Martial Law at the EPO

Summary: The European Patent Office and the Organisation are both totally out of control, as the very document that defines their rules has been reduced to toilet paper

THE EPO is in a freefall because it lost grip on its raison d'être. Battistelli is lowing patent quality in order to spur litigation, which is what stakeholders like Philips (and their lawyers) probably want. In the process, Battistelli necessarily makes examiners growingly obsolete and litigation the norm. Can anyone blame examiners for being unhappy? What ever happened to the EPC? It was designed to protect the interests of the whole Organisation, not just the Office, which essentially took over the Organisation. Is EPO reduced to just a litigation factory? Here is a new comment about the decline in patent quality and Battistelli's obvious lies about it:

Patent quality never so high according to Battistelli ?

You bet !

part 1

http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2017/04/02/epo-problem-right-speed-introduction/

part 2

http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2017/04/05/the-epo-and-the-problem-of-the-right-speed-ii-examination-proceedings/

part 3

http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2017/04/06/the-epo-and-the-problem-of-the-right-speed-iii-opposition-proceedings/

Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle) has indeed just published the third part of his series, which we first mentioned yesterday. He now speaks of the Boards of Appeal as follows:

Thus, in view of the fact that the Boards of Appeal understand their role as a kind of administrative court and limit their review to checking the correctness of the first instance decision, a view which is supported by Enlarged Board of Appeal and the current Rules of Procedure, I think that the Opposition Divisions should do what they can to present the Boards of Appeal with a reviewable decision on all points in dispute, so that a case can normally be concluded in two instances without a remittal.

In defiance of the EPC, which Battistelli nonchalantly violates at every turn these days, the Office is now turning the whole Organisation into some kind of a nut house, where rules don't exist, only a king-like arbitrator who does whatever he pleases, even when it's clearly against the interests of both the Office and Organisation. Recent examples include this thieving move of Team Battistelli and then the removal of yet more authority from beneath Battistelli, in order to give him more direct control (he already gained more indirect control -- covertly exercised -- over the Boards of Appeal, which are supposed to be independent, as per the EPC).

Here is an interesting new comment on the latest shuttle, which follows Minnoye's departure (emphasis ours):

I don't see that much difference. Instead of VicePresident, Principal Director, and Director, we will have an Operating Officer, a director, and a team manager. Still three levels between non-managing employee and President. Whether the new structure is combinable with the requirements of Art. 15 and Rule 9 EPC is a different question. Also why we need new names for the job descriptions. But renaming job titles is currently "en vogue" everywhere.

The EPO's management certainly seems to have become a bunch of French cronies of Battistelli, e.g. former colleagues and their family members, as the following comment states, based on experience:

Actually, you forgot the PD who will shadow the COO and be his bag carrier in between the COO an d the directors. Rumours - 2 non-EPO COOs and one internal. Want a bet on one being French? Current practice is no 2 senior mgt from the same country - this way you can get round that little problem.

We still haven't received any information about what happened yesterday in the Bavarian Parliament. If anyone has relevant information for us, please get in touch. Outside intervention is the main recourse for reprieve. ⬆