10.22.21
Gemini version available ♊︎The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XX: The Visegrád Group
Series parts:
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part I: Let the Sunshine In!
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part II: A “Unanimous” Endorsement?
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part III: Three Missing Votes
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IV: The Founding States
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part V: Germany Says “Ja”
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part VI: A Distinct Lack of Dutch Courage
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part VII: Luxembourgish Laxity
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part VIII: Perfidious Albion and Pusillanimous Hibernia
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IX: More Holes Than Swiss Cheese
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part X: Introducing the Controversial Christian Bock
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XI: “General Bock” – Battistelli’s Swiss Apprentice?
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XII: The French Connection
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XIII: Battistelli’s Iberian Facilitators – Spain
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XIV: Battistelli’s Iberian Facilitators – Portugal
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XV: Et Tu Felix Austria…
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVI: The Demise of the Austrian Double-Dipper
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVII: The Non-Monolithic Nordic Bloc
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVIII: Helsinki’s Accord
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IXX: The Baltic States
- YOU ARE HERE ☞ The Visegrád Group
The heads of the Visegrád IPOs with WIPO boss Gurry in December 2015. From l. to r.: Josef Kratochvíl (CZ), Miklós Bendzsel (HU), Francis Gurry (WIPO), Alicija Adamczak (PL) and Luboš Knoth (SK).
Summary: The EPO‘s unlawful “Strike Regulations” (which helped Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos illegally crush or repress EPO staff) were supported by only one among 4 Visegrád delegates
THE Visegrád Group is a political and cultural alliance of four countries of Central and Eastern Europe: the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland.
The purpose of this regional “coalition” of former Eastern Bloc states is to advance mutual co-operation in military, cultural, economic and energy matters and to promote their integration into the EU.
“…two of the Visegrád delegations, namely Hungary and the Czech Republic, didn’t even bother to turn up for the vote on Battistelli’s “Strike Regulations”.”The heads of the national “IP” offices of the Visegrád Group meet on an annual basis and these meetings typically include representatives from the “IP” Offices of neighbouring countries such as Austria, Slovenia, and Croatia.
As in the case of the EPO’s Nordic states, the regular contacts and exchanges between the national “IP” offices of the Visegrád Group do not always lead to a consensus or to coordinated action on the part of the group as a whole.
In June 2013, the heads of delegation for the Visegrád states were as follows:
• Czech Republic: Josef Kratochvíl, Director General, Czech Patent Office;
• Hungary: Miklós Bendzsel, Director-General, Hungarian Patent Office;
• Poland: Alicja Adamczak, Director-General, Polish Patent Office;
• Slovakia: L’uboš Knoth, Director General, Slovakian Patent Office.
We have already seen in an earlier part of this series that the representatives of two of the Visegrád delegations, namely Hungary and the Czech Republic, didn’t even bother to turn up for the vote on Battistelli’s “Strike Regulations”.
Delegates from the Visegrád Group who didn’t turn up for the vote on the EPO “Strike Regulations”.
Top: Head of the Hungarian delegation, Miklós Bendzsel (left) and his deputy Mihály Ficsor (right).
Bottom: Head of the Czech delegation, Josef Kratochvíl.
Of the two Visegrád delegations that did actually turn up for the vote, Poland voted in favour and Slovakia abstained.
The Polish delegation under Alicja Adamczak invariably took a pro-Battistelli stance so its vote in favour of Battistelli’s “Strike Regulations” came as no surprise.
Adamczak’s loyalty to Battistelli appears to have paid dividends for Poland in the form of support for various co-operation projects and international conferences.
“As we shall see in a later part, the Slovakian delegation headed by L’uboš Knoth withheld its support and did not vote in favour of the controversial “Strike Regulations”.”For example about a year or so after the Polish delegation had given its support to Battistelli’s “Strike Regulations”, the EPO’s “24th Patent Information Conference” (warning: epo.org link) was held in Warsaw on 5 November 2014.
The purpose of the conference was to highlight “the growing role of patent data for business and policy-makers”. Battistelli turned up in person to give a welcome address to the “400 IP professionals from across the globe” who had assembled “to look at the latest developments in patent data and how it can be leveraged for business decisions”.
Head of the Polish delegation, Alicja Adamczak, was a loyal supporter of Team Battistelli at the EPO.
Finally, we come to the last of member of the Visegrád Group: Slovakia.
As we shall see in a later part, the Slovakian delegation headed by L’uboš Knoth withheld its support and did not vote in favour of the controversial “Strike Regulations”.
Head of the Slovak delegation, L’uboš Knoth, who did not endorse Battistelli’s “Strike Regulations”.
In the next part, we shall leave the plains of central Europe and shift our attention to the south-east to look at how the delegations from the Croatian-led “Balkan League” played their part in endorsing Battistelli’s liberticidal project in June 2013. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA