12.15.21
Gemini version available ♊︎The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXXVI: Serbian Sour Grapes
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
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XX: The Visegrád Group
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXI: The Balkan League – The Doyen and His “Protégée”
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXII: The Balkan League – North Macedonia and Albania
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXIII: The Balkan League – Bulgaria
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXIV: The Balkan League – Romania
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXV: The Balkan League – Fresh Blood or Same Old, Same Old?
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXVI: A Trojan Horse on the Budget and Finance Committee
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXVII: Cypriot Complicity
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXVIII: Benoît and António’s Loyal “Habibi”
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IXXX: The EPOnian Micro-States – Monaco and Malta
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXX: San Marino and the Perfidious Betrayal of Liberty
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXXI: The Abstentionists
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXXII: “Plucky Little Belgium”?
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXXIII: Swedish Scepticism
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXXIV: An “Extremely Dubious” Proposal
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXXV: Slovakian Scruples
- YOU ARE HERE ☞ Serbian Sour Grapes
Most but not all Administrative Council delegations from the Balkan region had been “captured” by Benoît Battistelli in June 2013. The exceptions were Serbia and Slovenia.
Summary: Today we take a closer look at Serbia, a country that did not authorise Benoît Battistelli’s illegal “Strike Regulations”
The representatives of the EPO‘s member states from the Balkan region have a rather dismal record as "captured delegates".
However, as can be seen by the actions of the Serbian and Slovenian delegations in June 2013, there have been honourable exceptions to this general rule.
“In June 2013, the Serbian delegation was headed by Branka Totić, Director of the Serbian Intellectual Property Office.”In an earlier series about EPO affairs, it was already mentioned that the Serbian delegation on the EPO’s Administrative Council frequently took issue with Battistelli’s proposals.
In June 2013, the Serbian delegation was headed by Branka Totić, Director of the Serbian Intellectual Property Office.
Head of the Serbian delegation, Branka Totić.
Serbia, which is the largest of the successor states of the former federal Republic of Yugoslavia, has been a candidate for EU accession since 2012 but like its neighbours Montenegro and North Macedonia it appears to have been permanently consigned to the “waiting-room”.
However, along with North Macedonia, Serbia has managed to qualify for membership of the European Patent Organisation.
North Macedonia joined the EPO on 1 January 2009 and Serbia followed suit some time later on 1 October 2010.
“North Macedonia joined the EPO on 1 January 2009 and Serbia followed suit some time later on 1 October 2010.”Battistelli did his best to co-opt the Serbs as members of his "Balkan League", but they turned out not to be as “obliging” as their Croatian neighbours who had joined the EPO almost three years earlier on 1 January 2008.
In September 2011 – a little over a year after he had assumed the position of EPO President – Battistelli, paid a two-day visit to the EPO’s newest member state to meet with local dignitaries. On that occasion the “Sun-King” of EPOnia was accompanied by his faithful “batman” Gilles Requena and his cooperation fund “bagman” François-Régis Hannart.
Battistelli in Belgrade in September 2011 flanked by “batman” Requena (l.) and “bagman” Hannart (r.).
According to the official puff-pieces published to mark the occasion, Battistelli used his stay in Belgrade “to address the scientific, economic and academic community in Serbia” at an event held in the Ceremonial Hall of the Rectorate of the University of Belgrade. He also took time to pose for a photo-op with the University Rector Branko Kovačević and the Director of the Serbian IPO, Branka Totić.
Battistelli (r.) posing for a photo-op with the Rector of the University of Belgrade Branko Kovačević (l.) and the Director of the Serbian IPO, Branka Totić (c.).
However, as it turned out, Battistelli and Totić never really warmed to each other.
“However, as it turned out, Battistelli and Totić never really warmed to each other.”On the contrary, according to EPO insiders, the head of the Serbian delegation was irritated by the preferment of Željko Topić, the controversial head of the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office, who was appointed as EPO Vice-President in 2012 on Battistelli’s insistence.
Following this perceived affront, the Serbian delegation on the Administrative Council often crossed swords with Battistelli and expressed their discontent by occasionally voting against his proposals, or at least – as in the case of the “Strike Regulations” – by withholding support in the form of an abstention.
“…we have no information about what exactly motivated their decision to abstain on that particular occasion.”Unfortunately, the minutes of the 136th meeting [PDF] of the Administrative Council don’t contain any statement of the Serbian delegation’s position concerning the “Strike Regulations”. This means that we have no information about what exactly motivated their decision to abstain on that particular occasion.
In the next part we will begin an in-depth examination of the delegation representing the other “abstentionist” state from the Balkan region, the Republic of Slovenia. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA