While publicly stating to the media that they have gained independence (which is a lie)

Back to East German standards in Munich

Summary: The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)

THE EPO has become a rogue institution under Battistelli. It not only abolished quality control but also started attacking anyone who dares talk about it.

According to this, the "EPO does not even invite critics of swpats [software patents] when it makes an event, looks like an echo chamber for patentees" (links to an event that was mentioned here in another article from this morning).

Jesper Lund responded by saying that the "EPO has even stopped saying computer implemented inventions instead of #swpat" (software patents).

"Remember that Battistelli, who cooked up several fake 'trials' (internally, no oversight), relied on a USB device as 'evidence' and then spread some defamation in the Dutch and German media regarding the claims made by the accuser (himself)."They just keep changing the words they use to dodge the negative connotation. See how they say UPC instead of EU Patent and Community Patent, among other names for the same bad scheme. The EPO used to speak of "computer-implemented inventions," a euphemism for software patents. They used to do this in their older Web pages (in the old site) and sometimes said CII, as we showed earlier this year. So basically, our fears of software patents under Battistelli are justified and insiders tell us that they do in fact grant software patents.

Who can stop this madness? Usually the boards of appeal. They already contributed to narrowing of scope in the past (to prevent frivolous litigation^*). This morning we published a post that mentioned Board 28 and the latest stunt from Battistelli. He is quietly putting up the fire on the boards -- all this while the media is supposed to believe that the 'exile' in Haar is an improvement (Wim Van der Eijk, Chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA), is already on his way out).

Remember that Battistelli, who cooked up several fake 'trials' (internally, no oversight), relied on a USB device as 'evidence' and then spread some defamation in the Dutch and German media regarding the claims made by the accuser (himself). Here is the latest on this:

yeah, just saw it too. How can there be new material NOW? Or did one of the newly hired guys find new evidence somewhere in the stack of material on the famous USB-storage element?

Incredible. The most important thing hammered to me in the EPO-academy for examiners-to-be, was that every single communication should be as complete as possible, including ALL objections. We should not create new cases every time with new objections based on grounds previously known or foreseeable, but not formulated. We should not be lazy. Writing all down is procedurally efficient and gives better legal certainty to the party concerned and the public. Maybe we should politely ask the administration representatives to join the academy, so that they do learn this important element of procedure. It also causes one to reflect a bit more when hearing/reading something, before jumping to conclusion and action.

One might be led to the "conclusion that the AC and the President are colluding to subvert the provisions of the EPC," one person asserted today. Here is the full comment:

So there are "new elements of information" on the suspended member of the Boards of Appeal. So what? The sole disciplinary authority for that member has closed the case against him. The charges have effectively been dismissed.

Some time ago, I posed the question of what the AC would do in the light of the disciplinary case being closed. I guess that we now have our answer: an "excuse" has been found for not immediately following the only legally sound course of action open to the AC, namely reinstatement (and appropriate compensation) of the member in question.

Do I take it that the member (and his legal tem) has been fully informed of the "new elements of information" and has been provided with an opportunity to comment upon them (as well as the issue of res judicata)? Or is there not even a pretence at formal investigation / disciplinary proceedings here?

If this carries on, then it will become impossible to avoid the conclusion that the AC and the President are colluding to subvert the provisions of the EPC. Whilst the immunities afforded to him mean that President can afford to be sanguine about the possible consequences of this, the members of the AC would do well to remember that their immunities are much more limited.

As we pointed out before, the attacks on the staff continue to escalate and become more severe. Staff in at least three EPO sites is said to be affected (the Dutch branch and apparently the Berlin branch also).

We are still curious as to why SUEPO has said nothing for so long; maybe SUEPO just hopes that the EPO's union-busting agenda will slow down a bit if they say little or nothing to the general public.

The EPO is in shambles and Battistelli does everything to ensure it stays that way. No wonder staff is leaving in droves and it is difficult to recruit suitable people. ⬆ _____ ^* There is this new report today (actually a press release) about an EPO patent coming under fire, EP1575758B. It's likely to happen a lot more after Battistelli's regime has led to the issuance of many bogus patents and has damaged the appeal process.