tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4592732031476057086..comments2024-03-19T12:09:41.188+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Read it for yourself: Enlarged Board decision Art 23 1/15Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57564522620187854662015-11-30T10:42:55.545+00:002015-11-30T10:42:55.545+00:00Indeed. Mr. van der Eijk signed off G 1/14 on Nov....<i> Indeed. Mr. van der Eijk signed off G 1/14 on Nov. 19. </i><br /><br />Excellent news.<br /><br />I am glad to hear that his health has greatly improved.<br /><br />This time last year he apparently had great difficulty signing off on some important documents for the Administrative Council:<br /><br /><a href="http://techrights.org/2014/12/09/exclusive-eboa/" rel="nofollow">The Enlarged Board of Appeal Complains to the Administrative Council</a> <br />Lest We Forgetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79130289923392718272015-11-30T09:48:18.868+00:002015-11-30T09:48:18.868+00:00Indeed. Mr. van der Eijk signed off G 1/14 on Nov....Indeed. Mr. van der Eijk signed off G 1/14 on Nov. 19.<br /><br />Kantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-18471775092831016132015-11-30T09:25:55.486+00:002015-11-30T09:25:55.486+00:00If this is true then the President of the EPO will...If this is true then the President of the EPO will not be a happy SLAPPer :-)<br /><br />In the past it seems that he has had much better luck in <a href="http://en.45lines.com/apology-zeljko-topic-regarding-deleted-article-regarding-epo/" rel="nofollow">other jurisdictions</a> ...SLAPP Happynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10199143602149889042015-11-30T08:51:09.160+00:002015-11-30T08:51:09.160+00:00The Administrative Council is a supervisory body, ...<i>The Administrative Council is a supervisory body, but not a judicial or quasi-judicial body. There is no legal basis in the EPC for exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial duties by the Administrative Council by evaluating validity of evidences and their legal effects.</i><br /><br />I fear that you do not understand how things are done around here Bubba ....<br /><br />The Administrative Council has nothing to do evaluating validity of evidences and their legal effects. This work is performed by the Investigative Unit.<br />The AC is just there to rubber-stamp.<br /><br />So what's your problem exactly ?<br /><br /><br />Gummibärchennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72214874252263726322015-11-29T20:22:54.411+00:002015-11-29T20:22:54.411+00:00Read the hilarious exchange between the Lawyer of ...Read the hilarious exchange between the Lawyer of Dr. Schestowitz of Techrights and the one acting for the "EPO" and accusing him of "defamation":<br /><br /><a href="http://techrights.org/2015/11/29/epo-twisting-defamation-law/" rel="nofollow">How the EPO Twisted Defamation Law in a Failed Bid to Silence Techrights</a> <br /><br />(a little down the page)<br /><br />Note the striking similarity with the case of the member of the Board of Appeal. As Schestowitz's lawyer says:<br /><br />"You have now – desperately – come up with “malicious falsehood” and “confidentiality” – but you do not set out the bases of your claims in respect of either claim."<br /><br />Looks like they did not learn anything from Art 23 1/15, didn't they?<br /><br />How do you know she is a witch?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66364896384755234892015-11-29T17:17:27.065+00:002015-11-29T17:17:27.065+00:00Article 12a
Proceedings under Article 23, paragrap...<i>Article 12a<br />Proceedings under Article 23, paragraph 1, first sentence, EPC<br />(1) A request that the enlarged Board of Appeal make a proposal for the removal from office of a member under Article 23, paragraph 1, first sentence, EPC may be made to the Enlarged Board either by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation or [...].</i><br /><br />I was thinking quite a while about this provision, and, today, while reading a work of a very very respected author, I dare to share the following thought.<br /><br />The cited wording of Article 12a(1) seems to violate the European Patent Convention since it allows the Administrative Council to make "a proposal for the removal from office of a member of the BoA" BEFORE the Enlarged Board of Appeal decided on existence of the act that would justify the removal.<br /><br />The Administrative Council is a supervisory body, but not a judicial or quasi-judicial body. There is no legal basis in the EPC for exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial duties by the Administrative Council by evaluating validity of evidences and their legal effects.The Cat that Walks by Himselfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60547593465972744262015-11-24T21:23:53.790+00:002015-11-24T21:23:53.790+00:00@Kilroy: Mr. Van der Eijk is back.
Kill le roy@Kilroy: Mr. Van der Eijk is back. <br /><br />Kill le royAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20113799399991692192015-11-24T21:09:10.952+00:002015-11-24T21:09:10.952+00:00I found something in TECHRIGHTS There I read: http...I found something in TECHRIGHTS There I read: http://techrights.org/2015/10/06/epo-unlimited-sick-leave/ There I read: ¨Van der Eijk's unlimited sick leave, which seems likely to have little or nothing to do with sickness (as we explained yesterday). As Chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) and DG3 VP, Van der Eijk is probably the only remaining potent threat to Benoît Battistelli because the boards are, in principle, independent from Battistelli’s corruptible EPO (in practice Battistelli just breaks the rules).¨There are some more comments: <br />1)Mr Battistelli’s plan:Get rid of the present VP 3<br />2)He has angered the top management, mainly by R19/12 and refusal of the enlarged board to agree to the dismissal of the DG3 member under investigation.<br />3)Replacing DG3 with the UPC appears to be impossible without a diplomatic conference.<br />4)Also quite obviously the german delegation in the AC would be strongly against weakening Munich as Europe’s patent capital, so all those plans might go nowhere as the other delegations (of the new countries bought by BB with free new dents) will be very reluctant to outvote Germany in that matter. <br />1) to 4) are all possible answers. Does Marc Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands have contact with VP3 Van der Eijk to get relevant and important information? It seems to me that Mr.Van der Eijk is a strong character for whom it is impossible to be ¨his masters voice¨. I hope strongly that Mr.Van der Eijk is not forgotten by the Dutch government.Kilroy was herenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27955918605943881022015-11-24T19:53:59.801+00:002015-11-24T19:53:59.801+00:00Is the present VP3, Mr Van der Eijk, still on unli...Is the present VP3, Mr Van der Eijk, still on unlimited sick leave and thus out of function? Is there any information about him? Kilroy was herenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-63471246178104063242015-11-22T15:33:31.956+00:002015-11-22T15:33:31.956+00:00"because Mr Zelkjo Topic (VP4) forbade the de..."because Mr Zelkjo Topic (VP4) forbade the demonstration on Office grounds"<br /><br />I would like to comment this fact using the immortal words of President Battistelli in his letter to Pierre-Yves Le Borgn, the french politician:<br /><br />"Such a situation, which makes a mockery of the fundamental principles of freedom of expression and association, of democratic pluralism, cannot be tolerated within our organisation and investigations were commissioned with the aim of establishing the facts and responsibilities."<br /><br /><br />http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2015/11/why-enlarged-board-rejected-ac-in.html?showComment=1448191972045#c4826726034384692021<br />I can only deplore most profoundly this adoption of a public stancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-404168379212859822015-11-22T14:13:47.632+00:002015-11-22T14:13:47.632+00:00Will be interesting tomorrow, to turn on computer ...<i>Will be interesting tomorrow, to turn on computer at EPO and see what new propaganda is on intranet front page. Also how many securotyu guards will be in office like it was last week - so many guys, so many cameras, all on INSIDE.</i><br /><br />No surprising. They are afraid of an Air France incident. At laast demo in Munich on October 14, Lutzikus failed to securing extra Polizei reinforcements from the Bavarian Landespolizeipräsident:<br /><br /><i>The “Landespolizei” had to block two lanes of the Erhardstrasse for the occasion, because Mr Zelkjo Topic (VP4) forbade the demonstration on Office grounds. Staff and police ended up precariously balanced on those blocked traffic lanes with cars rushing by. For the Office to put both staff and the police in such danger when there is ample place on the EPO grounds is utterly irresponsible and in our opinion a gross breach of the Office’s duty of care. It says a lot about how much the current top management hates its Staff Union that it allows Greenpeace to demonstrate on Office grounds, but not SUEPO. <br /><br />The hatred seems at least partially due to fear: we were told by the police that Mr Lutz (VP5) had called the Landespolizeipräsident – the highest ranking police officer in Bavaria, second only to the minister - to ask for extra police enforcement, possibly riot police, apparently fearing escalation like at Air France. The demonstration remained peaceful, as always. <br />We didn’t notice any more police than usual.</i><br />Concerned observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60266545752931286252015-11-22T12:15:37.092+00:002015-11-22T12:15:37.092+00:00Will be interesting tomorrow, to turn on computer ...Will be interesting tomorrow, to turn on computer at EPO and see what new propaganda is on intranet front page. Also how many securotyu guards will be in office like it was last week - so many guys, so many cameras, all on INSIDE. Hardly see none outside. When even old East German peoples in office start calling them the IU Stasi - no joke, they tell many scary stories - then it is surely serious.<br /><br />Latest p[oster have pix of 3 suspended peoples, at top a little SS-type badge and "Arbeid maakt Blij" - never never seen this at EPO, soprry to owners of this website for obvios reasons.<br /><br />But hey look bright on the side - we now are hiring new examoiners. Don't go well, tho, numbers of applicants low, new examiners leaving and still in first year, news of workers's paradice and conditions at EPO well known in world. But commentators here who heavily criric and don't like examiners and think we're lazy well you welcome to apply.<br /><br />No, my Enlgihs not bad or machine translated. Too much or my words and writing way on EPO database and easy too too identify me.<br /><br />Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7659635765837347802015-11-22T11:21:20.246+00:002015-11-22T11:21:20.246+00:00I wander why the AC did not decide to ask the qual...I wander why the AC did not decide to ask the qualified athorties of the memeber state, i. e. the public prossecutor for Germany to assist in conduct the investigation of the alledged misconduct by the BOA memeber. Was it perhaps, because, the AC susspected that these authorities would not be too keen on usning key-loggers, etc?<br /><br />BarbiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52519694193982329022015-11-22T10:30:33.912+00:002015-11-22T10:30:33.912+00:00Vienna? I heard Hartlepool.Vienna? I heard Hartlepool.Meldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86323221849800361582015-11-22T10:03:59.540+00:002015-11-22T10:03:59.540+00:00Pat Man says:
1. It has been established that the...Pat Man says:<br /><br />1. It has been established that the BoA member is not a beweaponed nazi as was stated by BB and his minions.<br /><br />2. Therefore it seems to me that libel has been committed against the member of the BoA.<br /><br />3. I assume that the injured party will be considering a law suit against BB and the AC (in the person of JK). It is my hope that neither BB or the AC will be able to hide behind their immunity for this offense.<br /><br />4. It is time that our spineless AC members woke up and started to smell the coffee, they may be named in person in any future legal action, I know I would if I were this person.<br /><br />5. Doubtlessly the collective punishment of the BoA is well into the planning phase, I hope they like Vienna.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-64527063086710516152015-11-22T09:44:53.272+00:002015-11-22T09:44:53.272+00:00An irky leprechaun says…
The EBoA returns the exh...An irky leprechaun says…<br /><br />The EBoA returns the exhibits to the AC:<br /><br />1) Bag with 5 USB sticks with a post-it that reads “suspicious USB sticks are not allowed on EPO workstations , IT safety rules, and the brand Control Risks on the USB sticks does not help”;<br /><br />2) Bag with one nunchaku with a post-it on it “please return to the Amicale karate club as there is a shortage”;<br /><br />3) Bag with one book “Rise and fall of the Third Reich for Dummies” with a post-it that reads “ Most likely the IU’s copy”;<br /><br />4) Bag with a dartboard with BB’s mugshot and score card with a post-it on it, “seems to be the IU’s dartboard, because the scorecard shows the IU versus CR guys”<br /><br />CASE CLOSED!!!! <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30768432926768109182015-11-22T08:36:18.833+00:002015-11-22T08:36:18.833+00:00@homer - "Possibly VP3 could still have made ...@homer - "Possibly VP3 could still have made an admissible request...<br /><br />Now that the EBA has seen the evidence gathered by the IU and the conclusions of the DC, surely it can make its own proposal to the AC without needing the AC to ask it to do so. It could conduct its own internal disciplinary proceedings and make a proposal to the AC in the case of serious grounds for removal being found. It strikes me there are two reasons why this will not happen; the evidence does not provide any basis for bringing a case for removal, or maybe it is necessary for the EBA to gather the evidence for removal independently, which would mean establishing a separate IU within th EBA. Another task for Control Risks?Contadornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-26387634363369921322015-11-21T23:01:14.990+00:002015-11-21T23:01:14.990+00:00In view of the severe shortage in manpower in DG3 ...In view of the severe shortage in manpower in DG3 consecutive to the complete stop of nominations imposed for almost two years now by the President of the Office, the members of the EBoA should be extremely reluctant to accept their working capacity being monopolized by repeated requests filed exclusively to compensate for one party´s bad handling of its case. Since the other party's obviously difficult personal situation can only degrade with time, anything else than putting now a definitive end to this sad spectacle would amount to encouraging institutional harassement.<br />The AC would be wise to drop its second request, accordingly.selfmade messnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-34035247601623926782015-11-21T21:55:17.592+00:002015-11-21T21:55:17.592+00:00Amicus Curiae
@homer
A good line of arguments, ch...Amicus Curiae<br /><br />@homer<br />A good line of arguments, chapeau! Wait and see.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7271000536768689552015-11-21T20:53:32.801+00:002015-11-21T20:53:32.801+00:00To "Anonymous" at Saturday, 21 November ...To "Anonymous" at Saturday, 21 November 2015 at 19:28:00 GMT<br /><br />(c'mon, can't you get a better pseudonym? We're all doing an effort here ...)<br /><br />I don't think the problem is facts and evidence. I think the problem is <i>the link</i> between an accusation - "He's an armed nazi" - and evidence to be found somewhere on a USB stick - "we have found in his office a <a href="http://www.weapons-universe.com/nunchaku.htm" rel="nofollow">Nunchaku</a> and a copy of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Third_Reich" rel="nofollow">The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer</a>.<br /><br />I think they have the right to come back and say that "this accusation is supported by these facts" ...<br /><br />But then, good luck to them ...Rule of Law? Check!noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38797380667565531722015-11-21T20:02:28.260+00:002015-11-21T20:02:28.260+00:00Dear Cynic,
at the end, I also get your point.
...Dear Cynic,<br /><br />at the end, I also get your point.<br /><br /><br />Cheers.Rule of Law? Check!noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-12725741991817861272015-11-21T19:51:11.953+00:002015-11-21T19:51:11.953+00:00Dear Old Man,
I think that the AC representative ...Dear Old Man,<br /><br />I think that the AC representative asked what they had to submit because they got surprised by the decision and had no clue how to go on...<br /><br />Whatever reason, I think that just by putting the question, the AC representative touched the deepest point of the well...<br /><br />"Dear Chairman, could you please be so kind to tell us how can we prove that Mr XCVV is guilty?"<br /><br />Come on that sounds really like a joke...<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57907897881214069692015-11-21T19:35:57.633+00:002015-11-21T19:35:57.633+00:00"That they are put out of their depth is perh..."That they are put out of their depth is perhaps not completely their fault."<br /><br />In the member states there is enough legal councel available that is very well versed in adversariar cases. Thus that the AC failed to use the expert legal councel and instead used VP5, or what ever, that miserably failed is not a valid excuse.<br />To Amicus Curiea: the whol point is that, s far as known, there is no "new facts/evidence" presented. The same facts and the same evidence that had already been submitted once were resubmitted. The only change is better arguments pointing to the same facts and the same evidence that had already been submitted. This is jsut like asking the court to reopen the case, because, one forgot to make an argument based on the previous facts and previous evidence. Such a thing can nover work. <br /><br />New facts and new evidence are crucial for reopening a case. But new arguments based on the old facts and old evidence are not enough.<br /><br /><br />Barbi Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-58452712384719573922015-11-21T19:28:37.847+00:002015-11-21T19:28:37.847+00:00@Amicus Curiae:
The request from the Council was n...@Amicus Curiae:<br /><i>The request from the Council was not examined on the merits. Hence, the Cou8ncil may of course come back once again, to get the desired evaluation on the merits (provided they jump the admissibility hurdle this time).</i><br /><br />One thing seems clear: if the EBA had declared the request inadmissible because it had not been made by the AC (but by its chairman), that would not have barred the AC from making a request itself.<br /><br />What also seems to clear to me is that if the EBA had declared the request admissible and had refused it as unfounded because no convincing case had been made, a second request based on the same allegations would not have stood a chance of being found admissible.<br /><br />But the EBA declared the request inadmissible, basically because no case had been made at all. No decision on the merits was possible, because no merits had been presented. Should the AC be given a second chance? Does the AC have the <b>right</b> to get a decision on the merits, no matter how much it messed up its first request?<br /><br />In my view, the decision of the EBA implies that the AC does not have that right. Because if the AC had the right, it would have made no sense for the EBA to declare the first request inadmissible. Instead, the EBA should have given the AC the opportunity to fix its request. Maybe the EBA should even have explained to the AC what it expected from an admissible request. That way a delay by many months could have been avoided. No legitimate purpose is served by declaring a request under Art. 23(1) by the AC inadmissible without giving the AC the opportunity to repair the deficiencies, if the AC can validly make a new request. (Making the AC or the President or VP5 look stupid is not a legitimate purpose.)<br /><br />The EBA did not give the AC that opportunity and did declare the request inadmissible. Why was it so strict? Presumably because this is not a procedure for getting a fishing license, but a discplinary procedure having a major impact on an individual. It should be done right on the first try. The AC failed to do it right and has now lost its right to prosecute the case further.<br /><br />Possibly VP3 could still have made an admissible request, if he had not been on sick leave.homernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54520194589343629402015-11-21T18:41:17.743+00:002015-11-21T18:41:17.743+00:00Rule of law,
I see your point. I was only trying t...Rule of law,<br />I see your point. I was only trying to bend over backwards to be fair rather than being vindictive as some are want in the EPO senior parish. Since this is clearly a first in terms of prosecuting a BoA member in front of the EBoA at the request of the AC/BB, then it is to an extent new ground. BB seemed to expect it to be a formal exercise rather than an adversarial hearing and that was, it turns out, wrong. I could gloat or I could be magnanimous that the failure was understandable to a degree. Yes, they may be paid to do better but it's a bit like asking a tax lawyer to prosecute an IP case. That they are put out of their depth is perhaps not completely their fault.Cynicnoreply@blogger.com