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.

Münchner Merkur reports on the threats of dismissal against Elizabeth Hardon, Chair of the Local Staff Committee in Munich and SUEPO Munich Chair:"If Ms Hardon is dismissed, new elections for the staff committee will take place, 'But who would candidate, unless they are totally subsmissive?'"

The article was published in the paper edition Nr. 215 of 18 September 2015. A similar article was published in OVB Online.

Ms Bergot, Principal Director Human Resources at the European Patent Office, has sent highly threatening letters to Mr Michels, SUEPO Central Chair, and Ms Hardon, SUEPO Munich Chair, following a SUEPO publication concerning an investigation in which Ms Hardon was summoned for interrogation as accused.

Ms Liesbeth Zegveld, SUEPO lawyer, represents Mr Michels in this matter and Ms Hardon in the investigation. She has sent two letters of reply to Ms Bergot.

A copy of the reply on behalf of Ms Hardon can be found here and the reply on behalf of Mr Michels can be found here.