12. The President of the EPO is reported to have been furious at that decision, which found that an objection to the participation of the Chairman of the EBA on the basis of suspicion of partiality, because of his dual role as vice president of DG3 (the Boards of Appeal), was justified.

Can it be that pressure has been applied to these two persons?

To this day it remains unclear why van der Eijk and Ritzka declined to sign the letter of 8 December 2014.

“To this day it remains unclear why van der Eijk and Ritzka declined to sign the letter of 8 December 2014.”It would appear that either they were overwhelmed by fear of retaliation by Battistelli or else motivated by indifference or antipathy towards the efforts of their colleagues.

In either case, their failure to sign the letter reflects poorly on them.

If they withheld their signatures out of fear of the consequences of supporting the action of the vast majority of their colleagues, then this would have been tantamount to an implicit admission that their personal independence, and that of the Boards as a whole, was fatally compromised.

If, on the other hand, it turned out to be the case that they declined to sign out of indifference or even antipathy towards the efforts of their colleagues to safeguard the independence of the judicial body to which they belonged, then the implications would be even more damning.

In that case, their failure to sign would be indicative of a striking absence of professional solidarity and a disturbing lack of concern for the independence of the judicial body that they purport to represent.

In the case of van der Eijk his failure to sign the letter of 8 December 2014 has been raised on a number of occasions in subsequent proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

For example, the matter was raised in the context of partiality objections submitted in review cases R 2/2014 [PDF] (interlocutory decision of 17 February 2015) and R 08/13 [PDF] (interlocutory decision of 17 February 2015).

In R 2/2014 the petitioner made the following submissions:

The President had issued a “house ban” on a member of the boards of appeal without prior involvement of the Administrative Council and the Enlarged Board of Appeal in accordance with Articles 11(4) and 23(1) EPC.

Whereas almost all internal members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal wrote a letter of protest to the Administrative Council (attachment to the petitioner’s letter of 23 December 2014), the Chairman neither signed said letter nor remonstrated against the President’s action, which the petitioner considered to be ultra vires. The Chairman’s failure to act gave cause for a suspicion of partiality.

Furthermore, his partiality affected the other Members as well. Since the other Members could not expect the Chairman to defend their rights vis-à-vis the President, a party to proceedings could only doubt their impartiality.

In that case the Enlarged Board avoided dealing with the issues raised by the petitioner by dismissing the objection as “late-filed”.

The issue surfaced again in case no. R 08/13 of 20 March 2015 where the petitioner made the following submissions:

The petitioners submitted that the fact that the chairman objected to [van der Eijk] had not been amongst those expressing their concerns about the President’s disciplinary action against a member of the boards of appeal reinforced the validity of the statement in R 19/12 that the chairman’s position as VP3 was in conflict with his role as an independent judge; the petitioners found it unacceptable that their case might be decided by a judge who, having maintained his position as VP3 after R 19/12 was issued, conveyed an impression to the public that he was not willing to show the necessary distance from a President who obviously did not respect the independence of the judiciary.

Once again, the Enlarged Board weaselled out of confronting the “elephant in the room”.

It claimed that “to consider the general issue of the independence of its members, in particular the chairman of the Enlarged Board” would “go beyond its powers in the present case”.

“Once again, the Enlarged Board weaselled out of confronting the “elephant in the room”.”Referring to the letter of 8 December 2014, the Enlarged Board simply brushed aside the objection about van der Eijk’s failure to endorse it stating that “no conclusions about the objective partiality of the Enlarged Board’s chairman can be drawn from the fact that he did not sign it”.

Ritzka’s failure to sign the letter of 8 December 2014 was the subject of comment in an article by patent attorney Ingve Björn Stjerna published in January 2015 [PDF] and entitled “Unitary patent and court system – Advocate General’s Statements of Position: Superseded by reality”:

Suspension of a Boards of Appeal member by the EPO President

[…] Little attention has so far been given to a further interesting aspect of the suspension incident. According to a report by “JUVE Rechtsmarkt” of 9 December 2014 …, the suspended person is supposed to be a member of Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

If this should be correct, it would push the significance of the incident even further, since the Chair of this Board is one of the three judges who handed down the mentioned interlocutory decision R 19/12, in which an insufficient separation of the executive and judiciary at the EPO was conceded.

According to reports, President Battistelli does not fully agree with the result of that decision. Since its publication, two of the three judges involved have retired.

Should Board of Appeals 3.5.05 really be affected by the suspension – an indication for which could also be the fact that its Chairman has not signed the mentioned letter from members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal –, this could also be interpreted as an attempt to set an example with regard to the last judge from the context R 19/12 remaining at the EPO and to emphasize that anybody being prepared to render courageous decisions like R 19/12 will have to pay a high price for this – which, of course, would be further evidence for a lack of independence of the Boards of Appeal. However, as long as no further details are known, this remains speculation.

Following her failure to sign the letter of 8 December 2014, it is rumoured that Ritzka received a lot of flak from other members of the Enlarged Board.

“We conclude by noting that although the “missing signatures” affair relates to events which happened back in December 2014, it nevertheless has contemporary relevance for G 1/21.”According to well-informed internal sources, in the immediate aftermath of the affair she was “perusaded” to step down from participating in the Presidium [PDF] of the Boards of Appeal. The Presidium is the internal body responsible for laying down the rules and organising the work of the Boards of Appeal. However, it seems that, after a suitable period of “sackcloth and ashes”, she has in the meantime returned to a position in that body.

We conclude by noting that although the “missing signatures” affair relates to events which happened back in December 2014, it nevertheless has contemporary relevance for G 1/21.

This is because the affair shows that two members of the entrusted panel – including the rapporteur – are persons whose commitment to the principle of judicial independence is in grave doubt.

The failure of these members to endorse the efforts of the vast majority of their colleagues back in December 2014 suggests that their commitment to the independence of the EPO’s judicial organ is at best lukewarm and it would appear to raise serious questions about their professional integrity and impartiality.

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

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. Austria's Right-Wing Politicians Displaying Their Arrogance to EPO Examiners

    The EPO‘s current regime seems to be serving a money-hungry lobby of corrupt officials and pathological liars; tonight we focus on Austria



  2. [Meme] Friedrich Rödler's Increasingly Incomprehensible Debt Quagmire, Years Before EPO Money Was Trafficked Into the Stock Market

    As it turns out, numerous members of the Administrative Council of the EPO are abundantly corrupt and greedy; They falsely claim or selfishly pretend there’s a financial crisis and then moan about a "gap" that does not exist (unless one counts the illegal gambling, notably EPOTIF, which they approved), in turn recruiting or resorting to scabs that help improve ‘profit margins’



  3. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XV: Et Tu Felix Austria…

    Prior to the Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos regime the EPO‘s hard-working staff was slandered by a corrupt Austrian official, Mr. Rödler



  4. Links 17/10/2021: Blender 2.93.5, Microsoft Bailouts

    Links for the day



  5. Links 17/10/2021: GhostBSD 21.10.16 and Mattermost 6.0

    Links for the day



  6. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, October 16, 2021

    IRC logs for Saturday, October 16, 2021



  7. [Meme] First Illegally Banning Strikes, Then Illegally Taking Over Courts

    The vision of Team Battistelli/Campinos is a hostile takeover of the entire patent system, not just patent offices like the EPO; they’d stop at nothing to get there



  8. Portuguese Network of Enablers

    Instead of serving Portuguese people or serving thousands of EPO workers (including many who are Portuguese) the delegation from Portugal served the network of Campinos



  9. In Picture: After Billions Spent on Marketing, With Vista 11 Hype and Vapourware, No Real Gains for Windows

    The very latest figures from Web usage show that it’s hardly even a blip on the radar; Windows continues bleeding to death, not only in servers



  10. [Meme] [Teaser] Double-Dipping Friedrich Rödler

    As we shall see tomorrow night, the EPO regime was supported by a fair share of corrupt officials inside the Administrative Council



  11. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XIV: Battistelli's Iberian Facilitators - Portugal

    How illegal “Strike Regulations” and regressive ‘reforms’ at the EPO, empowering Benoît Battistelli to the detriment of the Rule of Law, were ushered in by António Campinos and by Portugal 5 years before Campinos took Battistelli’s seat (and power he had given himself)



  12. Links 16/10/2021: SparkyLinux Turns 10 and Sculpt OS 21.10

    Links for the day



  13. “Facebook Whistleblowers” Aside, It Has Been a Dying Platform for Years, and It's Mentally Perverting the Older Generation

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  14. [Meme] Microsoft Has Always Been About Control Over Others

    Hosting by Microsoft means subjugation or a slavery-like relationship; contrary to the current media narrative, Microsoft has long been censoring LinkedIn for China’s autocratic regime; and over at GitHub, as we shall show for months to come, there’s a war on information, a war on women, and gross violations of the law



  15. EFF Pushes for Users to Install DuckDuckGo Software After Being Paid to Kill HTTPS Everywhere

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  16. The Reign in Spain

    Discussion about the role of Spain in the EPO‘s autocratic regime which violates the rights of EPO staff, including Spanish workers



  17. [Meme] Spanish Inquisition

    Let it be widely known that Spain played a role in crushing the basic rights of all EPO workers, including hundreds of Spaniards



  18. Why You Shouldn’t Use SteamOS, a Really Incompetent GNU/Linux Distribution With Security Pitfalls (Lutris is a Great Alternative)

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  19. IRC Proceedings: Friday, October 15, 2021

    IRC logs for Friday, October 15, 2021



  20. Links 16/10/2021: Xubuntu 21.10 and DearPyGui 1.0.0

    Links for the day



  21. DuckDuckGo’s HQ is Smaller Than My Apartment

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  22. Post About Whether Vivaldi is a GPL violation Was Quietly Knifed by the Mods of /r/uBlockOrigin in Reddit

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  23. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XIII: Battistelli's Iberian Facilitators - Spain

    The EPO‘s António Campinos is an ‘Academy’ of overt nepotism; what Benoît Battistelli did mostly in France Campinos does in Spain and Portugal, severely harming the international image of these countries



  24. From Competitive (Top-Level, High-Calibre, Well-Paid) Jobs to 2,000 Euros a Month -- How the EPO is Becoming a Sweatshop by Patent Examiners' Standards

    A longish video about the dreadful situation at the EPO, where staff is being ‘robbed’ and EPO funds get funnelled into some dodgy stock market investments (a clear violation of the institution’s charter)



  25. [Meme] Protecting European Patent Courts From EPO 'Mafia'

    With flagrant disregard for court rulings (or workarounds to dodge actual compliance) it seems clear that today's EPO management is allergic to justice and to judges; European Patents perish at unprecedented levels in national European courts and it should be kept that way



  26. Links 15/10/2021: Pine64's New PinePhone Pro and Ubuntu 22.04 LTS Codename

    Links for the day



  27. [Meme] GitHub Isn't Free Hosting, It's All About Control by Microsoft

    Deleting GitHub isn’t a political statement but a pragmatic decision, seeing how Microsoft routinely misuses its control over GitHub to manipulate the market



  28. With EPO 'Strike Regulations' Belatedly Ruled Unlawful, EPO Management May be Lowering the Salary Even Further by Introducing Outside 'Temps' or Casual Workers

    Institutional capture by an 'IP' (litigation) Mafia is nearly complete; with illegal so-called (anti) 'Strike Regulations' out the door, they're quickly moving on to another plan, or so it seems on the surface



  29. Links 15/10/2021: 95% of Ransomware Targets Windows

    Links for the day



  30. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, October 14, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, October 14, 2021


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts