...and then the person who Battistelli lobbied for (to prevent an ICC judge becoming EPO President) takes over the Office

Summary: Voices against UPC and EPO management are being muzzled in blogs/sites with connections to both; but sadly for Team UPC and EPO management, facts remain facts and there's no justice at the EPO (only illusion thereof)

NOW THAT EPO management is censoring staff that says the truth (or expresses an opinion) we expect to see an abundance of lies coming out.

Battistelli has always sought a monopoly on information; this is why he spent a vast amount of money (not his, the EPO's) paying the media, paying academia, and paying for bogus 'studies' with predefined outcomes. As we showed yesterday, there's another one in the making. The EPO announced it this week.

Staff is not happy. This kind of behaviour typically results in even more leaking. The article we saw last night in Cambodian media now has this new comment in it. "We are impressed," it says. "The Sun King or Putin, Battistelli, as his own staff calls him, extends the “value” of patents that he had actively contributed to render worthless to Cambodia. What a gorgeous present!!! What comes next? An extension to St Marteen or Vanatu, maybe?"

"Battistelli has always sought a monopoly on information; this is why he spent a vast amount of money (not his, the EPO's) paying the media, paying academia, and paying for bogus 'studies' with predefined outcomes."There's now more censorship of comments at IP Kat and Kluwer Patent Blog (it got worse/escalated recently, using bogus pretexts), but that too cannot silence staff. They'll just reach out to other avenues in which their voices can be heard. Less than a day ago Kluwer Patent Blog again published yet another UPC propaganda piece. These people are terrible. The blog interviewed Luke McDonagh (likely by Bristows masquerading as "Kluwer Patent blogger"). "There is scepticism whether the Unified Patent Court will ever be set up," says the headline (not too provocative although it's realism rather than scepticism, which is an understatement).

A few hours ago IP Kat was pushing the EPO's buzzword (or buzz term) that's used to disguise illegal software patents. Funny how IP Kat no longer covers EPO scandals but finds plenty of time/space to serve Team Battistelli.

Days ago there was a Bristows-posted ad for the EPO. It was misleading.

"There's now more censorship of comments at IP Kat and Kluwer Patent Blog (it got worse/escalated recently, using bogus pretexts), but that too cannot silence staff.""Appeal boards now advertise lawyer job as permanent," one person told us. "But it is not. Five years."

Bristows put out a false job ad, just like it was pushing out false job ads (jobs that will never exist) for UPC judges. If the President of the Appeal Boards (BoA) decides on promotions, appointments, if you have job, etc. can you make independent decisions? So say some readers of ours. The whole thing is farcical.

Curiously, as of a few hours ago, there was this new comment (posted yesterday, but only approved today) showing that the EPO's BoA is a sham and not representative of member states (neither EPO-wide nor EU-wide) under Battistelli. Read this:

The offer seems prima facie only interesting for people having a safety net, for instance, having the possibility to go back to a national civil service from which they were detached to perform their duties at the EPO.

This may explain why most of the new recruits to the legal board appear to have been German judges.

In October 2016, the percentage of German legal members on the Legal Board was already 43%, and following further appointments in October 2016 it has risen to nearly 47% (15 out of 32). In other words nearly every second legal member is German.

The inordinately high percentage of German members causes difficulties in distributing business to the technical boards of appeal, because on boards with a German chairman (currently five), the goal is to avoid panels composed entirely of members with the same nationality. This leaves less room when assigning legal members to individual technical boards, and when composing panels to hear individual cases.

The present situation also gives rise to other problems: the legal members of the Enlarged Board are appointed exclusively from the Legal Board of Appeal. Due to provisions regarding nationality which exist for proceedings under Article 112 EPC and Article 23(1) EPC, such a high percentage of one nationality in the Legal Board leads to problems when constituting the Enlarged Board and composing its panels to hear individual cases.

As always, comments in IP Kat and Kluwer Patent Blog are a lot more informative than articles (many of which are written by Bristows, sometimes anonymously, especially when they intentionally lie).

"The EPO will try hard to create or maintain a perception of judges being independent and free to judge as they see fit (based on underlying law, not desires or objectives of Battistelli and his pick, Campinos)."A few hours ago the EPO wrote: "We look forward to receiving your comments on the proposed changes to our appeal procedure."

"You won't mind these comments," I responded. "It's posturing at best. You try to pretend that users are listened to and justice is still functional..."

Suffice to say, this reality means that UPC will never happen. The German FCC (not to be mistaken/confused with the US FCC) is looking into all this. The EPO will try hard to create or maintain a perception of judges being independent and free to judge as they see fit (based on underlying law, not desires or objectives of Battistelli and his pick, Campinos). ⬆