'Mole' or 'rat' a more derogatory way to put it in such scenarios...

Summary: The latest cluster of lies from the President of the European Patent Office (EPO) and direct refutation of false claims of independence for the Boards of Appeal, where the former Vice-Presidents can flock, just like the Mini Minion (Minnoye) of Battistelli

Pinocchio Battistelli, after a month of almost complete silence (the longest he has managed to go on without lying to the public), resumed his lying today. He speaks (warning: epo.org link) of "further improvements" in his so-called 'blog', but actually patent quality declined sharply, a lot of experienced examiners are leaving, and the EPO has become a laughing stock not just in Europe but in the whole world.

Battistelli, who is known for his fantasy world (either living in extreme denial or just lying habitually and also knowingly) boasts "best value for all our stakeholders" and "high quality". This new caricature of EPO workers calling out "Bullshit!" comes to mind. Here is the complete paragraph from Pinocchio Battistelli: "It is clear from our preliminary results that filings have continued to rise during 2016. As an administering organisation, it is our job – no matter what the figures – to ensure that we are delivering the very best value for all our stakeholders; to our users, high quality, competitive services; for our member states, a modern international organisation that supports the European economy and its inventors; and, to our staff, an organisation that prepares its future on solid ground through investments and that appropriately rewards their achievements."

It's not hard to see that the above paragraph is full of lies. Battistelli is also lying about the UPC today, pretending that it's coming this year (he says so every year and it's always turning out to have been a lie). Here is the full paragraph: "The potential arrival of the unitary patent is set to be one of the most significant developments this year. 2016 was a mixed year for the UPP, with further UPC ratifications and a Brexit vote that caused speculation on its future. Now, following the UK’s decision to continue with ratification of the UPC, 2017 may well be the year in which the EPO administers the very first unitary patent. While the UPC is set to bring greater legal certainty to the European patent system, there will also be judicial developments at the EPO itself. The reform of the boards of appeal, adopted last year, is set to enhance perceptions of independence and managerial efficiency. This spring will see the start of the mandate of the new President of the BoA and the BoA unit is scheduled to relocate to a specific building this summer."

That last part is one among many misleading claims (we don't have time to rebut them all, including parts of about the UPC, which will be the subject of our next post), but when Pinocchio speaks of "perceptions of independence" he is talking out of his back hole again.

Based on some of the latest comments in IP Kat, for instance, not only Battistelli's ‘pet chinchilla’ Patricia García-Escudero is in the supposedly independent management. See this comment:

What a pity VP1 lacked examination experience. Otherwise he could have continued service in the ranks of the examiners.

Just like VP3 who following his departure as Vice-President is now a common or garden legal member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal ... http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/171AFEDA714D60A2C125807C004D801E/$File/Enlarged_Board_of_Appeal_BDS_01_01_2017.pdf

"Sorry to hear about VP1," another person responded. "He hasn't been as fortunate as the former VP3 who apparently continues in service as a normal legal member of the Boards of Appeal."

"Apparently," said the above person. "the Kat is intent on censoring my comments referring to the fact that the a former Vice_President remains in service as a legal member of the Boards of Appeal." This person later retracted this claim and wrote: "I take it all back. The Kat has apparently managed to extract my previous comments from its fluffball spam-filter..."

We wrote about censorship of comments over there at IP Kat several times before, even when these comments were very much needed (and polite).

Either way, the above continued with: "It means that he is a (legal) member (but not chairman!) of the Enlarged Board of Appeal rather than of a simple Board of Appeal."

Finally came a clearer explanation with a reference:

Not just the Enlarged Board of Appeal. He is a member of the Legal Board. Check the business distribution for the Technical Boards. https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/business-distribution.html He is assigned as a legal member to Boards 3.2.04 and 3.4.03.

So then... how much of an independence will these boards have? In some sense, the EPO continues to get worse than ever and the management sets itself up for more scandals.

As mentioned in this post yesterday, there is a new article in French about the EPO and someone noticed it, then wrote: "Article today in Le Canard Enchainé with a very pertinent cartoon !"

Here is the cartoon in question (below). Not to worry; we'll end this secrecy. ⬆