IPKat reports that Mr Battistelli is close to sealing a deal between Germany and Austria which would make a move of the Boards of Appeal from Munich (DE) to Vienna (AT) possible.According to Article 53 of the EPO Service Regulations, "refusing to relocate to another country is a sackable offence".

"Headquartering the Boards in a different country opens up the enthralling possibility of firing Board members, possibly even without the distasteful necessity of referring such decisions to the Enlarged Board. As Mr Battistelli has discovered in the last year, even getting one Board member fired is not as easy as one might think. The European Patent Convention and due process keep getting in the way."

Some commentsmention that in the context of the disciplinary procedure against a member of the Board of Appeal, Mr Battistelli is said to be pressing the delegations to overule a decision by the Enlarged of Board of Appeal which he considers wrong.

During the coming meeting of the Administrative Council (13/14 October) staff of the European Patent Office will demonstrate in The Netherlands and Germany.In The Netherlands EPO staff will demonstrate on Tuesday 13 October at 12.00h in front of the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs in The Hague (Parnassusplein 5, next to the Central Station).
We request an urgent labour inspection of the EPO by the Dutch Arbeidsinpectie in conformity with the Article 20 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) of the EPOrg.

In Germany EPO staff will demonstrate on Wednesday 14 October at 13.00h in front of the EPO Isar building in Munich (Bob-van-Benthem-Platz 1).
According to SUEPO, the EPO has been transformed into a totalitarian state where the rights of staff and of those who defend the rights of staff – or simply adhere to common sense – are being crushed to the benefit of a few, mainly French, who are making rocket careers.The EPO is a civil service organisation and not a self-service organisation.

We wish to remind the Council delegates and the governments of the Member States that they are responsible for the European Patent Organisation, its mission and its staff.

Mr Zeljko Topic (VP4) and Mr Raimund Lutz (VP5) issued on 2 October 2015 a Communiqué to EPO staff titled "Your rights" which was later published here by IPKat.

SUEPO was sorely tempted to rebut the slanderous allegations of VP4 and VP5, but the public ridicule to which they are subjected speaks volumes on our behalf, see for instance the comments on IPKat.

If anyone has doubts about the legality of SUEPO's actions or about the sincerity of the EPO's offer of impartial legal assistance, the SUEPO committee will be happy to answer questions. At this moment, it will suffice to say that SUEPO applauds VP4 and VP5 for finally grasping the notion of the applicability of "basic fundamental rights" and "general principles of law", and look forward to further progress reports about their seemingly ongoing study of fundamental legal doctrines.

IPKat reports on several rumours in relation to the Boards of Appeal in the context of the upcoming Administrative Council meeting of 14/15 October.

• Among the items listed on the Agenda is the disciplinary case of a member of the Boards of Appeal who had been suspended under allegations of defamation. At the time of the suspension, Mr Battistelli had forgotten that he had no power to discipline a Board member.
• The EPO management is still seeking to reform the Boards of Appeal, and apparently to get them out of Munich. Mr Battistelli favours sending the Boards to Berlin, but a new plan appears to be to send the Boards to Vienna.
• The AC is still not ready to make the long-overdue appointments required to bring the Boards up to full strength. Unless the necessary appointments are made, no fewer than seven chairperson positions will be vacant at the beginning of 2016, along with seven legal positions and thirteen technical positions.

Other sources suggest that Mr Wim van der Eijk, Chairman of the Enlarged Boards of Appeal is on long term absence.

Back in August WIPR (printable version) reported on the events at the European Patent Office and especially on the lack of independence of the EPO's appeal boards which is under public scrutiny since the house ban imposed on one of its members:

"Battistelli has tried to increase the independence of the boards without actually amending theEPC itself, but his efforts are "not satisfactory. [...] Increasing the board’s independence without amending the EPC depends on Battistelli delegating the powers he has to the boards of appeal, but how permanent would that delegation be? If he can take the decision to delegate powers he can also undo it, so it is not the best guarantee. [...] with the EPC in its current form, there is an argument that the EPO is not compliant withthe TRIPS Agreement.[...] TRIPS says that you need to have two instances of appeal. But if the boards of appeal at the EPO are merely an administrative function run by the president you could say there is in fact no level of appeal at all."

A copy of the article can be found here.

IPKat reports on internal memos of the European Patent Office titled "Closer Contacts with Major Applicants". The reason given was to "foster a better esprit de service, not least to ensure that we do not lose workload market share to other major Offices":

"The ICT cluster has had close contact with both Canon and Microsoft recently and their experience prompted this pilot… The pilot started on 1.4 for ten major applicants.... For the 10 applicants, there will be one DG1 director in direct contact with one person in the company… The idea is that the DG1 director will be in regular contact ... with his counterpart from the applicant and that at least once in the pilot year there will be a high level visit (PD, directors, DG2 and DG5 representatives where necessary) to the company."

Merpel comments on the fact that directors and examiners were gently reminded that the Office had entered in a closer cooperation project with Microsoft and that overdue Microsoft files should be treated with the highest priority.

IPKat understands that for second filings, French files have been recently bumped from priority 1 to priority 4. Such a decision is troubling in the light of the frosty relations between Mr Battistelli and the French government. State Secretary for the Digital Economy, Axelle Lemaire had even declared at the European Inventor Award ceremony on 11 June 2015:

"While it's not the object of our meeting this morning, the French government knows of the social difficulties that are expressed within the EPO and in this regard, the Office has an exemplary duty of absolute transparency in the rights of employees working there."

The Süddeutsche Zeitung comments on the lack of supervision of data protection a the European Patent Office:

"The Federal Data Protection Commissioner, Andrea Vosshoff, is seriously concerned about data protection at the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich, and has made her views known to the Federal Ministry of Justice and the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Bundestag.At the end of September the Federal Government will be issuing a report in committee.This has been prompted by a specific case: In June it became known that spyware had been installed on a computer in an area which was accessible to visitors."

Translations inEnglish,French, andDutchare available by scrolling through the document.

junge Welt (printable version) gives on overview of the current climate at the EPO and the repressive reforms put in place by Mr Battistelli: "Employees have a fake sense of security. Protestors are being spied on and prosecuted." The article reports on the work of the Investigative Unit: "covert surveillance of public or semi-public computers, no right to remain silent and no right to a legal counsel during interrogations".

"A member of the Boards of Appeal was suspended over allegations of defamation. Staff representatives and/or union executives are subject to investigations by Control Risks and, among them, Elizabeth Hardon, SUEPO Chair. Freedom of expression and of association are under severe attack and the discussions on union recognition are just a sham and a marketing trick. The Dutch Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the union, but Mr Battistelli refused to recognise the Court. And so it goes, in the legal no man's land."

Translations inEnglish,French andDutchare available by scrolling through the document.

Heise Online (printable version) comments on the censorship imposed on SUEPO's website by the management of the European Patent Office.
The article recalls former unusual measures such as the covert surveillance with keyloggers and cameras of semi-public computers within the Office.

Translations inEnglish,French andDutchare available by scrolling through the document.