UK government wades into EPO debate
The controversy surrounding the European Patent Office (EPO) has attracted the attention of the UK parliament, with the government saying it supports the independence of an appeals board that recently had one of its members suspended.
In a written question to the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS), member of parliament for Cambridge Julian Huppert asked what steps were being taken to protect the independence of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal.
Huppert’s question follows the decision by EPO president Benoît Battistelli to impose a ‘house ban’ on a board member late last year following allegations of misconduct.
Battistelli’s decision was backed in December by the EPO’s supervisory body, the Administrative Council (AC), which suspended the member.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal is supposed to be independent from the EPO in its decision-making and is bound only by the European Patent Convention.
The AC’s decision came despite two separate letters sent to its members by Enlarged Board members including English judge Lord Justice Floyd. The letters asked the AC to recognise that Battistelli does not have the authority to ban a board member.
In response to Huppert, Ed Vaizey, a Conservative minister who works in BIS, said on Monday (January 5) that officials in the UK Intellectual Property Office were “closely and actively involved” in discussions relating to the EPO’s 28 appeal boards, one of which is the Enlarged Board.
Vaizey added: “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, Vaizey continued, and the UK government expects the AC to consider proposals to make that position clearer in March 2015.
The EPO was hit by a string of controversies last year as certain staff members protested against the office’s governance. An “incremental” five-week strike also took place at the end of last year.
WIPR contacted Huppert for further comment but he had not responded at the time of writing.
The EPO did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
