06.10.21

Gemini version available ♊︎

Virtual Injustice — Part 2: The ViCo Oral Proceedings of 28 May 2021

Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 3:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Previously in the series:

  1. Virtual Injustice — Part 1: António’s Increasingly Wonky Legal Fudge Factory

Virtual EBoA session
ViCo oral proceedings in case no. G 1/21 were held on 28 May 2021.

Summary: More than half a day of theatrics and stonewalling by the EBA may have done a damage so enormous to the EBA’s credibility that irrespective of the final outcome the case is already seen as compromised

On Friday 28 May 2021 oral proceedings were held before the Enlarged Board of Appeal in the high-profile referral case no. G 1/21.

Shortly after the proceedings were opened at 9:00 (Central European Time), the Enlarged Board decided to exclude the public while it conducted an “in camera” discussion with the appellant concerning a number of partiality objections which had been raised in its written submissions of 24 May and other contentious matters.

The discussion on the partiality objections took up the whole of the morning. Public proceedings finally resumed at around 13:00 when the chairman of the Enlarged Board announced that the appellant’s partiality objections had been rejected as “inadmissible”.

“Public proceedings finally resumed at around 13:00 when the chairman of the Enlarged Board announced that the appellant’s partiality objections had been rejected as “inadmissible”.”This is understood to mean that the Enlarged Board didn’t actually rule on the merits of the appellant’s objections but rather decided not to admit them to the proceedings, presumably on the basis of some legal technicality, for example that they had been late-filed.

Further analysis on this point will have to await the Enlarged Board’s written decision.

However, this was not the end of the discussion about formalities. The Enlarged Board was unable to proceed and discuss the substantial legal aspects of the case because, in addition to its partiality objections, the appellant had also raised an objection about a breach of its right to be heard.

“The Enlarged Board was unable to proceed and discuss the substantial legal aspects of the case because, in addition to its partiality objections, the appellant had also raised an objection about a breach of its right to be heard.”More specifically the appellant objected that it had not been given sufficient time to consider and respond to the President‘s submissions on the referral. As a matter of fact, the appellant had only received formal notification of these submissions a few days before the hearing.

According to the appellant’s representatives, such a short period of time was not enough for them to discuss the submissions with their client (especially given that their client had been on holiday at the time in question).

The appellant complained that the Enlarged Board’s actions breached its right to be heard as explicitly provided for under Article 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (RPEBA).

This led to a further round of discussion in public.

“The appellant complained that the Enlarged Board’s actions breached its right to be heard as explicitly provided for under Article 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (RPEBA).”The representative of the President argued that the President’s comments had been published on the EPO website for all to see on 28 April 2021 and had been widely reported and discussed. It was argued from this quarter that the appellant should have been aware of the President’s comments well before they received the formal notification from the EPO.

The appellant countered that it could not be expected to continuously monitor for submissions published somewhere on the EPO website. What was at stake here was the appellant’s right to a proper formal notification of the submissions which safeguarded the right to respond guaranteed under Article 9 RPEBA.

After the public discussion, the chairman announced a break for deliberation.

“However, it is difficult to see how this admirable aspiration squares with the fact that it took the Board about 6 hours to work out that it had overlooked its own procedural rules, in particular the appellant’s right to be heard in accordance with Article 9 RPEBA.”The proceedings resumed some time shortly after 15:00.

The chairman announced that the Enlarged Board had decided on an adjournment of the proceedings to allow the appellant to prepare a written response to the submissions of the EPO President and that the proceedings would resume during the first week of July.

In announcing the decision, chairman expressed the desire of the Enlarged Board to deal with case G 1/21 in “a timely manner.”

However, it is difficult to see how this admirable aspiration squares with the fact that it took the Board about 6 hours to work out that it had overlooked its own procedural rules, in particular the appellant’s right to be heard in accordance with Article 9 RPEBA.

It is worth recalling that the proceedings of 28 May were originally scheduled by Josefsson in a cynical and manipulative attempt to rubber-stamp his own decision as quickly as possible.

If the Enlarged Board had rescheduled the proceedings – as it should have done – that would not only have given the newly composed panel sufficient time to take stock of the case. It would also have given the appellant a proper opportunity to exercise its rights under Article 9 RPEBA.

The fact that such a course of action was not adopted in the aftermath of the intermediate decision of 17 May indicates that everything is being done in this case to prioritise “speed” at the expense of “diligence” (to quote the appellant).

“All in all, it doesn’t augur well for the state of judicial independence at the EPO.”The judicial actors involved in the case will undoubtedly attempt to justify their actions – at least among themselves – from the perspective of “political expediency”.

However, to the outside observer they seem to be acting in a manner which is both legally and ethically questionable.

All in all, it doesn’t augur well for the state of judicial independence at the EPO.

In the next part we will turn our attention to some of the other participants in the oral proceedings of 28 May, more specifically the legal team representing the EPO President.

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. Phoronix: Microsoft and Phoronix Sponsor (and Close Microsoft Partner) AMD All Over the Place

    When you’re taking massive 'gifts' from AMD (and also some from Microsoft) maybe it’s not surprising that editorial decisions change somewhat…



  2. EPO Has No F-ing Oversight

    Earlier today SUEPO mentioned this new article demonstrating that EPO President António Campinos can very obviously and blatantly violate the Code of Conduct of the Office without facing any consequences; there are translations too, so the report is now available in four languages



  3. [Meme] Linux-Rejecting Foundation

    The Linux Foundation never really leads by example; by default, it uses proprietary software



  4. Linux Foundation Almost Never uses Open Source

    The Linux Foundation uses proprietary software (look where they hire and take money from) and be sure they're probably not even aware of it



  5. Links 17/05/2022: Many More Games on GNU/Linux, YaST Development Report

    Links for the day



  6. Links 17/05/2022: Rocky Linux 8.6 and Budgie Desktop in Fedora

    Links for the day



  7. Patent Examiners Rising Up Against EPO Abuse

    Unhappy with the law-breaking autocracy (the EPO‘s management breaks the law as a matter of routine), fast-deteriorating working conditions and rapidly-decreasing quality of work (or lack of compliance with the law), workers have escalated further, topping off strikes and industrial actions with a large-scale petition



  8. [Meme] What Managers (Really) Mean by Acting Professionally

    The myth of 'professionalism' needs to die along with the façade of conformity as prerequisite for employment (Linus Torvalds can work just fine in a bathrobe in his own home)



  9. Internal Poll: 93% of European Patent Office (EPO) Workers Are Unhappy With the EPO

    On top of strike/s and industrial action/s there are now also petitions; at the EPO, almost all staff is "disgruntled" because of utterly corrupt and defunct leadership



  10. Links 17/05/2022: OpenSUSE Leap 15.4 Release Candidate

    Links for the day



  11. IRC Proceedings: Monday, May 16, 2022

    IRC logs for Monday, May 16, 2022



  12. Links 16/05/2022: FreeBSD 13.1 and Inkscape 1.2 Released

    Links for the day



  13. Archiving Latest Posts in Geminispace (Like a Dated Web Directory But for Gemini)

    Earlier today we saw several more people crossing over from the World Wide Web to Gemini; we're trying to make a decent aggregator and archive for the rapidly-expanding Geminispace, which will soon have 2,500 capsules that are known to Lupa alone



  14. Microsoft Vidal Does Not Want to Listen (USPTO is Just for Megacorporations)

    Microsoft Vidal knows her real bosses. They’re international corporations (multinationals like Microsoft), not American people.



  15. Links 16/05/2022: China Advances on GNU/Linux and Maui 2.1.2 is Out

    Links for the day



  16. Jim Zemlin: Chief Revenue Officer in 'Linux' Seat-Selling Foundation

    Board seats in the Linux Foundation are basically a product on sale, based internal documents



  17. Reminder: Linux Foundation's Last IRS Filing is Very Old (Same Year the CFO Left)

    People really need to ask the Linux Foundation, directly, why its filings are years behind; this seems like a sensitive subject



  18. Linux Foundation Does Not Speak for GNU/Linux Users

    There's a serious problem in the "Linux" world as the so-called 'Linux' Foundation claims to speak for us (the GNU/Linux community) while in fact speaking against us (on the payroll of those looking to extinguish us)



  19. IBM's Lennart Poettering on Breaking Software for Pseudo Novelty

    Recently-uploaded ELCE 2011 clip shows a panel with Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Thomas Gleixner, Paul McKenney, and Lennart Poettering (relevant to novelty or perceived novelty that mostly degrades the experience of longtime users, e.g. Wayland and systemd)



  20. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, May 15, 2022

    IRC logs for Sunday, May 15, 2022



  21. Links 15/05/2022: Linux 5.18 RC7 and Calls for More Mass Surveillance

    Links for the day



  22. Audio: Mark Shuttleworth Marketed to Young Males, With Sexy Pictures

    The Web is rotting away, old links become broken links within months or years, so I’ve decided to encode a 3-minute segment of the whole as Ogg



  23. What a Difference Half a Decade Makes (When Linux Foundation is 'Having Fun')

    Media shaming campaigns may have taken their toll on the founder of Linux, who is now bossed by someone who rejects Linux and is married to a Microsoft booster. Like Richard Stallman under FSF guidance (and conditions for return, mostly for fear of further media assaults and attack dogs), he has become a more publicity-shy and private person. The Linux Foundation has in effect reduced the founder of what it’s called after (Linux) into a weekly release manager and mascot, whose brand it is gradually diluting/cheapening.



  24. Links 15/05/2022: GNU libiconv 1.17

    Links for the day



  25. [Meme] Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) Cannot Be Reconciled With the Law

    Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC)? Impossible. But Team UPC counts on an endless torrent of fake news managing to convince you (and more importantly politicians) otherwise.



  26. Even Team Battistelli is Sometimes Admitting -- Out in Public! -- That Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Neither Legal Nor Desirable

    Daniel X. Thomas and other people who are “too old to punish” (consequences to their career profoundly minimised owing to seniority) are among those who push back against the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC); any sane person — not a career-climbing litigation zealot — can identify the pertinent facts and realise that what’s going on here is an injustice of unprecedented proportions in the patent discipline



  27. [Meme] Common Sense at EPO

    The European examiners who deal with patents prefer a system that works for science, for Europe, not for foreign megacorporations that amass millions of low-quality patents and weaponise these to discourage competition



  28. Patent Granting at the EPO Has Collapsed by 24% Owing to Much-Needed Industrial Action

    Seeing that the EPO’s management routinely violates the law and even the very legal basis of the EPO’s existence (it is a monopoly in Europe; no body has the authority to compete against it), the EPO’s examiners have embarked on a ‘Work-to-Rule’ campaign — working in compliance with the rules as defined 49 years ago and revised over the decades — and the European Patent Convention (EPC) takes priority over unlawful demands from middle and upper management; this is proving highly effective so far and it will carry on until demands are met, i.e. until the law is obeyed and staff is treated with respect/dignity



  29. [Meme] Milan is a Suburb in London

    As long as Italy is not the UK and London means London “proper” (not the French town called London) the UPCA is invalid and no matter how much Team UPC (and its puppets in EPO management) may plead, this whole system is bound to implode



  30. The Latest Propaganda Tactics of Team UPC: Pretending Unified Patent Court Already Exists and Unitary Patents Are Default When If Fact None Even Exists

    8 years ago Benoît Battistelli said that the UPC was imminent; now, after 4 years of António Campinos, it’s still not here and Team UPC speculators say it won’t happen this year, either; just like the EPO constantly lies (both to the public and to its very own staff) Team UPC continues to lie to itself (self-delusion) and to us; both also routinely break the law, engage in deliberate violations of longstanding conventions, and scrap constitutions, which in turn becomes a breaking point for the EU’s credibility and the legal profession


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