08.02.21

[Meme] Vichyite Battistelli Committed Crimes and His Buddy António Snubs Courts That Confirm These Are Crimes

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 8:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

António Campinos builds on top of Benoît Battistelli‘s actions to euthanise the EPO for a quick 'cash grab'

I will commit the crimes; I will leverage and cover them up

Summary: Staff of the EPO is coming to realise (or reaching acceptance of the fact) that the spirit of Battistelli — not just people he left in charge of the EPO — dooms the Office and there’s no way out of this mess

07.30.21

[Meme] Rowan and António Sittin’ on a Tree…

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 4:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Have they climbed up some tree? Behold; they need to come down… off their high horses or the 10th floor… sooner rather than later… because the silence and inaction contribute to the perception of non-compliance with court rulings (except fake courts which they control).

ILO-AT issues ruling on strike regulations; May-June, Late June, Early July, End of July

Summary: How much longer can Team Campinos keep issuing tons of noisy and self-congratulatory puff pieces to (perhaps) distract from the elephant in the 10th floor of the Isar building (EPO HQ)? Staff won't wait for eternity.

07.17.21

The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal Acknowledges That It’s Rigged Even After a Shuffle

Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 4:40 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum 285911316fb6b32f5b7f2da3cb8998fe

Summary: The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA/EBoA) does what the Office basically rigged it to do; it’s approving unlawful measures

IT recently became a lot more apparent that the tribunals at the EPO had been rigged, first by Benoît Battistelli and then again by António Campinos. Time after time, especially when it comes to very big questions, the Enlarged Board of Appeal would rule in favour of the Office, irrespective of the underlying facts. Yet worse, they’d deal with legitimate concerns and arguments by setting them aside as inadmissible or something along those lines.

On Friday, i.e. yesterday, the Enlarged Board of Appeal did that yet again, just as we expected. The video above deals with so-called ‘media’ (in the pockets of litigation firm) coverage from that day. We’ll probably deal with this topic again some time in the near future.

07.08.21

ILOAT Finally Overturns Battistelli’s Vichyite Strike Regulations

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 1:31 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz


The Judgments of the ILOAT’s 132nd Session were announced in Geneva on 7 July 2021

Summary: An explanation of the blow suffered by António Campinos and the person who gave him the job; ILOAT (or ILO-AT) belatedly — or eight years late! — assessed Battistelli’s Vichyite strike regulations

There was some good news for EPO staff from Geneva on Wednesday when the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO announced its judgments from the recent 132nd Session, held between 24 May and 28 June 2021.

A significant number of the judgments related to Benoît Battistelli‘s notorious “Strike Regulations” which were adopted eight years ago in June 2013.

“But despite such clearly expressed reservations, the Administrative Council turned a blind eye to the palpable defects in the proposals tabled by Team Battistelli and – like a bunch of headless chickens – voted to adopt these manifestly flawed measures whose illegality has now been exposed for all to see.”On 27 June 2013, following a proposal by the President of the Office [PDF], the Administrative Council adopted decision CA/D 5/13 [PDF] amending the EPO Service Regulations (which entered into force on 1 July 2013).

Amongst other things, CA/D 5/13 created a new Article 30a of the Service Regulations concerning the right to strike.

Article 30a sets out some basic rules concerning strikes, defining what is meant by a “strike” and indicating, amongst other things, that a call for a strike can be initiated by a staff committee, an association of employees, or a group of employees, and that the decision to start a strike must be the result of a vote by the employees. Paragraph 10 of Article 30a authorises the President of the Office to lay down further terms and conditions for the application of Article 30a.

Relying on that provision, on 28 June 2013 the former Vice-President of DG4, Mr Željko Topić – acting on behalf of the President – issued Circular No. 347 containing “Guidelines applicable in the event of strike”, which likewise entered into effect on 1 July 2013.

At the time of their adoption in 2013, Battistelli’s Strike Regulations were strongly criticised by EPO staff representatives and the staff union SUEPO. This criticism was shared by outside observers of the social conflict at the EPO which was being escalated to new heights by Battistelli’s authoritarian management style à la France Telecom.

An article entitled “The President Repeals A Fundamental Right?” authored by Sylvie Jacobs, the Chairperson of the EU staff union, Union Syndicale Fédérale, which appeared in the January 2014 issue of the USF Newsletter [PDF], Agora, described Battistelli’s régime at the EPO in the following terms:

“EPO President Battistelli’s HR policy reveals a serious lack of understanding of fundamental rights of workers, in particular their right of association in the form of a trade-union.”

Later that year, in November 2014 [PDF], a position paper issued by the staff union SUEPO entitled “Social Conflict at the European Patent Office” noted that “such measures are unprecedented in Europe, apart from Italy’s Carta del Lavoro (B. Mussolini, 1927) and Spain’s Fuero del Trabajo (F. Franco, 1938).”

In drawing comparisons between Battistelli’s oppressive Strike Regulations and those of fascist-corporatist régimes that flourished in Europe during the inter-war period of the 20th century, SUEPO forgot to mention the example which was probably closest to Battistelli’s heart: the Labour Code or “Charte du Travail” adopted in 1941 by Philippe Pétain‘s Vichy State. The repressive labour and social policies of Pétain’s État Français were closely modelled on those of Fascist Italy.

Vichy Battistelli
Did Maréchal Pétain’s Vichy State provide the role model for Battistelli’s repressive regime at the EPO?

With Judgment no. 4430 [PDF], the ILOAT delivered on 7 July 2021, the ILOAT belatedly hammered another long overdue nail into the coffin of “le Système Battistelli” at the EPO, by striking down Circular No. 347 as manifestly unlawful.

This long-awaited judgment is good news for all those who opposed the tyrannical regime of Team Battistelli over the last decade.

While this significant legal victory is a cause for celebration, it should not be allowed to obscure the precarious legal situation of the staff of the EPO and other international organisations who are dependent on Tribunals like the ILOAT to defend their rights.

Notwithstanding the fact that Circular No. 347 has been found to breach the fundamental rights of EPO staff, it remained in force for eight years!

During this time it was used repeatedly to underpin the Corsican despot’s managerialist “Reign of Terror” and impede any kind of internal dissent and collective action on the part of EPO staff against the excesses of the Office Administration.

Even more outrageous is the fact that at the time of the adoption of the Strike Regulations in 2013, the small number of delegations on the Administrative Council that made any attempt to evaluate the proposed measures had grave doubts about their compliance with international conventions.

An internal memorandum from the Norwegian Department of Labour dated 26 June 2013 [PDF] expressed the following opinion:

“The Department of Labour is therefore skeptical about a solution with an administrative regulation and about the content that, at a quick glance, seems extremely dubious in respect of its compliance with applicable international conventions.”

But despite such clearly expressed reservations, the Administrative Council turned a blind eye to the palpable defects in the proposals tabled by Team Battistelli and – like a bunch of headless chickens – voted to adopt these manifestly flawed measures whose illegality has now been exposed for all to see.

Will any lessons be learned from this débâcle?

One would like to think so, but unfortunately the track record of the Administrative Council and the senior management of the Office over the last decade doesn’t provide much reason for optimism on this front.

[Meme] Will EPO Comply?

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 8:02 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dynamic interpretation!
Compliance or fixing?

Summary: EPO management has lost a number of important cases at ILO-AT (regarding its attacks on over 1,000 members of staff and unlawful regulations); will it comply with the rulings?

07.07.21

Among 43 New Judgments From ILO-AT, Which ‘Oversees’ Dozens of Institutions, 25 (More Than 58%) Concern the EPO’s Staff

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 6:43 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Imagine just one institution taking up almost two-thirds of the limited resources of ILO’s Administrative Tribunal

ILO Administrative Tribunal membership

Summary: The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) shows the chaotic effect of a truly dysfunctional and corrupt Office management; ILO’s Administrative Tribunal (ILO-AT) can barely keep up with the caseload

MANY people no longer remember this. In the final days of Benoît Battistelli as EPO President he was served a blow by ILO-AT, which belatedly and exceptionally ruled in favour of his scapegoats, the SUEPO leaders (representatives). They were vindicated, but a lot of personal and collective harm had been done.

The EPO will never forget and may never recover from this.

“The AC (Administrative Council) has become deeply complicit, as we’ve repeatedly demonstrated in recent days.”Earlier today (this morning) we wrote about how IP Kat finally wrote about Friday’s controversial hearing less than a day earlier. We mentioned that many blog comments would not show up. Some did. “The founding fathers of the EPO are spluttering in their cocoa or turning in their graves. Sad days,” said one commenter. There was also this one:

Contrary to the view of the President’s representative, a “dynamic” interpretation based upon secondary legislation is NOT possible in this instance.

The competence of the AC to amend Articles of the EPC is limited (by Article 33(1)(b) EPC) to amendments that are for the purpose of bringing the EPC “into line with an international treaty relating to patents or European Community legislation relating to
patents”. This criterion is NOT satisfied with respect to Article 116 EPC.

Perhaps the President’s representative is aware of a really obscure international treaty (or piece of EU legislation) which relates to patents AND which specifies that oral proceedings can be conducted by VICO without the consent of parties to the proceedings. However, given that they did not mention any such treaty (or legislation), then I can only assume that they instead believe that Article 33(1)(b) EPC can also be interpreted “dynamically” (ie in whichever way happens to suit the current plans of the EPO President).

The sentiments are very negative. These are legal professionals, either active or retired. They’re not happy.

Staff of the EPO isn’t happy either. Far from it. There are still many complaints about EPO management. In fact, copies of new key decisions can be found in SUEPO’s Web site [1 [PDF], 2 [PDF], 3 [PDF],4 [PDF], 5 [PDF]] or the originals in ILO’s Web site, which is trustworthy only for long-term preservation (not for access to justice, as history shows). We’re not making local copies or videos, as explaining the full text would be hard (much studying required and the union is already doing that anyway, probably in cooperation with the aggrieved staff who would know the cases best). Here are the first pages (of each in turn):

ILOAT on #4430

ILOAT on #4432
ILOAT on #4433

ILOAT on #4434

ILOAT on #4435

Two of these concern the notorious strike deductions [1, 2, 3]. They concern many members of staff. The other three concern Circular 347.

In its public post about this SUEPO notes (revised for a slight error earlier today or just to add a case mistakenly omitted earlier today): “In its 132nd session the Tribunal delivered a total of 43 judgments, of which 25 concern the EPO (many of which were in favor of the complainants). [...] A detailed analysis of the most significant cases involving the EPO will be published at a later date.”

SUEPO focuses on the positive outcomes in isolation. This is normal. “The encouraging news from this session is that the following cases were ruled in favor of the complainants [i.e. the staff],” but we can assume the rest involved lots of legal fees (burden on staff) without a positive outcome. We already know that António Campinos is lawyering up the staff, wasting EPO budget to basically attack EPO staff a second time around (first in the Office, then in the tribunals). He clearly does not seek peace and reconciliation. To quote a new comment from IP Kat: “Had the present and the previous management team been at the helm of the EPO at its beginning, the EPO would never have become what it is was before 2010. It is sad to see those pseudo managers, by no means leaders, driving the EPO into the wall merely to satisfy their desire for power. The AC has completely given up its control function, it is as has been the said the tail wagging the dog.”

Yes, exactly! The AC (Administrative Council) has become deeply complicit, as we’ve repeatedly demonstrated in recent days.

06.21.21

Virtual Injustice — Part 14: How Mandatory ViCo Became the “New Normal”

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 4:40 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Previously in the series:

  1. Virtual Injustice — Part 1: António’s Increasingly Wonky Legal Fudge Factory
  2. Virtual Injustice — Part 2: The ViCo Oral Proceedings of 28 May 2021
  3. Virtual Injustice — Part 3: All the President’s Men…
  4. Virtual Injustice — Part 4: Mihály Ficsor, the EPO’s Hungarian “Fixer”
  5. Virtual Injustice — Part 5: Benoît’s “Friends” in Budapest
  6. Virtual Injustice — Part 6: Best Buddies With António
  7. Virtual Injustice — Part 7: Musical Chairs and Revolving Doors
  8. Virtual Injustice — Part 8: A Well-Connected ‘IP’ Maximalist
  9. Virtual Injustice — Part 9: Heli, the EPO’s Nordic Ice-Queen
  10. Virtual Injustice — Part 10: Vapid and Superficial Coverage in the ‘IP’ Blogosphere
  11. Virtual Injustice — Part 11: Perceptive Comments and Caustic Criticism
  12. Virtual Injustice — Part 12: Carl Josefsson – Down But Not Out!
  13. Virtual Injustice — Part 13: Let the Games Continue…

ViCo hearings/Big Brother

Summary: How mandatory ViCo hearings gradually became the "New Normal" at the EPO. The lawlessness of the EPO has gone offline and online; António Campinos takes up a notch the abuses of Benoît Battistelli, with a COVID ‘shot in the arm’.

The impetuous manner in which the President of the Boards of Appeal, Carl Josefsson, tried to steer the referral procedure G 1/21 towards a pre-cooked “foregone conclusion” is quite remarkable given that – as we shall see below – the Boards were initially quite hesitant about the use of videoconferencing for conducting oral proceedings at the start of Covid pandemic.

“It is worth recalling here that the possibility to use ViCo has in fact been available at the EPO since January 1998.”The reason for this initial hesitancy on the part of the Boards is not hard to find.

Prior to the onset of the Covid pandemic in 2020, it had been the long-established position of the EPO that hearings by ViCo were not equivalent to the traditional form of “in person” oral proceedings held on the EPO premises.

It is worth recalling here that the possibility to use ViCo has in fact been available at the EPO since January 1998. [PDF]

OJ 1997 OP held as video conference

Furthermore, when the EPO introduced this option, it was restricted to examination proceedings which are non-public ex parte proceedings involving only a single party.

In order to exercise this option, the EPO required the applicant to “renounce in advance and irrevocably his right to oral proceedings being held in the traditional form at the EPO premises on the same subject after the requested video conference.”

In other words, applicants were offered the possibility of a hearing by ViCo as an optional alternative in lieu of their statutory right to an oral hearing in person on the premises of the EPO.

“Furthermore, when the EPO introduced this option, it was restricted to examination proceedings which are non-public ex parte proceedings involving only a single party.”In the case of proceedings before opposition divisions – which are public adversarial inter partes proceedings involving two or more parties – no provision was made for oral proceedings by ViCo.

Back in 2011, the committee in charge of the European Qualifying Examination (EQE) confirmed [PDF] in its annual examination report that “there is no legal provision allowing video conference before an opposition division (see here, footnote [28]).

Similarly, in the case of judicial proceedings before the Boards of Appeal – whether ex parte (examination) or inter partes (opposition) – no option for oral proceedings by ViCo was ever provided prior to 2020.

2011 paper C exrep en page 2

“The Covid pandemic turned out to be a game-changer in this regard.”In short, there was a long-established consensus in the EPO’s legal department that oral proceedings by ViCo were not appropriate for public proceedings having a judicial or quasi-judicial character, such as adversarial proceedings before opposition divisions and appeal proceedings before the Boards of Appeal.

The Covid pandemic turned out to be a game-changer in this regard.

On 1 April 2020, the President of the EPO issued a decision ordering – as opposed to offering – oral proceedings by ViCo in the case of ex parte examination cases.

Article 1(1) of this decision stated in mandatory terms that “Oral proceedings before examining divisions are to be held by videoconference”.

Article 1(3) further decreed that “Oral proceedings by videoconference are equivalent to oral proceedings held on the premises of the European Patent Office”.

Soon afterwards, on 14 April 2020, the President announced [PDF] a “pilot project” for oral proceedings by ViCo in the case of inter partes opposition cases.

ViCo OPPO 14 April 2020

“The earlier proviso referring to the “the agreement of all parties” had mysteriously vanished without explanation from the text of the new decision.”The initial scope of the “pilot project” was restricted to “all oral proceedings before opposition divisions that are scheduled to take place after the entry into force of the present decision” and the project was limited in duration (“until 30 April 2021″).

And – most importantly – Article 2(1) of the decision made the holding of opposition hearings by ViCo contingent on “the agreement of all parties”.

On 10 November 2020 a further decision [PDF] concerning “the modification and extension” of the “pilot project” announced that the project had been “extended to run until 15 September 2021″.

ViCo OPPO 10 November 2020

“It is worth noting here that these “decisions” of the EPO imposing oral proceedings by ViCo without the consent of the parties – for both examination and opposition procedures – are unilateral acts of the Office President which did not involve any prior consultation or approval of the Administrative Council.”Article 1(1) of the decision of 10 November 2020 now prescribed in mandatory terms that “Oral proceedings before opposition divisions are held by videoconference”.

The earlier proviso referring to the “the agreement of all parties” had mysteriously vanished without explanation from the text of the new decision.

It is worth noting here that these “decisions” of the EPO imposing oral proceedings by ViCo without the consent of the parties – for both examination and opposition procedures – are unilateral acts of the Office President which did not involve any prior consultation or approval of the Administrative Council.

Meanwhile, in the municipality of Haar – located “only slightly” outside the boundaries of the city of Munich – the EPO’s nominally independent judicial organ, the Boards of Appeal, initially followed its own more cautious and conservative approach.

On 15 March 2020 (warning: epo.org link) the Boards announced that due to “the pandemic spread of the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)”, they had been “forced to restrict [their] judicial activities” and that oral proceedings would not be held on the premises of the Boards of Appeal from 16 March 2020 until 27 March 2020.

On 20 March 2020, it was announced that this temporary moratorium would be extended until 17 April 2020. On 1 April, it was further extended until 30 April and on 17 April it was extended once more until 15 May.

Finally, on 15 May 2020 [PDF], it was announced that the Boards would “resume the holding of oral proceedings, to a limited extent, at their premises in Haar from Monday, 18 May 2020″.

BoA ViCo 15 May 2020

In addition to this, it was noted that:

“Video-conferencing technology (VICO) is now available for the conduct of oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal. Oral proceedings will be conducted by VICO only in agreement with the parties concerned, who will be sent an advance communication in this regard. Oral proceedings to be conducted by VICO will be listed in the oral proceedings calendar.”

Thus, during 2020 ViCo hearings before the Boards of Appeal were held only with the consent of all parties to the proceedings.

However, in December 2020 things began to change dramatically as the President of the Boards of Appeal, Carl Josefsson, embarked on an initiative to align the practice of the Boards with that of the Office.

More precisely, in December 2020, Josefsson requested the Boards of Appeal Committee to add a new Article 15a to the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA).

This new procedural rule – which was of unlimited duration and entirely decoupled from any emergency situation such as a pandemic – foresaw that the Boards of Appeal would now be empowered to conduct oral proceedings under Article 116 EPC by ViCo without the consent of the parties.

On 15 December 2020 [1, 2] [PDF], a communication entitled “Oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal – continuation of the measures adopted due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and revised practice on oral proceedings by VICO” appeared on the EPO’s website (warning: epo.org link) announcing that:

“From 1 January 2021 boards may conduct oral proceedings by VICO even without the agreement of the parties concerned, as has now been made clear in the new Article 15a RPBA adopted by the Boards of Appeal Committee.”

“In addition to this, the communication misleadingly claimed that “the new provision merely clarifies an existing possibility” which was most certainly not the case.”What is noteworthy about this announcement is that it was made over three months prior to the formal approval of the new procedural rule by the Administrative Council – on 23 March 2021 – and its entry into force a week later on 1 April 2021.

In addition to this, the communication misleadingly claimed that “the new provision merely clarifies an existing possibility” which was most certainly not the case.

Before long, in February 2021, a Technical Board of Appeal decided to refer a question about the lawfulness of the new rule to the Enlarged Board of Appeal because they could not find a satisfactory legal basis for it in the EPC.

The Enlarged Board was tasked with answering the following question:

Is the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference compatible with the right to oral proceedings as enshrined in Article 116(1) EPC if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference?

The Enlarged Board opened the referral case as G 1/21 and – under the chairmanship of Carl Josefsson – immediately summoned to oral proceedings on 28 May 2021 – a mere 2 months later.

At the same time, Josefsson issued a note informing the parties that “a decision on the points of law could be promptly issued” if they would agree to waive their rights to the oral proceedings.

Administrative Council Art. 15a RPBA
The Administrative Council rubber-stamped Art. 15a RPBA on 23 March 2021 despite a pending referral.

Although the legitimacy of the new rule had been called into question and the referral G 1/21 was pending, the Administrative Council nevertheless proceeded to rubber-stamp Article 15a RPBA on 23 March 2021 [PDF] and it officially entered into force on 1 April 2021 [PDF].

AC Rule 15b RPBA 23 March 2021

ViCo OP EXAM 1 April 2020

Meanwhile, in a parallel action, the Office Administration published [PDF] a “Notice from the European Patent Office dated 24 March 2021 concerning the conduct of oral proceedings in examination and opposition in view of referral G 1/21″ on the EPO’s official website.

EPO ViCo EXAM OPPO 24 March 2021

“The Notice of 24 March 2021 from the President was quite remarkable because, normally, when a referral is pending before the Enlarged Board of Appeal, proceedings before examination and opposition divisions which may be affected by the outcome of the referral are stayed.”In this “Notice”, the President of the Office announced that – in response to the pending referral – he had decided that “oral proceedings before examining and opposition divisions will continue to be held by videoconference in accordance with the applicable decision of the President of the EPO, i.e. without requiring the agreement of the parties”.

The President attempted to justify his decision with the self-serving claim that it had been made “in order to guarantee access to justice and ensure the functioning of the EPO”.

The Notice of 24 March 2021 from the President was quite remarkable because, normally, when a referral is pending before the Enlarged Board of Appeal, proceedings before examination and opposition divisions which may be affected by the outcome of the referral are stayed.

“As long as Josefsson was steering the procedure in G 1/21, there was never any indication of the possibility that the Enlarged Board might arrive at a different conclusion to that desired by the EPO’s senior management.”In this particular case, thanks to the “expeditious” schedule imposed upon the Enlarged Board by Josefsson, it would only have been necessary to wait two months for a final ruling in order to have legal certainty as to whether or not decisions taken in the course of mandatory ViCos could be considered valid.

In retrospect, the communication of 15 December 2020 appears to have been intended to proclaim a fait accompli.

As long as Josefsson was steering the procedure in G 1/21, there was never any indication of the possibility that the Enlarged Board might arrive at a different conclusion to that desired by the EPO’s senior management.

Indeed, the breakneck speed with which Josefsson had issued a summons to oral proceedings [PDF] together with the Administrative Council’s approval of the new Article 15a RPBA on 23 March 2021 and the Notice of 24 March from the Office President, gave the distinct impression that the outcome of the referral procedure was already a “done deal”.

EPO ViCo EXAM OPPO 24 March 2021

“In particular, the manner in which the referral procedure was conducted under Josefsson’s chairmanship seemed deliberately calculated to signal to the Office Administration and the Council that the Enlarged Board could be counted on to deliver a rubber-stamped approval of the new procedural rule in as “timely” a manner as possible.”To seasoned observers of the EPO, there were clear indications of a closely coordinated and carefully orchestrated “joint enterprise”.

In particular, the manner in which the referral procedure was conducted under Josefsson’s chairmanship seemed deliberately calculated to signal to the Office Administration and the Council that the Enlarged Board could be counted on to deliver a rubber-stamped approval of the new procedural rule in as “timely” a manner as possible.

“In the concluding part of this series we will attempt to provide some answers to those questions and to cast some light on the “hidden agenda” which Campinos and his “buddies” appear to be pursuing in connection with G 1/21.”The only open questions here are why has the Office President (Campinos) been so keen to obtain a rapid rubber-stamping of the new Article 15a RPBA by the Enlarged Board and how was he able to secure the unquestioning complicity of the President of the Boards of Appeal (Josefsson) in this affair?

In the concluding part of this series we will attempt to provide some answers to those questions and to cast some light on the “hidden agenda” which Campinos and his "buddies" appear to be pursuing in connection with G 1/21.

06.19.21

The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal Has Already Lost the Case in the Court of Public Opinion

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 6:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: Personal views on the sordid state of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA), which by extension bodes poorly for the perception of independence in every Board of Appeal (BoA); the patent tribunals have been captured by patent maximalists who either stack the panels or intimidate judges into ruling in a particular way

THE above video concerns the latest part in the series about Carl Josefsson and the EBA (or EBoA) judges, who sway at the whim of EPO President António Campinos with his EUIPO ‘imports’, who moreover implicate the EU. The reputation of Europe’s two largest institutions is at stake here.

“Should we tolerate kangaroo courts?”What’s at stake here isn’t just patent law or just the EPO; this is about Europe and about courts in general. Is it acceptable that in ‘civilised’ Europe we can have stacked courts deciding on important issues while obsessing over appearance (“perception”) rather than substance? Should we tolerate kangaroo courts?

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts