11.13.16
Posted in America, Asia, Europe, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 11:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Also see: The Former Chief Economist of the EPO Warns That Battistelli’s Implicit Policy of Lowering Patent Quality (for Quantity) Will Bring Patent Trolls to Europe
Summary: A roundup of news about patent trolls, in particular their growth in east Asia and growing interest from parasitic firms like IBM and Microsoft (which have not so much left but a pile of software patents amassed in past years)
CHINA’S SIPO, which the EPO‘s President got close to (and increasingly imitates both in terms of degrading labour standards and poor patent quality), is becoming the generator of the world’s biggest platform for patent trolls. We have been pointing this out for a number of months now. It’s a harrowing scene because it means that an epidemic that (thus far) was almost exclusive to the US has spread like a pandemic to the world’s largest population.
A new article from John Collins and Steve Lundberg (yes, that crude software patents booster from Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner) is titled “Barrier to Business Patents Softening in China” and it reveals that China — like today’s EPO — encourages more patents irrespective of their quality and it already attracts patent trolls that utilise software patents. Has China learned nothing from the mistakes of the United States — mistakes that even government departments now openly speak of?
According to IAM, a site exceptionally sympathetic towards patent trolls (some of them pay IAM), says that “Qihoo 360 was actually the first company to have a GUI design patent granted.” Now it’s a highly litigious company, IAM says. With software patents, as expected, come the patent trolls to Asia, where patent quality nearly got abandoned (same mistake which the US had made). Here is another new example from IAM, though it does not use the “T” word. These trolls operate not only in China and as we pointed out before, some of them now go abroad and sue Western companies in plaintiff-friendly courts like those in Texas. They will certainly come to Europe as well, in due course. At the EPO, as we have repeatedly demonstrated, patent examination is too lax/lenient — a recipe for disaster for existing EP holders, if not future ones too. According to this tweet from the EPO: “Luis Ignacio Vicente del Olmo of @Telefonica : “The number of patent applications is increasing” #EPOPIC pic.twitter.com/BcmVRxswtD”
Does that mean more innovation or aggressive patent thickets that lock the ‘small guy’ (or business) out of the market?
As another EPO tweet put it the other day: “Luis Ignacio Vicente del Olmo: ” A smartphone may include more than 5000 patent families” #EPOPIC”
Wonderful! “Luis Ignacio Vicente del Olmo speaks about new challenges for IP as a result of the new technological paradigm,” the EPO says, adding that: “Luis Ignacio Vicente del Olmo of @Telefonica talks about trends in #ICT sectors & transparency of patent data #EPOPIC pic.twitter.com/wApNe223C1″
Some of that data comes to and from Asia, as this tweet notes: “Luis Ignacio Vicente del Olmo: “The European market is very attractive to companies outside Europe like from Asia & the US” #EPOPIC”
So how long before Chinese patent trolls come to Europe, even without that UPC (which would greatly assist them if it ever became a reality)?
IBM, which is already suing small companies using software patents, seems to salivating and drooling over litigation in China. See this tweet from IBM’s Manny Schecter, boasting that “China’s patent-lawsuit profile grows. http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-patent-lawsuit-profile-grows-1478535586 … via @WSJ” (article here but with limited access to non-subscribers).
“When a Canadian patent-licensing firm wanted to sue Japanese electronics company Sony Corp., it chose an unlikely venue: China.” That’s what the report says. IBM already sold quite a few pieces of its business to China and we can envision IBM trying to impose patent licensing deals in China, if not lawsuits too (for those not sufficiently ‘obedient’).
According to this new article from Liu, Shen & Associates, the notion of obligatory patent tax has already spread to China. “Standard essential patents have long been a hot topic in China,” they argue. “Hou Guang and Jia Hongbo of Liu,Shen & Associates explain the history and analyse recent developments…”
Standard essential patents (SEPs) block the use of Free/Open Source software (FOSS) and much more. IBM used to lobby for this kind of mess in Europe and look where it led to; rather than stop SEPs/FRAND IBM told the European authorities that software patents promote FOSS innovation (which is of course a lie).
Design patents in Taiwan (arguably part of China, depending on who one asks) are discussed in another new article. Japan and China phased in this nonsense, as we noted the other day and sooner or later we expect China to overtake the United States in terms of patent trolling, including trolling in places/parts of the US where litigation is ubiquitous and low-quality patents are routinely tolerated (not just Texas, the trolls’ capital). See this article titled “As litigation increases, China follows Japan in exploring state-subsidised IP infringement insurance”. It says that “[p]atent authorities in both China and Japan have recently brought forth proposals for patent office-subsidised IP infringement insurance. SIPO says it will focus on offering protection to Chinese companies expanding outside the country, while the JPO anticipates local SMEs using its insurance product both offensively and defensively in China. As litigation increases in China, and more Chinese companies expand abroad, companies throughout the region need all the IP risk management tools they can get.”
What a total waste of resources and energy. They handicap their own economy.
Over in the United States, says this article from IAM, Rockstar (a patent troll connected to Microsoft) pursues more shakedown, even though the FTC deemed this damaging to the country. IAM, being the trolls’ apologist that it is (or denier of patent trolling), attacks the FTC’s study which bemoans patent trolls (for the second time in less than a month!) and says this:
One of the significant outcomes of the Federal Trade Commission’s recent report on patent assertion entities (PAE) is that it very clearly differentiated between two types of licensing business.
On the one hand there were the litigation PAEs, who use the threat of infringement litigation to drive a large volume of low-dollar settlements. They, it was strongly implied, largely engage in the kind of abusive practices that many in the patent community criticise and drive a high number of lawsuits.
We are increasingly convinced that IAM is very eager, with money from Microsoft-connected patent trolls on its table, to see patent trolls go global. IBM too seems to like the idea, as the company has little left other than a pile of patents (same as Microsoft). Some companies are simply transforming into megatrolls; see what Blackberry does in Texas because its products are failing to sell. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
And entertaining the possibility of “opening disciplinary proceedings against the President”
Summary: The autocrat who controls the Office in an unprecedentedly totalitarian fashion and has reduced its so-called ‘overseers’ to little more than useful chinchillas needs to face the music, for he keeps breaking even his own rules and disgraces (not to mention severely harms) the entire continent, not just his country and the Office
THE President of the European Patent Office is the source of many of today’s problems; the many scandals that are purely his own fault make the USPTO look like a saint and it doesn’t help when Benoît Battistelli speaks about his pet chinchilla García-Escudero in his blog, reinforcing the perception of nepotism and protectionism under his reign.
Readers may need to revisit our older series about her connections — a subject which we mentioned a few days ago in light of her doing photo ops with Battistelli. Right now we even have Battistelli writing about it in his so-called ‘blog’ (warning: epo.org link), to be promoted in this couple of tweets after EPOPIC, twice on Friday morning/noon [1, 2]. Mind the part which isn’t just self-promotional and EPO promotion/hogwash but speaks specifically about García-Escudero, namely:
The latest of the international agreements is, fittingly, a new bilateral cooperation plan signed with Ms Patricia García-Escudero, Director General of the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office, which will also include projects in the field of patent information and awareness between the EPO and SPTO.
Asking Battistelli for the perception of justice and independence for the boards was apparently not enough from the chinchillas of the Administrative Council — a subject which we are likely to revisit in the future, maybe over Christmas when more time is available. As one comment put it a few days ago, the “Council gives instructions to the President, the President simply ignores them and does as he wishes.”
Here is the full comment:
Is it at all possible for the Council to force the President to do anything?
As recent history has shown several times this year, when the Council gives instructions to the President, the President simply ignores them and does as he wishes. In the present case, the Council explicitly asked the President to refrain from dismissals, we see what the President did. I gather that Merpel’s proposal to use Article 20 PPI would have the same effect.
What can the Council do?
Correct me if I am wrong, I am not a specialist of the EPC. I understand from Article 11.1 of the EPC that the Council can nominate a new President. But first, I am not really sure they can do so before the end of his term (can they or not?) and second, they need a majority of 3/4 of the votes for doing so (Article 35). There are 38 member states, so the votes of 28 are needed. Conversely, if Battistelli gets the votes or the abstentions of 10 countries, he can stay forever. Any 10 countries.
Is there anything else that the Council can do?
There is Article 19 of the PPI: the Council can waive the immunity of the President. This has never been tried and I have no idea how many votes would be necessary. Even the Article is not clear as the German, English and French texts are actually different (English: “waive immunity”, German and French “waive one of the immunities”). Besides, this would be very slow.
There is Article 11.4 EPC: the Council shall exercise disciplinary authority over the President. Apparently, only a simple majority is needed under Article 35.1 in that case, so 19 countries. But this has never been tried and I don’t know under which conditions that “disciplinary authority” can be exercised or what sanctions they can impose on the President, whether the President can appeal (which would add delays), etc… Can they actually dismiss him? That seems to be in contradiction with the number of votes needed to elect a new President. Can they impeach him? If yes, he would then be automatically replaced by one of the vice-presidents (Article 10.3 EPC), which may not be very useful if that vice-president is Minnoye, Topic, etc…
Last, there is Article 172: the Convention can be revised (for example to include more checks and balances to the President powers). Here again, 3/4 of the votes are necessary.
Did I forget something?
Writing in a separate thread, one person correctly notes that “[t]he EPO doesn’t have the power or inclination to take on the EU…”
Here is the full comment:
Well the EU doesn’t like dissent and so it will be interesting to see how this pans out. The EPO doesn’t have the power or inclination to take on the EU and so will presumably need to look for a way to reverse the G decision. Perhaps there needs to be a mechanism for the EPO to refer questions to the CJEU as a way of preventing this happening again.
It often seems like the EPO feels free to just disregard everything and everyone, ranging from the EPC to the European authorities (local), the central government (Commission), human rights lawyers, ILO, and the highest Dutch court. Yet is certainly feels comfortable enough to (mis)use the law to bully bloggers like myself, in an effort to silence or at least intimidate critics. These are provocative tactics which would only backfire on Battistelli and his goons.
“Also there is no problem with them opening disciplinary proceedings against the President,” wrote the following new comment, but who would be brave enough among these useless, powerless chinchillas to even propose disciplinary proceedings against the President, who breaks his own rules and gets away with it? To quote:
Did I forget something?
Yes. You forgot Article 4a. Call a ministerial conference to discuss the situation.
It is long overdue. Supposed to be held once every five years.
But so far none held.
Also there is no problem with them opening disciplinary proceedings against the President. The disciplinary committee would then issue an opinion and the Admin Council would then vote on this opinion. Of course it’s not going to happen. The ship will sail on. Just like the Titanic.
Well, here are a couple of responses to this invocation of Article 4a:
@Article 4a: the article calls for a meeting on IP matters, not a conference…
All the UPC meetings can be counted under Art. 4aEPC…
Article 4a[ 4 ]
Conference of ministers of the Contracting States
Art. 4
A conference of ministers of the Contracting States responsible for patent matters shall meet at least every five years to discuss issues pertaining to the Organisation and to the European patent system.
All the UPC meetings can be counted under Art. 4aEPC.
What do you mean by “UPC meetings”?
The Unitary Patent is an agreement of certain member states (28 EU states) under Article 142 EPC.
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar142.html
Article 4a foresees a conference of the ministers of all 38 contracting states.
Now, consider this:
There is no requirement that all EPC members need to be present, just a conference on patent matters and/or the organisation….
28 out of 38 is even a majority…..
In light of Battistelli’s abuses (continuing to bust unions in defiance of the Administrative Council) we think that Techrights needs to drop some new documents soon. Battistelli’s escalation of this conflict has given Techrights reasons to release even more documents soon, if not this month then during Christmas when there’s time to catch up. The secrecy of the EPO is its worst enemy because this growing secrecy, over time, has been breeding growing levels of abuse.
We always, we urged all readers who are European to contact their national delegates and explain to them what a disgrace the EPO has become. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.12.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Not everything under the Sun needs to be patented after all…
“The only patent that is valid is one which this Court has not been able to get its hands on.”
–Supreme Court Justice Jackson
Summary: The lowered quality control at the European Patent Office gives reasons for concern and legitimises those who worry about Europe losing its edge in pursuit of misguided goals
The quality of EPs (European Patents at the EPO) is declining. Their quality is poor not only in the eyes of longtime workers who cross horns with Battistelli as even new workers tell me that the workplace encourages quantity, not quality. As one examiner put it, “I feel bad to say that because it brings bad reputation to EPO, to EPC, and maybe to my colleagues.”
If workers do not manage to save the EPO from Battistelli’s misguided plan that culminates in massive layoffs, then the Office will likely collapse or become a shadow of its former self, damaging Europe’s economy in the process. Watch what a burden the USPTO became to the US economy. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has openly complained about this recently; then the FTC did too (taking note of the parasitic role of patent trolls).
According to an article that IP Kat published yesterday, the European Commission belatedly steps in with an effort to enforce the Biotech Directive and prevent the EPO from granting patents on tomatoes (among other natural things like seeds and plants). We covered this last week, but it’s still in the news. To quote:
The Commission argues that the EPO was not bound to take the legislative history of the Biotech Directive into account and thus came to a different conclusion (but it did take it into account…). While admitting that the final wording of the Biotech Directive does not contain a provision on the patentability of products obtained through essentially biological processes, according to the Commission, “having regard to the preparatory work related to the Directive, as summarised above, certain provisions of the Directive are only consistent if plants/animals obtained by essentially biological processes are understood as being excluded from its scope”, referring to Articles 3(2), 4(1) and 4(3) of the Biotech Directive.
George Lucas of Marks & Clerk wrote about the role of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in this. It said:
Following the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in G 2/12 (Tomatoes II/State of Israel) that “… Article 53(b) EPC does not have a negative effect on the allowability of a product claim directed to plants or plant material…”, as reported in our article last year, the appeal that led to this referral to the EBA has been decided. In the decision, T 1242/06 (Tomatoes II/State of Israel), the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) concluded that the subject matter of the claims of auxiliary request I was not excluded under Art 53(b).
The TBA decided to remit the decision to the Opposition Division with the order to maintain the patent, EP1211926, on the basis of auxiliary request I, claim 1 of which is reproduced below.
Another new article from Marks & Clerk also speaks of the EPO Board of Appeals, dealing with the notion of lack of impartiality — something which Battistelli certainly contributes to with his outrageous moves. To quote the opening part:
A recent decision from the EPO Board of Appeals, T 1647/15, deals with, amongst other things, the issue of suspected partiality of a member of the Opposition Division, in this case the chairman.
By all indications, as sad as it may seem, Battistelli’s solution to everything seems to be “UPC”, no matter how undesirable it is to the lion's share of Europe's businesses.
Only days ago the EPO brought its malicious “unitary” agenda to EPOPIC, as according to its own tweets [1, 2, 3]: “Yolanda Sanchéz García presented mock-ups of the Unitary Patent Protection Register. Available soon [...] Unitary Patent Protection Register: part of the EPR, same look & feel, contains info in Rule 16 UPR, allows file inspection…”
The UPR (Unitary Patent Protection) is described in the EPO’s Web site. It’s not quite the same as the UPC, but centralisation and broader enforcement seems to be the trend. There is no UPC landslide for Battistelli and no signs of anything “unitary” or “community” or “EU” (previous buzzwords for the same thing), so why were jobs even advertised for it?
The current trends witnessed inside and outside the EPO give reasons for concern. It lacks quality control and it now works to expand the scope of applicability of rather bad patents which it grants. Trolls would love the idea! So would their patent law firms.
There happens to be some good discussion about this at IP Kat this week. A couple of people correctly point out that applicants have been willing to pay a lot for EPs because of the high (perceived) certainty that courts would rule in their favour and not throw away their patents, costing them a fortune in legal fees (in vain). Patent quality was the focus of all the following comments, namely:
To Dubious, I agree re [patent] quality.
To EP No.
“If you feel the quality has declined, it is your job to defend your applicant’s rights by complaining to the EPO management that the quality you have received has declined.
There is no need to refer to the actual product, but examples can help.
And do it publicly, preferably not anonymously.”
That’s a silly suggestion. My role is to represent my clients’ interests, not to destroy them for political purposes.
“If you won’t do anything for you, we will not risk our job being proactive for you, as we will get problems when we do anything without being prompted to do so.”
Difference is, it is your job to apply the EPC diligently. You have responsibilities the wrong way round.
People from the EPO still tell us (even this week) that patent quality is declining. Battistelli is ruining the whole thing because he ceased to care about the quality of output; the public would pay the price. Here is another comment:
And who decided what is diligently? I think we both know that it is not the examiners. Effectively in this case the judge is pressurising the key to decide within an ever shorter time. The judge thinks he could do it without delay so everyone else should. If the jury spends too long – no matter how complicated the issues are or are made by the parties, the judge will apply sanctions for not meeting his target.
So who has the biggest interest in the jury’s diligence??
And “with current management,” another person said, “chose a very bad system to measure our quality” of patents. Here is the full comment:
Well, I’m not killing my career for political purposes.
I am diligently applying the PC, as far as I am given time to work on the dossier.
And please tell my bosses, that they are here to apply the EPC. (I agree, that’s not your job, and there you could have your career killed. But complaining about our product quality is your right, and likely even your obligation. The arrow would be pointed differently, as in the first case the repercussion arrow would go against the one telling the boss he did it wrong, and in the second case you point the boss’s arrow against the examiner taking shortcuts and producing things you do not want to pay our high fees for.)
If you, as outsider, are not willing to stand up, where the possibilities of repercussion are difficult to obtain by our politicians, how do you expect me to stand up, when my career, my job, my pension, my health insurance depends on it? And when I lose my job, I do not access to unemployment benefits. So I’ll loose my house/home too. And the impact on my family?
Sorry for your client(s), they deserve better. But with current management, which chose a very bad system to measure our quality, and considers quantity a major element of our work quality, I fear we are on an even steeper slippery road than last year.
“Every patent attorney is the same bound by the EPC as every examiner,” Barbi wrote. “If a patent attorney argues against an examiner than he must do it in goof faith and vice versa.”
Here is a response posted in reply to this:
Every patent attorney is the same bound by the EPC as every examiner! If a patent attorney argues agains an examiner than he must do it in goof faith and vice versa.
Well said Barbi !
I’m glad that you didn’t add “The President and the Admin Council are also bound by the EPC! If they argue against staff then they must do it in good faith.”
Let’s all focus on examiner-bashing.
Nobody else could possible be to blame for this mess.
Just like in the old Soviet system:
THE MANAGEMENT IS ALWAYS RIGHT!
Another comment on this topic:
Diligently = a far higher standard than is frequently applied today. Time is important, but only to the extent you are on the right track initially.
Searching for and analysing prior art is a time-consuming task, agreed. A diligent search is at least more than cursory. However, it is not this aspect I am challenging regarding quality. Today, simple misapplication of the law, or to be more precise, a complete lack of application of the law to the case in hand is all too common.
Polymorph patents are granted for merely being novel. Frequently, no benefit is even described, let a lone an arguably unexpected benefit. The EPO no longer even attempt to apply their own guidelines. See the EPO presentations by Dr Sofia Papathoma and others. This is not a time-consuming examination task.
Chemical compound patents are granted with no described industrial utility. I recently read a very detailed IPRP written by an EPO examiner that did the inventors job for them, explaining the utility and inventiveness of the compounds. I had thought that the IPRP must have been repeating the applicant’s arguments from their written opinion response, but no, it was the examiner’s own work. They would certainly make a good patent attorney with their arguments, because the case ultimately granted. Unfortunately, the patent drafter, possibly a non-chemist scientist, hadn’t performed their role competently. Luckily they had the examiner batting for them. The examiner didn’t rush this task, however, they simply failed in their duty to make the most basic of objections.
It is most unfortunate that many of today’s examiners operate to a far lower professional standard than in previous decades.
“EPO management has created conditions in which examiners operate to a far lower professional standard than in previous decades,” said the following person. Some day in the near future we will provide more information about that. Here is the full comment:
It is most unfortunate that many of today’s examiners operate to a far lower professional standard than in previous decades.
Shouldn’t that be redrafted ???
For example:
“It is most unfortunate that today’s EPO management has created conditions in which examiners operate to a far lower professional standard than in previous decades.”
Don’t be so quick to blame the examiners.
Start by looking at Article 10 EPC.
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar10.html
“No,” said another person in reply to the same thing. “Unless you are saying that PB has ordered the hiring of incompetent staff.”
What the above serves to show is somewhat of a consensus that Battistelli has been lying about patent quality, which truly fell since he took over. No doubt he will lie to his chinchillas about it in December’s meeting. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.10.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
POTUS Operandi: Shoot the messenger, then add insult to injury
Summary: The indefensible attacks on unions at the European Patent Office give growing room for concern, even among French politicians who see the EPO’s President abusing French staff
THE IMAGE above is of Claudine Lepage, whom we mentioned here before in relation to her complaints about Battistelli. Cordery too expressed concerns about what happened at The Hague. French politicians grow truly concerned and in this case Battistelli’s casualty is French too, which makes it somewhat of a unique case.
A Diaspora* user called “accolade” has provided us with a translation of Lepage’s latest writing on the subject and it goes like this:
Mood notes: the President of the EPO has struck again!
Posted on November 8, 2016 by admin
A staff representative, Laurent Prunier, has just been sacked, one more!
His crime? Having taken seriously his role as staff representative.
When is this going to stop? Let’s be clear: probably not before Benoît Battistelli, the current president, leaves.
How a European organism of a recognized quality and efficiency can mistreat its employees without any respect for international law work? In fact, the status of the EPO does not formally submit it to the social laws of the country in which it operates but is EPO an lawlessness area where arbitrariness reigns supreme?
Why doesn’t France use its influence to remind Mr. Battistelli to his basic duties? His behavior and the resulting crisis of governance are extremely damaging to the image of France just at a moment when the EPO is facing strong competition in the field of intellectual property.
Benoît Batistelli must leave so the European Office find a peaceful social climate again!
Someone has meanwhile leaked to us an internal staff document that provides additional information. As we suspected, Mr. Prunier is being punished severely because “he wholeheartedly and consistently opposed the policies and certain decisions of Mr Battistelli and Ms Bergot.”
Here is the document describing what happened, with minor redactions:
9 November 2016
su16125cp – 0.3.2
Dismissal of Laurent Prunier
Munich, Friday 4 November 2016: Mr Battistelli dismisses Laurent Prunier, elected member of the CSC and secretary of SUEPO The Hague.
The tenor of Communiqué 9 that Mr Battistelli published the same day on the Intranet seems only to confirm that “communicating” is not about telling the truth. We wonder how many colleagues – at least among those still reading his Intranet announcements – will be genuinely convinced of the veracity of Mr Battistelli’s incredible story1. It seems that interested circles outside the Office have already taken a very different view on the matter: see for example the latest publications on the EPO of The Register or IPKat.
One thing is sure: Mr Battistelli clearly continues down a path to union suppression. To date, since January 20162:
- he has fired three SUEPO officials: Elizabeth Hardon and Ion Brumme in Munich; now Laurent Prunier in The Hague;
- he has downgraded another one: Malika Weaver in Munich;
- he is targeting at least two other officials in The Hague.
This is absolutely unprecedented in the world of International Organisations. If Mr Battistelli is ever remembered by anyone within IP circles in the next decade for reasons other than the negative impact his policies have on the quality of our patents, then it will surely be for his “union busting” actions.
In March 2016 and after several years of the deepest social crisis ever experienced in the EPO, the Administrative Council (AC) passed unanimously a resolution (CA/26/16) requesting Mr Battistelli not to take any decision in any disciplinary cases pending the submission to the AC of proper reforms on investigations and disciplinary procedures. During the last AC meeting (held on 12 and 13 October), many influential AC delegations told him again that they were expecting him to fully respect the constraints of the AC resolution and suspend all on-going procedures.
Mr Battistelli wilfully did exactly the opposite, publicly ridiculing the AC.
_________
1 A story that Mr Battistelli has been telling many times in the past years, also publicly.
2 We do not forget that before 2016, Mr Battistelli downgraded Aurélien Pétiaud and Michael Lund, our two colleagues appointed by the Staff Committee on the Internal Appeals Committee until 2014; Before that, a dozen of staff representatives and union officials got a Warning in their personal file for sending emails to more than 50 colleagues.
Were this to happen anywhere else other than the EPO, Mr Battistelli and his crew would have already been sent packing by their bosses, something that the AC can3 and should do. Now that Mr Battistelli has dismissed Laurent, will the delegations finally realize that it is their capacity to control the organisation that is now questioned by all, both inside and outside the EPO? Are they going to finally act? Or will they continue to procrastinate, de facto conceding that Mr Battistelli controls them instead of they control him?
Laurent cannot share any of the details of his case without risking being further attacked abusively and sanctioned for breach of confidentiality. However, we trust his defence that he never harassed anyone, even less the alleged victim. Laurent and his counsels have informed us that:
- the accusations were malicious;
- the whole procedure was a farce exhibiting all possible violations of due process and basic defence rights;
- the charges finally laid against him were raised by a top manager and protégé of Mr Battistelli, not by the alleged victim.
Laurent’s real mistake appears to be that he wholeheartedly and consistently opposed the policies and certain decisions of Mr Battistelli and Ms Bergot. He is being made to pay a very high price for having done his job of staff representative and union official so efficiently. Not only has he been sacked, but to add insult to injury, he is now being defamed in front of his 7000 colleagues. The communiqué depicts him as a serial harasser who fully deserves the punishment inflicted upon him whilst at the same time he is deprived the right of reply, i.e. to publically uncover the truth hidden for all the reasons mentioned above.
[...]
Spontaneous, public protests at all sites culminated in Munich where 800 colleagues expressed their solidarity with Laurent by participating in a flash demo on Monday. Other actions and demos will be organised soon to continue to express our full support to Laurent and other SUEPO officials persecuted by Mr Battistelli. We will keep you posted.
______
3 The AC is the appointing authority and disciplinary body for the President of the Office.
Someone from the EPO has meanwhile told us that “Battistelli trying to defend the undefendable?” [sic] This was said in reference to what we published in the afternoon. “I couldn’t agree more with the following statement,” added this person, quoting “It’s like a whole diarrhea of false statements” (including defamation of the accused).
This is typical. Watch how Team Battistelli defamed even a judge. These people are void of any morals or principles. They’re thugs.
We kindly ask readers to remember that in this year’s EPO lies should be assumed in every statement made by the Office. This has become so routine that it damages the reputation of the Office very severely and it had us compare Battistelli to Pinocchio a lot more than once. The man is an embarrassment to France and his management team, which comprises a lot of French people, does no favour to the country’s image (nepotism, busting of unions, deception and so on).
Battistelli: Digging the EPO’s Grave Again (DEGA). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Translation of the new article from Heise, revealing some new bits of information about union-busting activity in The Hague
EARLIER today we published a call for translations, after we had gotten a translation from Skarbrand in Diaspora* as it turns out. It’s a translation of the article from Heise and although not perfect (especially not the terminology which was somewhat lost in translation), it does contain some relatively new information.
European parliament fires more union workers
picture text: Again demonstration of employees in front of the European Patent Agency in Munich. (picture: dpa, Frank Leonhardt)
After the heads of the in-house union Suepo in Munich lost their jobs, the leader of the EPA (European Patent Agency) fires the financial secretary of employee-representation in The Hague. Approximately 800 workers demonstrate against it.
Despite multiple intern conferences to brighten the working atmosphere, the struggle in the EPA wont stop. On Monday in-house union Suepo called again on short notice for demonstration. Insiders say around 800 people joined at the agency-seat in Munich. Reason for the action: EPA president Benoît Battistelli fired Suepo financial secretary Laurent Prunier in the Hague last week.
Battistelli against union
Heise Online stated the EPA leaders accused Laurent Prunier, during his written call to protest, of pressuring and harassing an employee-board member in the Netherlands capitol. In contrast the union says that there was never an official complaint. The appropriate international labour-court has already clearly stated, that intern employee differences have to be handled among each other, without interference of the agencies management.
In January during an disciplinary inquiry against three union workers (which seemed to have spied on a special investigation unit) Battistelli imposed strict sanctions: Suepo leader Elizabeth Hardon and her predecessor Ion Brumme were laid off, additionally the treasurer was degraded. Suepo fears now that the intention behind this blow is “to destroy” the union. As foreign institution, German law is not applicable to the EPA.
Unrest in the workforce
Because of unrest in the workforce the European Patent Organisation (EPO), which carries the EPA, called upon Battistelli to “lay low”. The president has to ensure that “the disciplinary enquiry not only has to be fair, it must also be perceived as such” according to the Communique. Possibilities for this are external examination or mediation.
It is stated in the document that the Frenchman has to inform the supervisory board “with appropriate detail” till after the trial and before other disciplinary enquiries. The controllers also demand suggestions to improve trust of the appropriate actions. There should be an agreement with the union “without precondition and the possibility for all topics in future discussions”.
Frenchman Battistelli is no ordinary person. There’s something irregular about him. “Regarding your latest post referring to Battistelli’s increasingly erratic
behaviour,” one source told us, “I heard that he caused something of an éclat at the AIPPI conference back in September, where he gave a speech. It seems that he was adamant that he should sit flanked by his two bodyguards at the banquet’s officials table.”
Our source for this said it is better to treat this as gossip, but either way, it would not be the first time we heard such stories (or worse). Some we cannot even publish as it would jeopardise sources. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA