Summary: The collapse of the European patent system, owing primarily to Battistelli's totalitarian style and deemphasis on patent quality, means that "the war is lost," as one professional puts it

THE FOLLOWING new comment (from earlier this morning) is worth quoting. It comes from someone who saw that now-infamous lecture from Christoph Ernst, the new boss of the EPO (supposed to be on top of Battistelli).

"Gentlemen," it says, "I think it is time to realize that the war is lost" at the EPO. Here is the explanation (with highlights for those who want to read more quickly):

I was at the lecture given by Christoph Ernst at the Max Plank Institute. In effect, he explained to the assembled representative of German applicants and attorneys that he did not care about their concerns and that he will do nothing.

Mr. Campinos track record at EUIPO makes it crystal clear that he is in the same boat as Battistelli. Don’t expect any change in policy. Actually, expect the situation to become much worse.

In the administrative council, the following delegations have tried to oppose Battistelli’s system: France (voted against policies and tried to pressure Battistelli), Switzerland (initiated the open letter from the Council), Denmark (removed Kongstadt), Italy (presented another candidate), Netherlands (court cases and questions in the Hague). and a few I forgot (mainly in northern Europe, I think). Basically, all major Patent countries opposed Battistelli at some point, with the notable exception of the UK (Brexit did not help) and of course Germany. Correct me if I am wrong.

This achieved exactly nothing. The newly elected people are the same policy under a different name. The war is lost, there is no battle left to be fought.

What does this mean for the applicants? It means that for the same price as usual, you get a shoddy search and a language check. You get a piece of paper that is probably trivial to invalidate in court. And your only choice, is either this kind of patent or no patent at all. It may take a few years, but SMEs will start to realize that it is not worth the effort, so expect patent attorneys to feel a dearth of customers at that point. Unless they work for large applicants, maybe.

What this also means is that now, right at the center of Europe, we have a place where nobody needs to respect employment laws. People, including elected representatives and managers, can be harassed and fired at will without any consequences. Salaries can be halved, benefits can be cut and public holidays need not be granted. Independence of the judicial sends one next to a mad house, literally. Permanent contracts are revoked. Maybe demonstrating that this kind of “modernisation” of employment laws is possible right in the center of Europe was also part of the plan, I do not know.

The UPC, as we explained before, would make things even worse, especially for SMEs.

The UPC would be good for nobody except patent trolls, patent law firms, and maybe some massive multinational pharmaceutical companies. We mentioned this before, in yesterday's article about Bristows UPC brainwash and the European Commission's stance on SPCs. Bristows is, as expected, trying to solicit lobbying for UPC again in light of these developments. These people just won't give up as long as lying brings them business. This was covered by IP Watch and then in this blog post from Bristows. They wants the so-called ‘unitary SPC’:

On 12 October 2017, the European Commission launched a public consultation on supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) and patent research exemptions in the pharmaceutical sector (and other sectors with regulatory market authorisations). This consultation is within the framework of the Single Market Strategy (adopted in 2015), one aim of which is to improve the patent system in Europe for such sectors. Proposals include the creation of a European SPC title (a ‘unitary SPC’), an update of the EU patent research exemptions (e.g. the EU ‘Bolar’ exemption, whose implementation in national law is not consistent), and the introduction of an SPC ‘manufacturing waiver’ (to allow manufacture during SPC term for export to countries with no SPC protection).

We often wonder if, had it not been for Battistelli's mad desire for the UPC, judges would not be abused in defiance of the EPC and patent examination would not be rushed to the point where European Patents (EPs) are so bad. If Battistelli and his French successor do nothing to correct this, there will be neither UPC nor a EPO. ⬆