IPKat reports on the latest developments at the EPO. The European Parliament rejected a petition to investigate the EPO and declared itself incompetent.

The Member of Parliament for Cambridge, Dr Julian Huppert had tabled a question to ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills "What steps he is taking to proect the independence of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO". There has been a response: "It is the UK Government position that the Boards of Appeal should be independent of the executive of the EPO, and be seen to be so. This view is shared by other EPO member states and we expect proposals to make this clearer to be considered by the Administrative Council, the Office’s supervisory body, in March 2015."

Finally, IPKat reports on the latest threats of disciplinary action from Mr Battistelli to SUEPO officials.

EPLAW is the association of European lawyers specialized in patent matters. In a letter sent to the delegations of the Administrative Council (AC), this association takes note of the decision of the President to temporarily take the computer of a member of the Boards of Appeal and to order a house ban on him.

EPLAW is of the opinion that judicial independence (Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) is guaranteed only when the power to suspend or remove a judge is with his peers and not with an executive body.Article 11 EPC currently gives the power to the AC to exercise disciplinary authority over members of the BoA.

EPLAW urges the Council to propose an amendment to Article 11 EPC and in any event to critically review the Guidelines for Investigation.

IPKat publishes a summary of the recents events at the EPO and outlines the issues now facing the EPO: "The current unrest is not only at the level of the Examiners and regular employees, but even within the exalted ranks of the Boards of Appeal and Enlarged Board."

The interview of Mr Battistelli and Mr Kongstad (Chairman of the Administrative Council) in Managing IP and, in particular, their statements concerning "transparency and openness" attracted angry rebuttals in the IPKat comments: "the staff representatives have been excluded from the two previous Administrative Council meetings; the introduction of a new system of election of staff representatives by the really-not-very-democratic single non-transferrable vote; the reference to the "codex of staff regulations" which is 1,200 pages long and actually not available publicly".

The comments of Mr Battistelli on his blog caused yet more anger, in particular "I would also urge all commentators, especially those having a legal background, to be mindful in their public expression on a case which is still under investigation, in order to protect the rights of the defence and to guarantee the impartiality of the investigation under the supervision of the Administrative Council which is the decision making body." Many have seen this as a threat, and an unwelcome one.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung reports on the strikes and demonstrations of EPO staff defending their fundamental rights.The article was published in the section Wirtschaft report of the weekend edition (20/21 December) of the newspaper. Translation in English and French are available by scrolling through the document.

Jean-Yves Leconte is a member of the French Senate and represents French expatriates. He made an intervention on 8 December 2014 in the French parliament and interpellated Emmanuel Macron, Minister of Economy. The Senator explained that the social climate in the Office was dramatic and asked the government to react. The Minister acknowledged that he was aware of the situation and that the French Ambassador in the Netherlands recently met staff representatives.The Minister added that he shared these concerns and would remain alert with respect to this topic.

Les Echos reports on the social tensions in the Office. The reactions of the IP judges against the suspension of a DG3 member show that the Office might lose the trust of its users, namely the industry and the attorneys.

The Council Secretariat made an announcement on the EPO website concerning alleged misconduct by a Council appointee (namely, the suspended DG3 member). FOSS Patents makes an in-depth analysis of this announcement.

OVB online (printable version) reports on the demonstration in front of the ISAR building on Wednesday 10 December and the current atmosphere in the Office.

Similiar articles are published by the Münchner Merkur, Frankfurter Rundschau and Stuttgarter Zeit.

IPKat reports on a letter of the Enlarged Board of Appeals (EBoA) to the delegations of the Administrative Council. This is unprecedented in the 40 year history of the EPOrg. The letter strongly argues that the recent suspension of member of DG3 was not validly imposed and that"The actions of the investigation unit on the orders of the President also appear to be a clear challenge to the judicial independence of the Boards of Appeal." A copy of the letter can be found here.

Two highly respected IP judges, Sir Christopher Floyd (Court of Appeal, England and Wales) and Robert van Peursem (Advocate General, Supreme Court of the Netherlands), took position against the house ban on a member of the Boards of Appeal (see IPKat).Their letter references the earlier letter from the Enlarged Board of Appeals (EBoA) members and expresses support for the position taken. They argue that the Board of Appeal members are judges and that interference by the President infringes basic principles of judicial independence, which the EPO cannot disregard.

Their position has then received the support of six additional national IP judges, all of whom also serve as external members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. IPKat provides a link to the email sent by the Registrar of the Enlarged Board of Appeal to the delegates of the Administrative Council. Attached to the email are facsimiles of the original letter from Sir Christopher and Robert, as well as the supporting letters from Per Carlson and Ari Wiren.A copy of the document can be found here.

According to IAM Magazine, "The EPO is not structured to deal with the realities of a modern world that demands transparency and public accountability."