The best vote/ballot money can buy or just an incredible coincidence?

Summary: Several sources suggest that rather than appease the Administrative Council by taking corrective action Battistelli and his notorious ‘circle’ now work hard to remove opposition from the Administrative Council, especially where this is easier a task to accomplish (politically or economically)

THE EPO is an institution like no other institution. Even FIFA/UEFA pale in comparison to the abuses at the EPO, but since more people understand football (than complex subjects like patents) media attention has been grossly disproportionate. The media in Europe has been mostly uncooperative, apathetic and unwilling to give thought/iota/space to EPO staff’s complaints. We already wrote many hypotheses or theories about why this may be, ranging from national interests of Germany, the “better good” of the European Union, the corporate ties of large media operations, and so forth.

“Even FIFA/UEFA pale in comparison to the abuses at the EPO, but since more people understand football (than complex subjects like patents) media attention has been grossly disproportionate.”Whatever one knows about the EPO, in reality it’s probably a lot worse. I have written more than 700 articles about the EPO specifically (not just as a side issue) and the lack of intervention/involvement from authorities is truly jaw-dropping. I have never come across anything like this (having run this site for a decade).

Continuing a string of anonymous comments (as anonymous as they can be over at Google’s Blogspot), one person wrote about sanctions against EPO staff that already left the Office:

Still, imposing restrictions upon someone who is no longer an employee of the EPO is a significant step further than everything that has gone before – even the retroactive extension of the period by which an employee may be suspended before a final decision is taken on their case (or, if we are speaking bluntly, extension of the period by which an employee might be “detained without trial”!).

As I understand it, the deal that every EPO employee signed up to was that the EPO would have no claim to infringe or limit the liberty of the employee after they left the employ of the EPO. It would therefore simply be impossible for any court of an EU Member State to validate a “condition of employment” that was unilaterally imposed (i.e. without consent of the employee, or even any form of additional compensation) and that purported to limit the liberty of an individual beyond the term of the contract of employment.

I know that we are operating in Eponia here, and not the EU. Nevertheless, the fact that the above is such a blatantly unarguable point means that, even if the AC erred in rubber-stamping previous proposals, they would really have no excuse for making the same mistake on this occasion.

As another person put it, citing/highlighting the amazing behaviour of Mr. Minnoye (on public television, nothing less!):

Very true. They would have no excuse.
But if they made the mistake, who would call them to account?
Remember, they enjoy “immunity” for their actions.
Some court or tribunal might at some far distant date find the measure to be unlawful.
But even that is my no mean certain.
Do you think they will loose any sleep over such trivia?
Remember Wille Minnoye’s famous words on Netherlands television.

We have been hearing for a while, from 4 sources by now (including this from today), that Team Battistelli — seeking to protect itself from justice (people like Minnoye included) — sought to stack panels and warp the vote in the same way that DNC does it in the United States (e.g. in Nevada more recently).

Here is, once again, a claim that Battistelli “is literally buying the votes of the small countries.” We wrote about this two days ago and here it is again:

The idea that some restrictions were applicable to employees after they left the EPO has always been in the service regulations. It makes sense: the EPO is dealing with confidential matter (unpublished applications), the employees are bound to confidentiality even after they left.

All these have always existed and have always been a potential problem: confidentiality, lack of independent justice, internal sickness insurance, lack of control on spending, etc… But it has never been an acute problem because it was never systematically abused (although some limited abuse was already there). The EPO has functioned quite well for the last 30+ years.

The problem today is that someone is systematically (ab)using the regulations and even strengthening them. That is why the EPO is suddenly in the Press.

Quite frankly, I don’t see any way out. Battistelli will manage to get the council at his side, because he is literally buying the votes of the small countries. Countries with the most economic weight: Germany, France, UK, Italy, Netherlands, Swiss, etc… want him out but will be outvoted by a coalition formed by, maybe, Greece, Cyprus, Macedonia, Romania…

Whether the rumour mill is wrong or not, one sure thing is that we are hearing this from more and more separate sources, so there’s probably some level of truth to it. Recall Battistelli signing a deal with Lithuania just around the same time as the Administrative Council's meeting. Very suspicious timing, no?

“Will the delegations let the president weakening the council secretariat? Will they act upon what may be interpreted by the outside observers as basically a “power-play”?”
      –AnonymousOne source recently noted: “Last B28 [Board 28 meeting] seems to have only tackle with [sic] DG3 matters and nothing has transpired about the social situation. Only rumours concern some changes proposed by the President – this is one of his ample prerogative- in the Council secretariat. Shortly after having stated in the March resolution that a reinforcement of the Secretariat capacity and independence was a top priority, it will be an interesting to observe the next session of the AC: Will the delegations let the president weakening the council secretariat? Will they act upon what may be interpreted by the outside observers as basically a “power-play”?

Well, that would not be the first from Battistelli. Also regarding the B28 we have learned that “since January the situation of Ion and Malika [staff representation] has remained unchanged! It seems that we were left with the wrong impression that the president was in dire need of their personal Request for Review to show its benevolence. Presumably this was just a “teaser”: Today, one month after filling the “long awaited” Request for Review, NO decision has been taken yet. Presumably, one can expect a more “PR-effective” date of “release” around the next B28 or Budget and Finance Committee (24-25.05)” (that’s this coming week).

It’s easy to see the cause for angst. The angst is totally just and Battistelli’s regime is — to use a understatement — unjust. Writing in IP Kat anonymously, some people have gone poetic. One writes:

Eponia boss Battistelli
Tried moving the Boards to New Delhi
But later that evening
He went through the ceiling
When they criticised him on the telly.

Another poetic one reads:

A judge once wrote a decision
The president saw with derision.
He was removed from his post,
And given at most
A pension that no one could live on.
LC Lovegood

The poetry continued with this comment that said: “The EPO enlarges itself, becomes methodised and refined and the whole, though it takes long, stands almost complete and finished in my mind, so that I can survey it, like a fine picture or a beautiful statute that I can present to the AC at a glance” (there are some bogus ‘studies’ in the pipelines, as we noted before).

On a more serious note, one person notes:

I know some colleagues who have installed on their smartphone a backwards counter to monitor the leaving date of BB.
About two years from now.
In the mean time the work goes on. We try to survive in the mess created by this ill advised management. With shame and disgust.
Because the heart of the EPO is (still) good. Made of multi cultural, competent and very patient people. For these people, my friends, we have to maintain hope and try to save what can be saved of the working life and atmosphere at the EPO.
Unfortunately this top management is only interested in short term benefits and neither in the staff wellbeing nor the european people interest. This is sad, unwise and without any issue. But these people will not last forever. Time to rebuild will come, time for justice and intelligence.
La bêtise, l’énorme bêtise à front de taureau, will go back home forever and for a well deserved and extremely quiet, rest.

“AC creativity may cause spark,” one person noted today. “It can be excruciating when they’re rubbing two rocks together and getting again nothing. Maybe one day sitting at my desk, seeing nothing, hearing nothing, yet through the silence something throbs and gleams…a flame catches and a new era of hope sweeps through the IP world.”

“Most examiners, who are academically trained, wish to the right thing.”In our next post we shall try a more optimistic tone. We invite EPO staff to help our push for tighter EPO patent scope (no software patents), which probably also means blocking the UPC. A lot of the current so-called ‘reforms’ are due to the UPC, which tilts the whole system in favour of the rich and the powerful, and it’s obvious at whose expense and at what cost. The EPO became a battleground (or battle scene) and it’s not the fault of examiners, whose moves are largely reactionary. Most examiners, who are academically trained, wish to the right thing. █

Maintaining the occupation of the Office in the face of the Administrative Council, which has not been infiltrated to the same degree (some say that it happens there too)

Summary: The EPO’s ‘ringleader’, Mr. Battistelli, is allegedly trying to keep his confidants (part of the family cabal, like Mr. Minnoye and Željko Topić) together for several more years to come, even defying rules regarding retirement age

THE “EPO rumour mill,” told us a source, is abuzz with information or speculations about what’s about to happen in June when the Administrative Council meets again and has an opportunity to sack Battistelli. Battistelli should be retired by now, not receiving an astronomical salary (the same is true for Mr Minnoye, who had a senior moment on TV when he forgot that law needs to be obeyed).

“The normal EPO Vice-President contract is for 5 years so his appointment will expire in March/April 2017.”
      –AnonymousNow that Battistelli is rumoured to be 'buying' votes so as to ensure he does not get sacked (in spite of failing to fulfill any of the requests from the Administrative Council) we have some new informal information, or rather, unverified rumours.

“Latest news from the EPO rumour mill,” our source told us, involves both Battistelli and his right-hand man Željko Topić, who faces serious issues in his home country.

“Topić,” we are told, “was appointed as VP 4 of the EPO in March 2012 and took up his duties in Munich in April 2012. The normal EPO Vice-President contract is for 5 years so his appointment will expire in March/April 2017.

“Battistelli is due to remain as EPO President until June 2018 and it now seems that he wants to keep Topić for another year.

“There are 38 member states in total, and a three-quarters majority would be needed to remove the President.”
      –Anonymous“The latest news from the EPO rumour mill is that Battistelli is planning to propose an extension of Topić’s appointment to the Administrative Council during the upcoming meeting on the 29th and 30th of June. According to reliable sources there is a lot of opposition to the proposed extension among many delegations so it will interesting to see if this will lead to another stand-off between Battistelli and the Council.”

Would it not be outrageous if Topić, who faces many criminal charges, received an endorsement from heads of national offices (Administrative Council)? That would serve to discredit, by extension/association, a lot of this whole system (the Organisation), demonstrating that the EPO is unhinged and incapable of self-regulation.

“Battistelli has now lost majority support in the Administrative Council,” our source added, “but according to inside sources there is still a block of around 12 countries which continue support him. There are 38 member states in total, and a three-quarters majority would be needed to remove the President. As long as he still has residual support from 12 countries it could be difficult for the Council to dismiss him.”

Since all countries, both large and small, have an equal voice, sending money their way to secure their support for Battistelli should not be too hard. We explained this last week.

“As long as he still has residual support from 12 countries it could be difficult for the Council to dismiss him.”
      –Anonymous“However,” our source concluded, “it’s not easy to make reliable predictions about this because according to EPO voting rules abstentions do not count as votes. So if some delegations decided to abstain, this would reduce the majority required for a decision. The “three-quarters majority” is based on the actual number of votes cast not including abstentions.”

For those wishing to contact their national delegates, here are the contact details. They deserve to have access to information that Battistelli and his goons suppress, either by threats to bloggers and to representatives, outright censorship (of bloggers and representatives’ sites/E-mail), self censorship by mass surveillance (with BlueCoat) and so on. █

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Europa, Patentes, Rumour at 6:32 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Manterse ocupado en laOficina frente al Consejo Administrativo, el cual no ha sido infiltrado en el mismo grado (algunos dicen que allí sucede lo mismo)

Sumario: El ‘cabezilla’ de la EPO, Sr. Battistelli, esta tratándo de mantener a sus confidentes alegadamente (parte de la familial cabal, comoel Sr. Minnoye y Željko Topić) juntos por varios años más, incluso desafíando reglas acerca de la edad de retiro

El “molino de rumores de la EPO,” nos dice una fuente, esta resonando con especulaciónes y murmuros acerca de lo que podría pasar en Junio cuándo el Consejo Administrativo se reuna de nuevo y tenga oportunidad de despedir a Battistelli. Battistelli debería haberse retirado hace rato, y sigue recibiéndo un salario astronómico (lo mismo se puede decir del Sr. Minnoye, quien tuvo un momento anciano en TV cuando se olvidó que las leyes necesitan ser obedecidas).

“El contrato normal para Vice-Presidente de la EPO es por 5 años así que su nombramiénto caduca en Mazo/Abril del 2017.”
–Anonymous

Ahora que Battistelli de quien se rumorea que ‘compra’ votos para garantizar que no sea despedido (a pesar de no cumplir con alguna de las peticiones del Consejo de Administración) tenemos nueva información informal, o más bien, los rumores no verificados.

“Las últimas noticias del molino de rumores de la EPO,” nuestra fuente nos dice, envuelve a ambos Battistelli y su chacal de confíanza Željko Topić, quien enfrenta graves cargos en su contra en su país natal.

“Topić,” nos dicen, “fue nombrado como VP 4 de la EPO en Marzo del 2012 asumió su cargo en Munich en Abril del 2012. El contrato normal para Vice-Presidente de la EPO es por 5 años así que su nombramiénto caduca en Mazo/Abril del 2017.

“El caradura de Battistelli debe permanecer como Presidente de la EPO hasta Junio del 2018 y ahora desvergonzadamente parece querer mantener a Topić por otro año. No puede vivir sin él.

“Hay 38 estados miémbros en total, y una mayoríá de tres cuartos es necesario para remover al Presidente.”
–Anonymous

“Las últimas noticias del molino de rumores de la EPO es que Battistelli tiene la intención de proponer una prórroga de la designación del tema para el Consejo de Administración durante la próxima reunión de los días 29 y 30 de junio. Según fuentes confiables hay una gran cantidad de oposición a la prórroga propuesta entre muchas delegaciones por lo que será interesante ver si esto conducirá a otro enfrentamiento entre Battistelli y el Consejo”. Esperemos que sea así y se deshagan de este desgraciado.

¿No sería escandaloso si Topic, quien enfrenta a muchos cargos criminales, reciba un respaldo de los jefes de las oficinas nacionales (Consejo de Administración)? Esto serviría para desacreditar, por extensión/asociación, un montón de todo este sistema (la Organización), lo que demuestra que la EPO es trastornada e incapaz de auto-regulación.

“Battistelli ha perdido ahora el apoyo mayoritario del Consejo Administrativo,” nuestra fuente añadió, “pero de acuerdo a fuentes dentro todavía hay un bloque de alrededor de 12 países que continúan apoyándolo. Hay 38 estados miembros en total, y se necesitaría una mayoría de tres cuartas partes de remover al Presidente. Mientras que aún tiene el apoyo de 12 países residual que podría ser difícil para el Consejo de despedirlo”.

Ya que todos los países, grandes y pequeños, tienen la misma voz, envío de dinero de su manera de asegurar su apoyo a Battistelli no debería ser demasiado difícil. Lo explicamos la semana pasada.

“Mientras el todavía tenga apoyo de esos 12 países a los que rompió la mano, puede ser díficil para que el Consejo Administrativo lo despida.”
–Anonymous

“Sin embargo,” nuestra fuente concluyó, “no es fácil de hacer predicciones fiables sobre esto porque de acuerdo a las reglas de votación de EPO las abstenciones no cuentan como votos. Así que si algunas delegaciones decidieron abstenerse, esto reduciría la mayoría necesaria para tomar una decisión. La “mayoría de tres cuartos” se basa en el número exacto de votos emitidos sin incluir las abstenciones”.

Para aquellos que deseen contactar a sus delegados nacionales, aquí están los detalles de contacto. Ellos merecen tener acceso a la información que Battistelli y sus chácales suprimen, por amenazas a bloggers y a los representantes, censura descarada y directa (de bloggers y representantes sitios/E-mail), auto censura por medio de monitoring/vigilancia (usando BlueCoat) y lo demás.

Summary: Dr. Christoph Ernst is claimed to be the successor (interim or permanent) of the notorious Battistelli, but these claims have little or no evidence to support them

THE EPO‘s President should get sacked this week, but he attacks anyone who gets close to even suggesting so. For quite some time now people have hypothesised that Christoph Ernst would replace Battistelli and Tilman Müller-Stoy’s letter to Ernst a few days ago brought these hypotheses back to life.

Some rumours today (coinciding with the meeting of the Administrative Council and the protest in Munich) suggest that Battistelli effectively got fired. We heard those rumours and there is even a comment about it. As it is just a rumour for now we have said nothing about it and fast-checked instead. “Latest rumour from the EPO,” as one person put it, is that in order “to avoid any further harm to the institution the CA envisages to discharge BB [Battistelli] of his duties in respect of the boards, with immediate effect. M. Ernst the German representative will act ad interim. Too smart to be true?”

“Some rumours today (coinciding with the meeting of the Administrative Council and the protest in Munich) suggest that Battistelli effectively got fired.”It would be smart, yes, but it sounds unlikely to be true and all the responses to this comment are jokes, e.g. one about Battistelli being interim replacement for Ernst and this one which says: “An ad libitum [Latin for “at one’s pleasure”] President replaced by an ad interim President?”

Another said “You mean: A partial dismissal? (Is that like a partial pregnancy?) A president for the EPO, and a separate president for the BoA? The separation achieved by a mere vote of the AC?”

That can never happen of course. Here is a hypothetical humorous scenario:

Too smart to be true? Really?

[Enter two delegates of the AC]

[First delegate] Let’s stop the kid from entering the glass department – he can still play wrecking ball in the other departments …

[Second delegate] You are right, this way we don’t have to deal with his temper tantrums …

[Exit delegates]

Whatever happened today at the meeting will probably become public knowledge pretty soon. The rumour about Battistelli getting (in effect) fired may be baseless, based on private sources and also this comment which not too long ago said: “According to discreet contacts, the rumour is now that the above rumour on stripping BB of his powers over the BoA is nothing but a canard.”

“Well, with one day remaining for the meetings/sessions there is still time to contact the national delegates (they can read E-mail whilst away) and tell them why dismissal of Battistelli is crucial for saving the entire Organisation.”Rather than celebrate something that has not happened (at least not yet) let us look at new reports like this one (“Russian IP Industry At Center Of Massive Scandal” from IP Watch). This sounds eerily similar to things we heard about DZIV and SIPO under leadership of the EPO Vice-President who now faces many criminal charges in Croatia. The article is behind a paywall, so it’s hard to say what exactly the similarities may be…

As another scandal du jour, it seems apparent that some commenters at IP Kat read Techrights and one of them made a joke about the Dutch press report, which we translated before noon. “What a nice image of the European Patent Office,” said the commenter, “the Bailiff, a public official of the Netherlands, escorted off the premises of the Office by five guards without even being told where the mailbox is…

“But hey! if it is all fine with the Dutch delegation in the AC, why should everybody else complain, right?”

Well, with one day remaining for the meetings/sessions there is still time to contact the national delegates (they can read E-mail whilst away) and tell them why dismissal of Battistelli is crucial for saving the entire Organisation. Not only the survival of the Office is at stake and delegates certainly don’t want to be left out of their job. Some of them would have to — gasp — start paying dentists. █

Benoît Battistelli has a lot to fear if people actually get such protections

Whistleblower ist weder Datendieb noch Erpresser

Summary: EPO scandals are not publicly accessible or known to many people and not many such scandals are known at all because people are afraid of Battistelli’s Fabius Maximus strategies

THINGS at the EPO may seem to have calmed down (there are court proceedings for representatives to focus on, having prepared for a while), but there are many stories that still ought to be told. Some cannot be told. Some cannot be told just yet. Some just need further corroborating evidence. Publishing these in the form of rumours and presenting them as such is clearly permissible.

“Publishing these in the form of rumours and presenting them as such is clearly permissible.”Some time ago we learned from a reliable source (with track record of accuracy) about fraud at the EPO. We are talking about financial fraud here (like payment orders), but people are afraid to speak about it directly to the public, to the authorities, or to journalists. Having witnessed how Battistelli and his circle treat even the gentlest of critics, who can blame them? Battistelli engages in managerial terrorism. He created an atmosphere of so much fear that even people who have truly credible arguments and evidence to back it up with dare not speak to anyone about it.

In the case of fraud, there is a criminal nature to it and one’s ability (or courage) to step forward would typically depend the severity of the fraud and certainty of prosecution (vindicating the messenger). Under Battistelli’s terrifying regime it takes a lot of courage to speak out about such things. Maybe it’s just a matter of time. Typically, whistleblowers are protected by the law itself, but in Eponia lawlessness prevails (Battistelli and his minion even brag about it!). These whistleblowers should not really need any protection from the employer but from anticorruption entities (the EPO's press spokesperson came from one, effectively defecting); but what anticorruption entities are there inside Eponia? None. It’s just absurd. The EPO conveniently ignores national laws but at the same time it enforces employment embargo/sanctions on EPO staff after their departure from Eponia. It also legally threatens people outside Eponia, myself included.

We are pretty certain that there is fraud going on, but at this stage we have to classify this “rumour” (however strong) and revisit the claim if or when this becomes public knowledge. █

Wouldn’t that be metaphorical given Battistelli's plan (all along) for the boards and mistreatment of ill staff?

Reference: The Killing of Psychiatric Patients in Nazi-Germany between 1939 – 1945 [PDF]

Summary: Not only the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) is under severe attack and possibly in mortal danger; the increasingly understaffed Boards of Appeal too are coming under attack and may (according to rumours) be sent to Haar, a good distance away from Munich and the airport (half an hour drive), not to mention lack of facilities for visitors from overseas

SUEPO (the only dominant EPO trade/staff union) leaders must be busy with their legal cases against EPO management (one to start/resume upon appeal later this year in the Supreme Court at The Hague, the other one having just started exactly a week ago), so it is not saying much about the monumental injustices at the EPO, at least not publicly. Having said that, anonymous voices continue to appear at IP Kat‘s comments, in spite of lack of coverage there about the EPO’s situation (nothing for weeks now).

A few comments there are floating new rumours about the fate of the appeal boards after they got punished for disloyalty (to Battistelli, not to the Office or the Organisation). Much of this began with a discussion about the UPC, which all along threatened to make the appeal boards obsolete, in due time. The UPC was first brought up in light of the decline/demise of justice at patent courts, as we noted a couple of hours ago (tackling patent examination justice). To quote the whole comment:

What good will it be to them to have good patents if their competitors can shut them down with vague and broad patents at the UPC?

A very important fact has been forgotten in Merpel’s article: the president of the council did not distanciate himself from the interference from Battistelli. Look at the text of the decision. Basically, what this means is that both the council and Battistelli view the enlarged board of appeal as subordinate to them and not as independent. The council did not object in their latest session.

In plain words: the enlarged board of appeal was expected to simply rubber-stamp a decision already taken. Even if the investigation was fraught with problems as some of the earliest comments in this thread noted.

These are the standards of justice of Battistelli and, we now understand, from the council. That is basically what the decision says.

Now, the all new UPC is created behind closed doors by the very same persons. How high do you expect the judicial standards of the new court to be?

Bonus question: how do you expect your clients to protect themselves against future decisions of the UPC?

There is a direct response to the above concerns about the UPC. “The danger comes when a court (UPC or any other) starts with a presumption of validity, just because it’s a European patent,” the following comment notes, reminding us of what happens in the USPTO and US courts, especially the ones in Texas:

Not sure I follow the logic here. I’m not saying that the national route produces stronger patents. I’m saying that, whereas the EPO previously provided a useful due diligence service (search and examination), this has now been diluted to the point where the national offices offer a competitive and lower-risk alternative.

Crap patents are fine, just as long as everyone recognises that they’re crap. The danger comes when a court (UPC or any other) starts with a presumption of validity, just because it’s a European patent.

An anonymous response to this said:

Crap patents are not fine, even the USPTO is getting convinced. And if the UPC independence is of the same kind as the enlarged board of appeal indepence, that is not fine either.

The article above describes a very serious problem. In most countries, interfering with the independence of justice would trigger a constitutional crisis.

In response to that, once again, the Turkey analogies came up:

The article above describes a very serious problem. In most countries, interfering with the independence of justice would trigger a constitutional crisis.

Apart from Turkey where a constitutional crisis triggers an interference with the independence of justice …

“The Boards of Appeal are now paying a very high price for asserting their independence,” noted the following commenter, correctly insinuating that this ‘exile’ (not as far as Vienna as feared last year) is a sort of punishment:

The Boards of Appeal are now paying a very high price for asserting their independence. Following the approval by the Administrative Council of the reform proposed by Mr Battistelli, they will firstly be exiled to a corner of the Munich area, viz. Haar, which is very well known for its psychiatric hospital, possibly a humorous touch introduced by the president.

Secondly, renewal of the members’ appointment every five years, which used to be the default (in fact, it has never happened that a member was not re-appointed) is now subject to, among other, a performance evaluation. Coupled with another element of the proposal, i.e. to increase the cost coverage for appeals from 6,3% to 20-25%, firstly by increasing the members’ productivity, there will now be a high pressure on members to focus on production if they don’t want to lose their job. And if they lose their job, taking up another job will now only be possible after approval by the Administrative Council.

Finally, Board of Appeal members will be excluded from “step advancements”, which are open to all other staff at the EPO, i.e. the members’ salaries will be frozen.

It was already known that if Mr Battistelli doesn’t like you, he will hit hard. He has proven this again with the reform package for the Boards of Appeal.

Here is more about the Haar rumour:

Do you have good reason for believing that the BoA will be moved to Haar?

EPO – CA-43-16 Rev. 1:
“As a main precondition, criteria like good traffic links and appropriate accommodation standards were taken into account”.

Although I do not know much about it, I doubt that Haar would satisfy this main precondition. For a start, there appear to be very limited hotel and restaurant facilities in the immediate vicinity of the S-Bahn stop, which is itself a significantly longer journey (by S-Bahn) to / from the airport.

Also, is there not going to be any consultation with users about this? If the decision is Haar, then I can envisage the users getting hopping mad about this – especially as they would be paying significantly more in appeal fees for the “privilege” of having an additional journey out of Munich centre to stay in hotels that may be unappealing to some. And all to address what the users have consistently argued was a non-issue, whilst no real progress (in fact, quite the opposite) has been made in addressing the substantive issues relating to the independence of the BoAs.

I know that a proposal for a new BoA location has to be put to the Budget and Finance Committee, but am unsure if the AC needs to take a formal decision upon that proposal. If so, then it looks like users will need to engage in intensive lobbying of AC representatives if the proposal really is for somewhere outside of Munich centre.

And responding to the above one person wrote:

Like someone wrote above, GET REAL.

What consultations were there in the first place regarding the so-called “reform” of the BoA? What was the public’s input in that hastily load of garbage pompously called a “plan”?

Were the outcries of the public, judges, etc. heeded when a BoA member was given the virtual sack for what was apparently a crime of lèse-majesté?

The latest comment was posted this morning and said:

If the rumours are true, it looks EPO will be gaining an office that is outside of Munich city centre and that (compared to the Isar building) is more difficult for visitors to Munich to reach and is by far less well supplied with hotel accommodation, restaurants and other facilities that such visitors will need.

If the EPO management were being truly practical about this, then they would decide that such an office really ought to be occupied by the department(s) of the EPO that receive the fewest visitors. Given that pretty much everything that the Boards of Appeal do involves summoning visitors to Munich, I am certain that it makes no sense whatsoever to move them to Haar.

With this in mind, if the EPO president really is determined to physically separate the two current residents of the Isar building, then logic dictates that it really ought to be the other resident (that is, the president himself) who moves to Haar. Anyone up for lobbying the representatives to the AC to vote for this alternative?

Well, “lobbying the representatives to the AC,” as the above put it, might be an exercise in futility given their demonstration of (almost) blind loyalty to Battistelli in the last AC meeting. One person earlier on wrote:

The Enlarged Board of appeal did not rubber-stamped the decision that the president and the council asked them.
Probably for this reason they are going to be moved, although several suitable buildings are available in Munich, to Haar, a village outside Munich mostly known for its lunatic asylum.
Next time they will think twice before taking a decision that does not please BB or the council.
So much for the judicial independence.

There is no judicial independence and there is no justice at the EPO anymore. To make matters worse, as one commenter put it:

It seems that some applicants have their offices in the same building complex.

The board members will improve their perceived independence by discussing the inventions directly with the inventors at lunch.

Yes, exactly. What a horrible move that would be. Instead of sending the boards to Haar maybe it’s time to send Battistelli to Haar. As one of the above comments noted, Haar “is very well known for its psychiatric hospital,” which sounds like something Battistelli could use. They can give him some toys to break rather than let him break people (and lives or even families as per the recent survey) at the EPO. █

No transparency, no accountability (more greed and lawlessness)

Summary: Rumours about the amount of money Benoît Battistelli gets paid to ruin the European Patent Office (EPO), which has become more secretive and accordingly reckless

FOR a number of years now (not just months) people have wondered how much money Battistelli gets paid (money extracted from EPO budget without any proper oversight). Staff of the EPO does not trust Battistelli at all. Asking for transparency/details of Presidential salary should not be out of the ordinary as previous Presidents, a la Alison Brimelow (Battistelli’s predecessor at the Office), openly stated their salary and there was no confrontation about it. Battistelli is different because some say that Bergot, his friend’s wife (Elodie Bergot), increased his salary and/or bonus. We want to catch him in a lie right now, not because we have something against him personally but because the secrecy he brought to the EPO (definitely worse than in Brimelow’s days) hurts the credibility of the Office and damages — by extension — Europe’s reputation for accountability and relatively low corruption rates.

“Someone anonymous got told (a while back) that the salary was actually €42,000 a month (i.e. just over half a million Euros, a lot more than even national Presidents and EU heads receive), but that came through a friend via another friend, thus lacking any documentary evidence for it.”It is worth noting that Mr. Kongstad, Battistelli’s successor in the Council, knows Battistelli’s salary but cooperates in keeping the salary secret (as well as the contract which may include other forms of benefit/compensation). We are not going to go after Kongstad, however, because his role in this secrecy is at best intended to appease Battistelli’s will. Earlier this year we heard that Elodie Bergot gave Battistelli a raise (not years but months ago), so we assume her department too knows the salary but keeps quiet about it. Quite a few people out there know how much Battistelli gets paid, so why does he keep so quiet about it? Maybe because it contradicts what he said to the Dutch press?

Rumours about Battistelli’s salary/ies (contracts change over time) are out there in the wild. EPO workers speak about it, but few have actually seen a document confirming the hard facts. Someone anonymous got told (a while back) that the salary was actually €42,000 a month (i.e. just over half a million Euros, a lot more than even national Presidents and EU heads receive), but that came though a friend via another friend, thus lacking any documentary evidence for it. “The problem I have found,” told us this anonymous source, “is that almost everything I find out that I don’t actually see in a document has the risk of being false. That is what happens, I guess, when there is no transparency and people have to rely of rumors (very USSR). The most reliable rumors come from getting the IT people drunk in the EPO bar. They have access to everything.”

Half a million Euros annually (gross) contradicts other rumours we have come across, including some which say €1,000,000, €1.2m, or close to €1.5m.

What is the real salary? We may never know unless or until the contracts get leaked or Battistelli comes clean like his predecessor, Alison Brimelow. █

Summary: Willy/Guillaume Minnoye (VP1) was at one point rumoured to be on his way out, so maybe that is still the case

THE EPO is probably Europe’s most notorious institution these days (worse than FIFA). This isn’t the fault of patent examiners but of top-level management which decided to treat examiners like an enemy and impose unreasonable demands.

“For a person his age, it would not count as early retirement but as late retirement (he was never supposed to have this post in the first place).”Working for Battistelli is difficult enough as an examiner, but even for those working for him at top-level management it has become hard and stressful. Recently, as we wrote earlier this summer, Ciaran McGinley resigned (set to retire early). As Principal Director of Patent Administration, his departure is a very big deal, but he’s not alone. Many people are leaving the Office and there are ways for retrieving some statistics; there are staff changes published every month and anyone in the office can read them. Based on these, one can easily see the increase in retirements over the last couple of years (we don’t know if anybody has already done that) and some people told us that it is indeed the case. Several sources told us the same thing and some people wrote anonymous comments about it online.

Earlier this year we learned that Principal Directors were starting to scrabble around with an eye on the VP1 post (that would be Minnoye’s post, around the time he embarrassed himself on Dutch TV). It was premature at the time to circulate rumours that Minnoye might be leaving and in fact he did not leave^*. Given his age (past retirement age), maybe it’s just a matter of time. For a person his age, it would not count as early retirement but as late retirement (he was never supposed to have this post in the first place). █
_________
^* “Mrs Elodie Bergot has apparentlly [sic] resigned,” one person claimed at the time, but it turned out to be false. We never published this rumour; we refuted it.

Summary: Successor of Benoît Battistelli at the Administrative Council, Jesper Kongstad, is rumoured to be hiding something from tax authorities, but lack of transparency in “Eponia” prevents actual verification

THE EPO is no stranger to controversy and scandals. There is virtually no oversight there, no transparency, no accountability. This breeds distrust and often abuse as well. The USPTO is an angel in comparison as it doesn’t enjoy exemptions from European or US laws. There is no “USponia”, only “Eponia”.

“We just read your article with the title "Rumours About Secret EPO Salary of Benoît Battistelli",” some readers told us. “We’re surprised that you didn’t give any mention to the “Rumours About Secret EPO Salary of Jesper Kongstad”…

“If these rumours were true, then as a Danish civil servant he could be in serious trouble if the Danish tax authorities ever happened to investigate the matter.”
      –Anonymous“At the end of an interview published by MIP in March of this year Kongstad was quoted as claiming that he does not receive any remuneration for his work at the EPO: “I am now spending about half of my time on EPO-related work, but I do not receive any remuneration for that.”

“In the MIP interview Kongstad was emphatic about the “pro bono” nature of his work for the EPO but not everybody is prepared to buy that storyline.”

Recall this embarrassing recent story. The readers continue: “In fact for some time now there have been persistent rumours circulating that he is somehow “on the payroll” at the EPO although nobody seems to know the precise details about this. Evil tongues have even been heard to say that he does not disclose this additional remuneration for tax purposes in Denmark. If these rumours were true, then as a Danish civil servant he could be in serious trouble if the Danish tax authorities ever happened to investigate the matter.

“It is important to emphasise that these are just rumours.”
      –Anonymous“According to this report from 2010, under Danish law intentional and systematic tax evasion can lead to 8 years imprisonment and penalties of twice the unpaid tax liability. However, given the lack of effective oversight at the EPO it’s unlikely that Kongstad has anything to fear. Even if there was an investigation he would probably be whitewashed by the Internal Audit department which operates the EPO’s Investigative Unit and only answers to Battistelli. We are unlikely to see a truly independent audit of Kongstad’s financial relationship with the EPO any time soon.

“It is important to emphasise that these are just rumours. The close symbiosis between Kongstad and Battistelli and the fact that Kongstad is one of the few people privy to the details of Battistelli’s contract lends a certain amount of plausibility to the rumours. But in the absence of an independent audit nobody can say for certain how much substance there is to them. The fact that Kongstad went on record in March to specifically deny that he receives any remuneration for his EPO activities might be an indication that he felt a need to say something in public to counteract these rumours.” █

Being above the law, even at The Hague, helps the autocracy of Battistelli and his praetorian guard

Summary: The unaccountable, unregulated Patent Office continues its union-busting activities and is expected — some believe — to decapitate even SUEPO The Hague (representing perhaps a thousand members of staff)

THE EPO‘s management continues to behave as though it’s above the law (any country’s law and even international law). The President, for instance, is allowed to break even his own rules. That’s classic autocracy, contrary to the principles of the Rule of Law.

“The problem is, the Administrative Council has become a lapdog, not a watchdog, and we’re rather pessimistic about it. It’s now complicit.”Recently, judging by the Dutch media, EPO management found an ‘ally’ in the Advocate General, Mr. Vlas, who is similar to an Attorney General (AG) in other countries. This may depend on who’s translating and how. The management of the EPO must be happy as it means that the high court’s decisions in January will quite likely be against SUEPO, not on grounds of legitimacy of their complaint but based on technical grounds or legitimacy of enforcement, i.e. the EPO being above the law and exempt from Dutch law (even though it resides on Dutch soil).

Someone has passed us some thoughts on the matter of this legal case in the Netherlands, stating:

The Attorney General of the Netherlands has issued his opinion on the immunity of the EPO in the context of the EPO’s breaches of fundamental rights. The AG did not in the least contest the findings of the violations, and went as far as stating that “honouring the claim to immunity of jurisdiction from the national judge does not in the least mean that violations of material rights are permitted”. However, in the specific case of SUEPO’s claims, he adopted the position that as long as individual EPO employees can have recourse to the ATILO, the route to the Dutch judge is barred. SUEPO does not understand this point; SUEPO cannot see how the ATILO can enforce a union’s right to collective bargain through individual complaints about violations of individual rights. SUEPO’s lawyers are studying the matter and will consider submitting a supplementary brief. The Court will hand down its decision (which may or may not follow the opinion of the AG) on 20 January 2017.

The above suggests that this is far from over. In the mean time, a source told us that witch-hunting in The Hague continues — something which we already knew about and wrote about. “The Attorney General’s opinion comes at an unusual juncture,” we learned, “and (in spite of its conservative stance) may well push the EPO and its Administrative Council to do something about the respect of fundamental rights.”

The problem is, the Administrative Council has become a lapdog, not a watchdog, and we’re rather pessimistic about it. It’s now complicit.

“This in its own right should be cause for massive demonstrations at The Hague next week.”We learned from our source that things have escalated even further. One “should remember,” to quote, “that the council has adopted resolution CA/26/16, which the President has completely ignored. Since then, as anyone can read from the minutes of the Board 28, there are “three current investigations/ disciplinary proceedings involving SUEPO members in The Hague”. Clearly, the witch-hunt of SUEPO officials is going on, this time in The Hague. One of the targets is Laurent Prunier (Secretary of SUEPO The Hague, and member of the CSC), who has been suspended since 27.06.2016, and whose disciplinary hearing towards dismissal (and more) has just taken place on 28 and 29 September. No comment can be provided without risking compromising Laurent’s defence.”

Some people have in fact been informed that “his name has been expunged from the internal phone book even before the proceedings are closed.”

They “thus fear for the worst.”

This in its own right should be cause for massive demonstrations at The Hague next week. In Prunier's own words, these are “demonstrably fabricated accusations.”

We saw that before, did we not? █

Early Certainty from ILO (serving Battistelli the news)

Summary: Months after we learned that a former staff representative in Berlin had been dismissed we come across an anonymous claim that Berlin’s ‘branch’ of the EPO will be folded onto Munich’s

EARLIER THIS year, at around the beginning of September, we repeatedly wrote about claims that Battistelli’s union-busting actions (with bogus accusations and fake trials) had struck Berlin, not just Munich (and thereafter The Hague). It ought to be pretty clear by now, based on the ruling from judges as well, that ‘justice’ does not exist at the EPO; it’s about as legitimate as Turkish courts in 2016 (after a lot of perfectly-legitimate judges were toppled). We’ve carefully read again all the articles about the latest two ILO-AT decisions (it probably takes a lawyer otherwise, in order to understand the ramification for other cases) and we have just noticed that WIPR wrote an article about this almost a week later, following The Register, IP Watch, and Techrights (which was first to report on this).

To quote the article’s first few paragraphs:

The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization, a UN agency, has set aside two decisions made by the European Patent Office (EPO) and criticised the Administrative Council in the process.

On Wednesday, November 30, the tribunal dismissed the rulings, which had rejected employee challenges to internal rules.

The first decision, judgment number 3785, stemmed from a practice and procedure notice, which concerned the documents that make up European patent applications, issued by the EPO in 2013.

Now that Battistelli shuffles people around in alleged attempts to retaliate (collective punishment), e.g. moving the boards to Vienna, then Haar (not absolutely confirmed yet, except the budget), one should recall what we wrote about Berlin on the first of September, in light of this rumour which says “heard from the Isar building last week that this is exactly what Battistelli has in mind once the “haar-cut” is done: Berlin should be (des)integrated into Munich.”

Can someone confirm? On the right by the way is a photo of EPO staff in Berlin protesting in support of the dismissed staff representatives from Munich, urging Maas to offer support (he never did).

“Officially (usual lullabies) this is to increase efficiency (in reality this is to retaliate on the Berlin sub-office which has refused to submit since the beginning),” the same comment continues.

As we noted here several times before, such relocations can discourage people from staying in their job; some of them have spouses and kids in some job and/or school/kindergarten, respectively. It would be a convenient way to get rid of highly-paid staff without announcing any layoffs. See what happened in the now-understaffed boards. █

Photo credit: Bird & Bird, 2015

Summary: Early information (or at least rumour) begins to trickle in as day one of the meeting of the Administrative Council of the EPO reaches its end

NOT much is known to us about the meeting of the Administrative Council of the EPO (information welcome), but we have learned that Carl Josefsson was elected as President of the BoA. We haven’t mentioned Carl Josefsson here before, but a source told us that he is “a senior Judge of Appeal, Svea Court of Appeal,” based on this page from the EPO’s Web site. “I guess that he is a part of the Wolfpack,” our source added. We also understand that this appointment was against the President’s wishes. He gave a talk earlier this year and he appears to be involved in the UPC fantasy [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

“But everything is rumour,” our source emphasised. Josefsson is, as far as we know, Swedish. A fellow Swede, Catarina Holtz From the EPO Boards of Appeal (now retired), was a vocal critic of the EPO's management. █

And Battistelli hypocritically compares the staff union to "Mafia"

Summary: Pretending there is a violent, physical threat that is imminent, Paranoid in Chief Benoît Battistelli is alleged to have pursued weapons on EPO premises

THE endless EPO scandals mean that the EPO is full of secrets but not full of surprises as nothing — however appalling — is surprising anymore. People from special services and the military are being recruited by Battistelli, making the EPO look like a warzone rather than something scientific.

“The EPO is becoming a madhouse by the day,” said a new comment from yesterday, as it’s rumoured that actual weapons on EPO premises were sought by Battistelli for his expensive goons (hired from the outside, i.e. hired externally at the EPO’s expense). To quote the comment:

wrt bodyguards the rumour has it that first they (Battistelli et al) expected them to carry their weapons IN the EPO before lawyers and infrastructures eventually convince them that this was perhaps a little overstrecht

The EPO is becoming a madhouse by the day. If you loved 2016 watch for 2017 since this is not yet the end of the circus

The internal “Gazette”, according to another new comment, is now being censored by the chronic liars at the top-level management of the EPO:

Your comment is certainly correct, but in the present instance, the contrary is true. An article was prepared, but not accepted by the editorial board of the Gazette.

It is not known whether the board received precise instructions from above or decided on its volition not to publish it. It might well be that the board asked for permission to publish it, but the result is the same in all three occurrences.

There is thus no coincidence.

This relates to a discussion which we previously covered in a couple of posts. These North Korea-like censures (strong criticism) and omissions by Team Battistelli — including Kongstad et al — have expanded their scope of media control to the whole Organisation, not just the Office, and they occasionally step on the toes of bloggers outside the EPO and manipulate the media worldwide (to the tune of over a million Euros of EPO budget… per year).

The Mafia never had this much control over the media. █

When a dirty politician is put in charge of the EPO…

Image source

Summary: Rumours about the fate of people who are (or have been) criticising Battistelli’s reign of terror at the EPO

THE ‘king’ of EPO, Mr. Battistelli, fights a war against truth itself. He threatens those who say the truth even when he has zero authority over them (unless they’re just his mouthpieces^*). This demonstrates just how much a cancer Battistelli has become not just inside Eponia but also in the whole of Europe if not the world.

We have been inquiring for quite a while about the situation at the EPO as there are some uncertainties about internal affairs. Does anyone out there have any news (or even rumours) about the Roland Grossenbacher situation? Not too long ago we heard that Battistelli was trying to ruin his career after he had ‘dared’ — how dare he! — criticise Team Battistelli and made it to the top of the appeals board (report in German), which is apparently to be headed by someone whom Battistelli does not like (in spite of UPC agenda, which Carl Josefsson’s Internet record is all about). Yesterday we found this new poem about the alleged situation (it spells out “ROLAND”):

R ogues Gallery corridor on the first floor
O ne former AC chairman doesn’t appear there anymore
L eft side former presidents do hang
A nd opposite AC chairmen,what a gang!
N ow we all know Batters takes no dis
D id he remove that eminent Swiss?

From what we can gather, Grossenbacher was not prominent in that last meeting and we’re not sure if he was even present at all. Previously, delegates became witnesses to what Battistelli does to other delegates who dare criticise him (even politely). Is Britain’s Sean Dennehey next on Battistelli's 'hit list'? █
_____
^* James Nurton, a Battistelli ally (in the puff pieces sense), is writing from London about the case that can put the final nail in the UPC coffin. Under “Cases to look out for in 2017″ he includes this: “The case does not have direct impact on IP, but it will have implications for the timing of Brexit, which in turn will affect what happens to EU trade marks and registered Community designs, the separation from EU Directives and Regulations and perhaps the implementation of the” UPC (behind paywall, but we assume so).

Jo Johnson rumoured to be the next IP minister

Summary: Rumours about Britain’s head of patents (and copyrights etc.) being the brother of the Brexit campaigner and Foreign Minister; meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, rumours suggest that the corrupt judge Rader might be the next head of patents in the United States

“Hold onto your hats,” IAM wrote yesterday, “we have just heard that Jo Johnson – brother of UK foreign secretary Boris Johnson – is to become the UK’s IP minister. […] Jo Johnson was on other side to his brother in EU referendum – he supported the Remain side. Some claim Boris may have done, too – secretly.”

Is he really the one to replace Lucy, whose departure was quietly confirmed? And if so, what does that say about the state of British politics? Is it the ‘Trump effect’ or the ‘Bergot effect’? [1, 2, 3, 4]

Jo “Johnson joined the Financial Times in 1997,” according to Wikipedia. That’s the ‘news’ paper that the EPO bribed in exchange for puff pieces and apparently also for the pro-UPC propaganda.

What would Johnson do about UPC ratification at times of Brexit, which his brother is still advocating? We don’t even know for sure yet if there’s anything to the rumour.

“Is it the ‘Trump effect’ or the ‘Bergot effect’?”Dr. Luke McDonagh, an academic from London who insists that UPC and Brexit are hardly compatible, says he “will be speaking at Oxford University on IP Litigation post-Brexit on 26th Jan” and here is the outline of what’s at stake:

Each year the OIPRC hosts a number of leading academics from around the world as part of its Invited Speaker Series. These events typically run from 5:15-6:45pm on Thursday evenings at St. Peter’s College; if the venue or time is different, it will be noted on the Events calendar. The Speaker Series consists of a presentation of about 45 minutes, followed by a Q&A session with the assembled group of academic staff, students (both undergraduate and graduate), researchers, and interested members of the public. Discussion is informal and includes participants from several disciplines, with a wide range of prior knowledge.

Meanwhile, over in the United States, USPTO Director Lee is rumoured to be on her way out and some people, as we noted here before, say that the corrupt Rader (raider) might be her successor. Benjamin Henrion wrote about it, as did other opposers of software patents. Rader is a man of serious ethical breaches, not only software patenting (patent maximalism) and patent trolling. Now that Trump is expressing intent to put reckless people in charge of everything (foxes guarding the hen house) Rader would be more of the same. █

Pressure to grant rather than properly examine dooms the core function of the Office

Summary: Whenever Battistelli brags about patent quality he may be consciously and deliberately lying through his teeth if the latest rumours are correct

EARLIER this week we saw rumours about the EPO‘s battle at the top — something we had already become aware of last month. It’s hardly surprising; there is a somewhat of a blame game.

“Some say that the final straw was the most known symptom of the dropping patent quality, the famous patent on the ‘hairdressing container’.”
      –Anonymous“There are several rumours about the reasons for VP1′s resignation,” told us a source about Battistelli’s Vice-President Mini Minion (Minnoye), “but nothing is confirmed. One of the rumours says that VP1 Minnoye is the scapegoat for the low patent quality, which has even been criticised by some delegations. Some say that the final straw was the most known symptom of the dropping patent quality, the famous patent on the ‘hairdressing container’.” (mentioned here back in November)

Either way, this serves to reinforce our claims that EPO management is aware of the decline in quality and is thus repeatedly lying about it. “The departure of private Minnoye further weakens the president,” our source told us, “since the VPs are appointed by the Council. They can now choose a VP1 to obtain more control over the Office.” █

Summary: As of today, there is still no official word on whether or not Lee continues her tenure, which saw the demise of patents on software and along with that the demise of patent trolls and frivolous litigation

WITH almost 50 comments in this thread, from which the above screenshot came, we are still not sure (as of Monday night) if Michelle Lee will definitely lead the USPTO. The author proceeds to other topics like pendency, but there is no update on the above.

Lee’s position is important because based on some rumours the person (or people) who might replace her would be devastating and corrupt. Lee has done a decent job cracking down on patent bullies and trolls, as we noted here before, and there are now new kinds of lawsuits over patents (lawsuits for patent abuses/bullying rather than infringements).

The following report from a trolls expert emerged some days ago and said:

With President Donald Trump having taken office today, many government offices are in the midst of a major transition. In one office that’s closely watched by technology and internet companies, however, the leadership looks to remain the same—the US Patent and Trademark Office.

There’s been no official announcement about USPTO leadership from Trump’s team, with the new president having been inaugurated earlier today. But The Hill reported yesterday that Michelle Lee, a former top lawyer at Google, will remain as USPTO director under President Trump. Politico reported the same news, sourcing it to statements by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and confirming it with other unnamed sources.

Lee’s remaining at USPTO is a a surprise victory for the technology sector, which offered scant support for President Trump while he was campaigning for office. She supported President Barack Obama’s patent reform agenda, and Trump’s views on patents are a cipher.

We are still waiting patiently for an official announcement. Lee’s haters, the patent microcosm, will certainly hope it never happens. █

Reference: Neil Gorsuch

Summary: Whispering campaign surrounds Neil Gorsuch’s alleged or perceived views on patents, and in particular the America Invents Act (AIA) which brought the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a serial invalidator of software patents, owing to Alice (a Supreme Court decision)

HIDDEN behind an obnoxious paywall today (as is usual for National Law Journal) is this article with an access token (if someone can access the whole, please get in touch with us). To quote the summary: “Though Gorsuch’s views on patents are mostly unknown, the Tenth Circuit judge has had plenty to say in other areas of intellectual property. And attorneys see signs that he might scale back some procedures created by the America Invents Act.”

“So far it’s mainly an enigma, much like Obama in 2008 (people just impose their own projections onto this blank slate).”We don’t know who these attorneys are (could be professional spinners like Watchtroll), but they might be trying to convince themselves — and the media — that Gorsuch, whom we mentioned in [1, 2, 3], would turn the Supreme Court into an opponent of the AIA, which brought PTAB among other things. The other day we mentioned how in January PTAB broke its own all-time record and this is recalled this week by MIP, which has done a decent job tracking PTAB’s workload.

It would be useful to know on which side Gorsuch sits, at least as far as patents go. So far it’s mainly an enigma, much like Obama in 2008 (people just impose their own projections onto this blank slate).

“If Trump’s Administration promotes patent maximalism, then it can eventually find itself sued for patent infringements.”Will Gorsuch be a secret weapon of patent maximalists or more like a Nemesis to them? They still try very hard to scandalise Michelle Lee [1, 2, 3, 4] and install Rader as Director of the Patent Office.

Incidentally, on the subject of patent maximalism in government, there is this new article titled “Suing The United States Government For Patent Infringement And Defending Against A Claim Of Obviousness”, written by a law firm. To quote:

A patentee may bring patent infringement claims against the United States government pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498, in which Congress waived the sovereign immunity of the United States against such claims. Patent infringement actions against the government are similar to those brought against non-governmental entities, but they do have some idiosyncrasies. For example, patent owners can only sue the government for infringement in the United States Court of Federal Claims, as opposed to a district court, and jury trials are not available in the Court of Federal Claims.

If Trump’s Administration promotes patent maximalism, then it can eventually find itself sued for patent infringements. They ought to pursue patent quality (Make Patent Quality Great Again), not patent litigation (Make Litigation Great Again). █

Another old ‘neighbour’ of Battistelli

Summary: The EPO’s new “compensations and benefits” chief, Gurvan Le Guern, is rumoured to be bad news to all EPO workers (except top-level management, i.e. Team Battistelli)

WE are certainly not accountancy experts, so we cannot fully interpret/verify claims that the “EPO shows an operating loss of €145,000,000” (whether true or not, based on the EPO‘s own disclosures), but something is truly fishy when management rewards itself at the expense of everybody else (while taking away from existing workers).

“Are EPO workers going to receive a not-so-surprising clawback announcement?”Putting aside workforce losses, the EPO is in a state of crisis and “[r]educing pensions will not make EPO more attractive,” said this new comment which we received a couple of hours ago. Are EPO workers going to receive a not-so-surprising clawback announcement? Is Battistelli after the pensions now? Here is what the comment said:

Something probably related. The EPO hired a new director “compensations and benefits”, which is management jargon for “pensions”. The name is public: Gurvan Le Guern. You can check his Linkedin for his credentials, he was quite successful in reducing pensions at his previous posts.

Reducing pensions will not make the EPO more attractive, I would think.

It is worth noting that more and more of the management is becoming French; some are former colleagues and Battistelli and even close relatives. Just like in the Sicilian Mafia. “Nepotism” should no longer be a dirty word in the grapevine. █

Summary: Rumours and speculations surrounding the fate of the EPO’s leadership now that the UPC gravy train is stuck again and Battistelli’s protector, Jesper Kongstad, is about to leave

IN OUR previous post we cited a blog post titled ‘Successor EPO president Benoît Battistelli to be chosen this autumn’ and as we noted towards the end, Martijn van Dam may be gullible if he is so certain that Battistelli is leaving. In Twitter, people of inner circles have begun wondering if “Battistelli’s henchman” will take over, alluding to Mr. Campinos.

“In Twitter, people of inner circles have begun wondering if “Battistelli’s henchman” will take over, alluding to Mr. Campinos.”“Any other candidates?”

Well, someone will replace Mr. Kongstad pretty soon (about 4 months from now). We understand that he basically got sacked by the Danish government (at least removed from DKPTO; he might still serve in the Administrative Council at some capacity).

Inside sources, however, aren’t so certain that Battistelli is leaving next year. His UPC ‘crusade’ is failing pretty badly because the EU is losing Britain, Spain remains defiant, Poland seems sceptical and so on…

“Inside sources, however, aren’t so certain that Battistelli is leaving next year.”Will Battistelli use the failure of the UPC as an excuse for “needing more time” (as in, another term)? Will he spend some additional millions of Euros bribing and manipulating European media in a desperate effort to lie about the UPC and ram it down everyone’s throats, based on misinformation?

According to this new report (behind paywall), the British “Government quizzed over viability of London’s UPC courts after Brexit” and the body speaks of EUIPO, which Campinos is still heading. To quote: “The UK’s future with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) post-Brexit came under the spotlight this week, after a question on EU-jurisdiction drew a carefully-worded answer from the government.”

“Will Battistelli use the failure of the UPC as an excuse for “needing more time” (as in, another term)?”All the things about UPC are behind a paywall, but the headline suggests that UPC is anything but certain, no matter who wins the election next month.

“Cromwell puts forward queries surrounding EUIPO and UPC,” Benjamin Henrion wrote about this, and “questions will form part of EU negotiations says minister…”

Well, the very fact that UPC is brought up in conjunction with EUIPO (which does not deal with patents) is rather curious and it brings back speculations about Campinos, the EU, the UPC, and various other things.

“…it seems like the sky is the limit when it comes to patent scope at the EPO under Battistelli.”We are truly concerned about the vision laid forth by UPC propagandists, for the UPC would usher in all sorts of crazy patents into nations that currently forbid them. For instance, the EPO is granting patents on life (genome) while almost abolishing the appeal boards that can stop this, citing opposition from the EU, the EPC and so on. “CRISPR patents decided, but cases not closed,” said this new headline a few days ago, but given Battistelli’s assault on the appeal boards it seems like the sky is the limit when it comes to patent scope at the EPO under Battistelli. Dangerous times ahead and critical crossroads… █