Bonum Certa Men Certa

Virtual Injustice -- Part 12: Carl Josefsson – Down But Not Out!

Previously in the series:

  1. Virtual Injustice -- Part 1: António's Increasingly Wonky Legal Fudge Factory
  2. Virtual Injustice -- Part 2: The ViCo Oral Proceedings of 28 May 2021
  3. Virtual Injustice -- Part 3: All the President's Men…
  4. Virtual Injustice -- Part 4: Mihály Ficsor, the EPO's Hungarian “Fixer”
  5. Virtual Injustice -- Part 5: Benoît's “Friends” in Budapest
  6. Virtual Injustice -- Part 6: Best Buddies With António
  7. Virtual Injustice -- Part 7: Musical Chairs and Revolving Doors
  8. Virtual Injustice -- Part 8: A Well-Connected 'IP' Maximalist
  9. Virtual Injustice -- Part 9: Heli, the EPO's Nordic Ice-Queen
  10. Virtual Injustice -- Part 10: Vapid and Superficial Coverage in the 'IP' Blogosphere
  11. Virtual Injustice -- Part 11: Perceptive Comments and Caustic Criticism


Josefsson and Boards of Appeal
Something seems to be out of balance at the Boards of Appeal. Now what could that be?



Summary: António Campinos still controls Josefsson, who controls all the judges, so in effect all the legal cases (including some about European software patents) are manipulated by the Office the judges are supposed to judge

One of the main protagonists in the legal shenanigans which have bedevilled case no. G 1/21 is the President of the Boards of Appeal, Carl "Calle" Josefsson, who appears to have become a casualty of his own hubris.



Josefsson's role in the case was characterised by the arrogance and "hauteur" typical of the EPOnian senior managerial caste.

"His conduct was so outrageously out of order that it attracted a significant amount of public criticism."He insisted on taking charge of the proceedings and chairing the panel despite his obvious conflict of interest in the matter.

His conduct was so outrageously out of order that it attracted a significant amount of public criticism.

Partiality objections against Josefsson and other members of the originally appointed panel were raised in numerous "third party observations" [PDF] submitted to the Enlarged Board and in written submissions filed by the appellant on 27 April 2021. [PDF]

On 17 May, the Enlarged Board held an intermediate or "interlocutory" session to consider the objections which had been raised by the appellant.

The outcome of this interlocutory session was that Josefsson was deposed as chairman of the panel. One other member of the panel - Ingo Beckedorf – was also obliged to step down after he had admitted to the Enlarged Board that he had been personally involved in the drafting of the disputed provision concerning mandatory ViCo hearings.

At this point, one might be tempted to conclude that order had been restored and that there was nothing to worry about now.

"In reality, the removal of Josefsson from the proceedings has not solved the manifold problems which have dogged this procedure from the outset."After all, Josefsson had been replaced as chairman of the panel. Didn't this mean that he was safely sidelined from exerting any further influence over the proceedings? Where's the problem?

It's understandable that an uninformed observer might be tempted to draw such conclusions. However a closer study of the facts suggests that such optimism would be seriously misplaced.

In reality, the removal of Josefsson from the proceedings has not solved the manifold problems which have dogged this procedure from the outset.

By 17 May it was plain to all and sundry - including the other members of the Enlarged Board - that Josefsson's replacement had become necessary to avoid a complete meltdown of public confidence in the Boards of Appeal and the EPO in general.

However, on its own this corrective measure cannot be considered sufficient to remedy the further flaws in the procedure or to restore public confidence in the manner in which the Enlarged Board is dealing with the case.

To begin with, it seems that the Enlarged Board's interlocutory session of 17 May took place in the absence of the parties.

As noted by the pseudonymous poster "The fall of the EBA" in a comment on IPKat, the exclusion of the parties from this session seems to be a serious procedural violation:

Partiality might be discussed in a non-open OP before the EBA, but the first decision in which the chair of the BA [Josefsson] and his faithful servant [Beckedorf] were removed by their peers, was taken without the parties. This is a scandal on its own as even the discussion on partiality should be of contradictory [i.e. adversarial] nature.


The poster went on to criticise the refusal of the Enlarged Board to grant the appellant's request for the disclosure of the statements which Ritzka and Eliasson had made in response to the objections against them, describing this as "a further scandal":

The parties have the right to know why the members accused of partiality consider themselves this is not the case.


During the oral proceedings on 28 May, the Enlarged Board dismissed a further objection that the replacement members - namely, the new chairman Blumer (replacing Josefsson), and the new legal member Bokor (replacing Beckedorf) - had not been appointed in accordance with the applicable procedural rules for replacement.

On the basis of the currently available information, it would appear that the Enlarged Board simply chose not to admit these objections on some legal technicality so that it could avoid having to enter into an examination on the substance of the objections.

All in all, there is a perception among external observers that a question mark – or rather a series of question marks – remain hanging over the legality of the panel in its current composition.

Ritzka, Eliasson and van der Eijk
There seems to be a general consensus that partiality objections relating to Ritzka, Eliasson and van der Eijk have not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner.



In particular, there seems to be a general consensus that the partiality objections relating to certain members of the original panel - namely, Ritzka, Eliasson and van der EIjk - have not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

Blumer-and-Bokor
Were the replacement members, Blumer and Bokor appointed in accordance with the applicable procedural rules?



In addition to this, there are unresolved doubts about the legitimacy of the selection of Blumer and Bokor as the respective replacements for Josefsson and Beckedorf.

Aside from these well-founded concerns about the composition of the panel, observers have also pointed to another serious blunder committed by the Enlarged Board on 17 May when - claiming to be acting in the interests of "timeliness" - it stubbornly refused to contemplate any change to the original precipitous schedule which Josefsson had imposed on the proceedings in an attempt to rubber-stamp his own decision as quickly as possible.

"Had the Enlarged Board rescheduled the proceedings – as it should have done – that would not only have given the newly composed panel sufficient time to take proper stock of the case and have provided the appellant with an adequate opportunity to exercise its right to be heard."If the Enlarged Board had been acting in a truly independent manner free from subtle and hidden political pressures, it is clear that the only sensible course of action, following the interlocutory decision of 17 May and the sidelining of Josefsson, would have been to cancel the oral proceedings of 28 May and to re-appoint new oral proceedings at a later date.

Had the Enlarged Board rescheduled the proceedings – as it should have done – that would not only have given the newly composed panel sufficient time to take proper stock of the case and have provided the appellant with an adequate opportunity to exercise its right to be heard.

It would also have sent a clear signal that the newly composed panel wished to distance itself from Josefsson's scandalous conduct during the initial phase of the procedure and his cynically manipulative prioritisation of "speed" over "diligence".

It deserves to be pointed out that Josefsson had openly and brazenly acted in a manner which was in direct contradiction to a fundamental tenet of judicial conduct, "Nemo judex in causa sua".

This tenet is expressed in the following terms under item 9.2 of the Burgh House Principles:

"Judges shall not serve in a case with the subject-matter of which they have had any other form of association that may affect or may reasonably appear to affect their independence or impartiality".


On IPKat the pseudonymous "Proof of the pudding" commented as follows:

We can conclude that the President of the BoA must have overlooked this principle when (originally) deciding to serve in case G 1/21.

Frankly, it is hard to see how even the appearance of impartiality can now be restored in view of the fact that the EBA has not (completely) rescinded the decisions taken by the President of the BoA in G 1/21.


The failure of the Enlarged Board to draw a line in the sand and to distance itself in a clear and unambiguous manner from Josefsson's previous judicial misconduct means that, no matter what happens after his removal, the procedure remains tainted by his initial influence on it.

It also gives rise to a suspicion that Josefsson's removal from the procedure may have been agreed upon solely for the sake of "optics".

In other words, it is quite possible that his removal was nothing more than a tactical manoeuvre designed to mislead the public into believing that the Enlarged Board was prepared to deal with the case in a genuinely impartial and diligent manner.

Last but not least, there is the "elephant in the room" alluded to by a number of commentators on the IPKat blog, namely the gaping governance deficits arising from Benoît Battistelli's Boards of Appeal "reform" of 2016.

The events surrounding G 1/21 have exposed the deficiencies in this "reform" in practice and make it clear that the "reform" has diminished rather than enhanced the independence of the Boards.

As the poster "The fall of the EBA" put it in one of his comments on IPKat:

The whole way G 1/21 has been managed by the chair of the EBA shows amply that the BA [Board of Appeal] are anything but independent.

On top of it, the chair of the BA [Josefsson] only has the powers delegated to him by the president of the EPO.

There is not even the perception of the independence!


The essential point to be noted here is that, although Josefsson has been formally removed from the panel dealing with G 1/21, the Chief Oompa Loompa of the EPO's legal fudge factory still rules the roost in Haar by virtue of Rule 12d(3) EPC. (warning: epo.org link)

Chief-Oompa-Loompa-Josefsson
Chief Oompa Loompa Josefsson still rules the roost in Haar thanks to Rule 12d(3) EPC.



As explained in the postscriptum to the last series, Rule 12d(3) EPC - which is a key component of Battistelli’s 2016 “reform” - makes all internal members of the Enlarged Board dependent upon Josefsson’s goodwill for the purpose of obtaining a positive “opinion” on their reappointment.

"The events surrounding G 1/21 have exposed the deficiencies in this "reform" in practice and make it clear that the "reform" has diminished rather than enhanced the independence of the Boards."In other words, although Josefsson can no longer influence the outcome of the procedure directly, he still has considerable means at his disposal to influence it indirectly.

In the next part of the series we will summarise the current state of the procedure following the hearing of 28 May and speculate about what might - or might not - happen when the procedure resumes in July.

Recent Techrights' Posts

More on "Lunduke is Actually Sending His Audience to Attack People"
"pepe the frogs"
Dalai Lama Succession as Evidence That Determined, Motivated People Can Reach Their Nineties
And we need to quit talking about their death all the time
Many Lawyers (for Microsoft) and 1,316 Pages to Pick on a Litigant in Person Who Exposed Serious Microsoft Abuses
Answers must be given
Layoffs and Shutdowns at IBM, Not Just Microsoft
Same as Microsoft
With Workers Back From a Holiday Weekend, Microsoft Layoffs Carry on, More Waves to Come
Now it's Monday and people are bad to work, even some journalists
You Need Not Wave a Rainbow Flag This Month to Basically Oppose Arseholes Looking to Disrupt and Divide the Community
Don't fall for it
What Miguel de Icaza and Microsoft Lunduke Have in Common
Similar aims, different methods
 
Links 08/07/2025: "Cyberattack Deals Blow to Russian Firmware" and "Cash Remains King"
Links for the day
FSF40 T-shirt message
by Alex Oliva
Gemini Links 08/07/2025: Creativity, Gotify with NUT Server, and Sudo Bugs
Links for the day
Links 08/07/2025: Sabotage of Networking Infrastructure, Microsoft XBox Game Pass Deemed “Unsustainable”
Links for the day
Gemini Links 08/07/2025: Ancillary Justice and Small Web July
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, July 07, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, July 07, 2025
The FSF's (Free Software Foundation, Inc.) 2025 Summer Fundraiser Already Past Halfway Line
This is where GNU/Linux actually started
Mozilla Had No Good Reason to Outsource Firefox Development to Microsoft
What does Mozilla plan to do when GitHub shuts down?
Mozilla Firefox Did Not Die, It Got Killed
To me it'll always look like Mozilla got killed by its sponsors, especially Google, which had a conflict of interest as a sponsor
Dan Neidle, Whom Brett Wilson LLP SLAPPed (on Behalf of Corrupt Rich Tax Evaders), Still Fighting the Good Fight
Neidle fights for the poor people
Wayland Should Start by Dumping Its Very Ugly Logo
Wayland wins the "ugliest logo" award every year
Stop Focusing on Hair Colours, Focus on Corporate Agenda
If someone commits a crime, it does not matter if his or her hair was mostly white or there was no hair or a wig or whatever
Links 07/07/2025: Science, Conflicts, and a Fictional K-pop Group
Links for the day
Gemini Links 07/07/2025: Being a Luddite and Announcement of Gotify
Links for the day
Links 07/07/2025: XBox Effectively 'Dead', DMCA Subpoena Versus Registrar
Links for the day
The 'Corporate Neckbeard' is Not the "Good Guy"
Works for IBM
The Nasty Smear (and Stereotype) of "Neckbeard" or "Greybeard" is Ageism
This is the sort of stuff they might try to volley at critics of Wayland
Why Many of Us Use X Server and Will Continue to Use It For Many Years to Come
Don't make this about politics
Microsoft's Nat Friedman Became Unemployed the Same Time the SLAPPs Against Techrights Started Coming From His Friends (Weeks After We Had Exposed Scandals About Him and the Serial Strangler, His Best Friend, Who Got Arrested a Few Days Later)
Nat Friedman is not "Investor, entrepreneur"
Brett Wilson LLP Uses Threats to Demand Changes to Pages or Removal of Pages Without Even Revealing Which Staff Member Does That (Sometimes People From Another Firm!)
This has been in the public for years
Dan Neidle Said "It Really Then Became a Job of Tormenting" Lawyers Like Brett Wilson LLP (Who Threatened Him for Exposing Crimes, Just Like They Threatened My Wife a Few Months Later)
he and his wife decided to take on the evil people and their evil lawyers
Large Language Models (LLMs) Externalise Their Cost to the Free Software Foundation (FSF)
"The forty-sixth Free Software Bulletin is now available online!"
Weeding Out Extremism in Our Community
To me it seems like Microsoft Lunduke is rapidly becoming like a "hate preacher" who operates online, breeding an extremist ideology or trying to soften its image
Censorship Versus Fact-Checking and Quality Control
It's not censorship but a matter of quality control
Reinforcing the Allegations Some More, Bryan Lunduke Digs His Own Grave
In his latest episodes he merely repeats his own lies, which I debunked using evidence right from his own mouth
Global Warming and Free Software as a Force of Mitigation
we'll need to think about Software Freedom, not just brands like "Linux"
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, July 06, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, July 06, 2025
Gemini Links 07/07/2025: BaseLibre Numerical System and TUI Rant
Links for the day
[Video] "Copyleft Isn't a Bug."
"Copyleft isn’t a bug. It’s a feature. GNU GPL forced the world to treat code like a public good."
Being in Social Control Media Means Exposing Oneself to Heckling
Richard Stallman does not (either himself or directly) post to any social control media
Links 06/07/2025: Airlines Perils, Scams, and Breaches
Links for the day
Two Risks to Companies: The Microsoft Culture and the Microsoft Tools
Novell was killed by a form of "social engineering" by Microsoft
It's Hard to Trust People Who Worked - Not Only Those Who Still Work - at Microsoft
Bryan Lunduke is just what people would call an "arsehole of a person"
For the Second Time, Bryan Lunduke From Microsoft is Siccing Racist Trolls and Vandals at Me
You're only reinforcing the point we made yesterday
Links 06/07/2025: End to End Encryption at Risk, Reuters Twitter ("X") Account Withheld in India
Links for the day
Gemini Links 06/07/2025: Tinylog and Certification Rotation
Links for the day
Links 06/07/2025: Climate Change and "The Right to Criticise"
Links for the day
PCLinuxOS Sites Coming Back, Gradually
let's just be patient
Social Control Media, Even If Based on Free Software, Still Has Many Problems
a distraction from what actually mattered and still matters
IBM is Not Your Master
IBM makes friends with people who exclude the majority of the population: women
Help Fund the Free Software Foundation (FSF)
If you have some dollars to spare, go support the FSF
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, July 05, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, July 05, 2025
A Short History of Attacks on Techrights (and Boycott Novell Before That)
good opportunity to tell again the story of several (not all) attempts to silence us
The Mainstream Media Took 4 Days to Realise Microsoft Shut Down Its Operations in Pakistan and Fired Everybody
We estimate that Microsoft has had about 29,000 layoffs since January
Leadership in Free Software
Don't let IBM lead. It's a terrible flag bearer.