Gemini version available ♊︎

The Committee on Patent Law (PLC) Informed About Overlooked Issues “Which Might Have a Bearing on the Validity of EPO Patents.”

Posted in Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 4:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A space suit
The ‘suits’ who run Europe’s second-largest institution hate science and law; all they understand is money and power

Summary: In a publication circulated or prepared last week the Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO explains a situation never explored in so-called ‘media’ (the very little that’s left of it)

LATELY we’ve covered the lies from IAM and the severe patent quality (hence invalidity) issues at the EPO, as explained by the EPO’s very own patent examiners.

Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos have been pampering Joff Wild and his fellow PR operatives (advertising company disguised as “news” site). So the public isn’t supposed to know what’s really going on and the Administrative Council will likely just pat itself on the back/shoulder, based on poor-quality misinformation in very large quantities.

“Who does the EPO actually work for?”In a newly-circulated communication, the CSC (elected staff representation basically) shares an item on “interferences in competencies of Divisions” (targeting the Committee on Patent Law or PLC). In its own words:

The Committee on Patent Law (PLC) shall advise the Administrative Council inter alia on any legal matters concerning a revision of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and on matters concerning the harmonisation of national law in the Contracting States relating to the implementation of the EPC. The 53rd meeting of this Council body took place on 24 November 2021. The Staff Committee informed the PLC about possible consequences arising from Judgment No. 4417 issued by the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization.

The Tribunal held that decisions taken by the President with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications are not appealable by affected examiners. In the underlying case, the competent Examining Division apparently had taken the decision to refuse a patent application. The director, however, ordered the entrusted Examiner of the Division to issue a communication under Article 94(3) EPC. The Tribunal did not examine whether said order was lawful but simply declined jurisdiction because it allegedly concerned a decision with respect to patent procedures.

Examiners can thus not approach the Tribunal about potentially unlawful interferences in their competencies as members of Divisions. Nor can they appeal before the Boards of Appeal. In conclusion, examiners have no means of legal redress against potentially unlawful orders given by someone from management outside a Division to one or all of its members.

Therefore, one may also question whether decisions in examination and opposition proceedings are always taken by the competent body as foreseen in the EPC. As this affects not only the work of examiners but possibly national invalidity proceedings as well, the Staff Committee referred in its intervention in detail to the possible legal gap and the associated potential of violations of the law. The electronic tools currently used in examination and opposition proceedings make the situation even worse, since for example authentication of communications and decisions hardly meet the standards usually foreseen in Europe. Furthermore, the tools do not guarantee the confidentiality of the debate within a Division.

Here is the accompanying document about an intervention dated a fortnight ago:

53rd PLC, 24.11.2021

Manuscript for the intervention of the Staff Representation under point any other business

Staff representation has the duty to make the PLC aware of a possible legal gap affecting examiners carrying out their duties as members of examining and opposition Divisions and which might have a bearing on the validity of EPO patents.

In a recent Judgment of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO, Judgement No. 4417, the Tribunal held that decisions taken by the President with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications are not appealable by affected examiners as they do not adversely affect staff members.

This is particularly remarkable since Judgment No. 4417 relates to a case, where the competent examining Division apparently had taken the decision to refuse a patent application. However, the director ordered the entrusted Examiner of the Division to issue a communication under Article 94(3) EPC instead, which eventually has been sent to the applicant.

The Staff Representation takes the view that such interferences in the Examining Divisions’ decisions amounts to a violation of several Articles of the EPC, inter alia Articles 15, 18, 94 and 97 EPC and, since the communication under Article 94(3) EPC presumably was sent for the examining Division and with the entrusted Examiner’s seal, also Rule 113(1) EPC.

Concerning the use of the Divisions’ seal the EPO Boards of Appeal decision J 16/17 may be cited wherein the Board found that Rule 113(1) EPC, according to which decisions from the European Patent Office must be signed by and state the name of the employee responsible, is not just a mere formality but an essential procedural step in the decision-taking process since the name and the signature serve to identify the decision’s authors and express that they unconditionally assume responsibility for its content. This is to prevent arbitrariness and abuse and to ensure that the competent body has taken the decision. The Boards of Appeal furthermore ruled that any violation of the requirement pursuant to Rule 113(1) EPC amounts to a substantial procedural violation and renders the decision erroneous.

Unfortunately the Administrative Tribunal did not examine at all whether the order of the director was lawful but, as already mentioned, simply declined jurisdiction as it allegedly concerned a decision with respect to patent procedures.

On the other hand the Boards of Appeal are not competent to examine such cases, too.

As a result it appears that neither the Tribunal nor the Boards of Appeal can be called by examiners in such cases to examine whether unlawful interferences have taken place or unlawful orders have been given to Divisions’ members.

In conclusion examiners have no means of legal redress against unlawful orders given by somebody from management outside the examining or opposition Division to one or all of a Division’s members concerning patent procedures. Moreover, examiners even have to accept that their signature is misused and that the public as well as the patent applicants can be misled about the decisions’ authors.

It is noted, that the case dealt with in Judgment No. 4417 is not the only case of interferences with Divisions’ responsibilities and orders to Divisions, which Staff Representation is aware of.

With the electronic tools nowadays used in the examination and opposition proceedings the situation has become even worse since it is questionable whether the minimum standards usually foreseen in Europe for electronic authentication and signature are met.

It can therefore at present not be ensured that decisions in examination and opposition proceedings are always taken by the competent body. This not only affects the working conditions of the examiners but might also have a bearing in national invalidity proceedings.

In order to close the legal gap outlined here and to protect the Organisation’s far reaching immunity from national law, Staff Representation urges the Patent Law Committee

- to review the situation,
- to ensure that the patent applicants and the public are transparently informed about the examination and opposition proceedings, in particular about all persons involved in each step of the patent granting procedure, as well as about all internal instructions and influences on the Divisions’ decisions,
- and to ensure that there is independent jurisdiction available for examiners if they consider an interference with the responsibilities of the Divisions or a specific order to members of a Division being unlawful.

Tribunals at the EPO have long failed to function, but media controlled by patent litigation firms won’t speak about it because their business depends on perpetuating the status quo instead of correcting injustices. Moreover, “the tools do not guarantee the confidentiality of the debate within a Division,” the CSC says. Yes, well… confidentiality issues go much futher; Microsoft and the US government see everything, including data and interactions between Asia and Europe. Instead of tackling the issue, the Administrative Council worked hard to cover this up a few months ago (in summer and again again in autumn). Who does the EPO actually work for?

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. [Meme] EPO: Pursuing an Eastern and Western District of Europe (for Patent Trolls and Software Patents)

    With the EPO so flagrantly lying and paying for misinformation maybe we should expect Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos to have delusions of grandeur… such as presiding over the Eastern and Western District of Europe, just like Mr. Gilstrap and Mr. Albright (political appointment by Donald Trump, ushering in “the swamp”)

  2. Gemini at 2,000: 86% of Capsules Use Self-Signed Certificate, Just Like the Techrights Web Site (WWW)

    As shown in the charts above (updated an hour ago), the relative share of ‘Linux’ Foundation (LE/LF; same thing, same office) in the capsules’ certificates has decreased over time; more and more (in terms of proportion) capsules choose to sign their own certificate/s; the concept of ‘fake security’ (centralisation and consolidation) should be rejected universally because it leaves nobody safe except plutocrats

  3. [Meme] UPC: Many Lies as Headlines, Almost Exclusively in Publishers Sponsored by EPO and Team UPC to Produce Fake News (Lobbying Through Misinformation)

    Lest we forget that EPO dictators, like Pinky and the Brainless Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos, have long littered the EPO's official Web site as well as publishers not directly connected to the EPO (but funded by it) with disinformation about the UPC

  4. EPO as the 'Ministry of Truth' of Team UPC and Special Interests

    The 'Ministry of Truth' of the patent world is turning the EPO's Web site into a propaganda mill, a misinformation farm, and a laughing stock with stock photography

  5. Microsoft 'Delighted' by Windows 11 (Vista 11) Usage, Which is Only 1% Three Months After Official Launch and Six Months After Release Online

    Microsoft boosters such as Bogdan Popa and Mark Hachman work overtime on distraction from the failure Vista 11 has been (the share of Windows continues to fall relative to other platforms)

  6. Links 27/1/2022: Preinstalled GNU/Linux (Ubuntu) and Arch Linux-Powered Steam Deck 30 Days Away

    Links for the day

  7. Don't Fall for Microsoft's Spin That Says Everything is Not Secure and Cannot be Secured

    Microsoft keeps promoting the utterly false concept that everything is not secure and there's nothing that can be done about it (hence, might as well stay with Windows, whose insecurity is even intentional)

  8. At Long Last: 2,000 Known Gemini Capsules!

    The corporate media, looking to appease its major sponsors (such as Web/advertising giants), won't tell you that Gemini Protocol is rising very rapidly; its userbase and the tools available for users are rapidly improving while more and more groups, institutions and individuals set up their own capsule (equivalent of a Web site)

  9. Links 26/1/2022: Gamebuntu 1.0, PiGear Nano, and Much More

    Links for the day

  10. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 25, 2022

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 25, 2022

  11. Links 26/1/2022: No ARM for Nvidia, End of EasyArch, and WordPress 5.9 is Out

    Links for the day

  12. Why the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Still Just a Fantasy and the UPC's Fake News Mill Merely Discredits the Whole Patent 'Profession'

    Patents and science used to be connected; but now that the patent litigation 'sector' is hijacking patent offices (and even courts in places like Texas) it's trying to shove a Unified Patent Court (UPC) down the EU's throat under the disingenuous cover of "community" or "unity"

  13. Links 25/1/2022: Vulkan 1.3 Released, Kiwi TCMS 11.0, and antiX 19.5

    Links for the day

  14. Gemini Milestones and Growth (Almost 2,000 Known Gemini Servers Now, 39,000 Pages in Ours)

    The diaspora to Gemini Protocol or the transition to alternative 'webs' is underway; a linearly growing curve suggests that inertia/momentum is still there and we reap the benefits of early adoption of Gemini

  15. [Meme] Get Ready for Unified Patent Court (UPC) to be Taken to Court

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent system that’s crafted to empower EPO thugs isn’t legal and isn’t constitutional either; even a thousand fake news 'articles' (deliberate misinformation or disinformation) cannot change the simple facts because CJEU isn’t “trial by media”

  16. The EPO Needs High-Calibre Examiners, Not Politicians Who Pretend to Understand Patents and Science

    Examiners are meant to obstruct fake patents or reject meritless patent applications; why is it that working conditions deteriorate for those who are intellectually equipped to do the job?

  17. Free Software is Greener

    Software Freedom is the only way to properly tackle environmental perils through reuse and recycling; the mainstream media never talks about it because it wants people to "consume" more and more products

  18. Links 25/1/2022: Git 2.35 and New openSUSE Hardware

    Links for the day

  19. IRC Proceedings: Monday, January 24, 2022

    IRC logs for Monday, January 24, 2022

  20. Links 25/1/2022: GPL Settlement With Patrick McHardy, Godot 4.0 Alpha 1, and DXVK 1.9.4 Released

    Links for the day

  21. Proprietary Software is Pollution

    "My daughter asked me about why are we throwing away some bits of technology," Dr. Andy Farnell says. "This is my attempt to put into words for "ordinary" people what I tried to explain to a 6 year old."

  22. Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part XV — Cover-Up and Defamation

    Defamation of one’s victims might be another offence to add to the long list of offences committed by Microsoft’s Chief Architect of GitHub Copilot, Balabhadra (Alex) Graveley; attempting to discredit the police report is a new low and can get Mr. Graveley even deeper in trouble (Microsoft protecting him only makes matters worse)

  23. [Meme] Alexander Ramsay and Team UPC Inciting Politicians to Break the Law and Violate Constitutions, Based on Misinformation, Fake News, and Deliberate Lies Wrapped up as 'Studies'

    The EPO‘s law-breaking leadership (Benoît Battistelli, António Campinos and their corrupt cronies), helped by liars who don't enjoy diplomatic immunity, are cooperating to undermine courts across the EU, in effect replacing them with EPO puppets who are patent maximalists (Europe’s equivalents of James Rodney Gilstrap and Alan D Albright, a Donald Trump appointee, in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, respectively)

  24. Has the Administrative Council Belatedly Realised What Its Job in the European Patent Organisation Really Is?

    The "Mafia" which took over the EPO (the EPO's own workers call it "Mafia") isn't getting its way with a proposal, so it's preventing the states from even voting on it!

  25. [Meme] Team UPC is Celebrating a Pyrrhic Victory

    Pyrrhic victory best describes what's happening at the moment (it’s a lobbying tactic, faking/staging things to help false prophecies be fulfilled, based on hopes and wishes alone), for faking something without bothering to explain the legal basis is going to lead to further escalations and complaints (already impending)

  26. Links 24/1/2022: Scribus 1.5.8 and LXLE Reviewed

    Links for the day

  27. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, January 23, 2022

    IRC logs for Sunday, January 23, 2022

  28. [Meme] Team UPC Congratulating Itself

    The barrage of fake news and misinformation about the UPC deliberately leaves out all the obvious and very important facts; even the EPO‘s António Campinos and Breton (Benoît Battistelli‘s buddy) participated in the lying

  29. Links 24/1/2022: pgBadger 11.7 Released, Catch-up With Patents

    Links for the day

  30. The Demonisation and Stereotyping of Coders Not Working for Big Corporations (or 'The System')

    The war on encrypted communication (or secure communications) carries on despite a lack of evidence that encryption stands in the way of crime investigations (most criminals use none of it)

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