gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2021/08/29/self-appointed-select-committee/index.gmi

EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part I – More Captured Delegates?EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part II – Old Wine in New Bottles…EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part III – Introducing the Finnish “Facilitator”EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part IV – Martti Enäjärvi and His “Good Brother” NetworksEPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part V – A Man With a Conviction…EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part VI – “A Good Friend of Estonia and a Steady Cooperation Partner”You are here ☞ A Self-Appointed “Select Committee”

Summary: The official records of the Estonian Patent Office confirm that a delegation consisting of Benoît Battistelli, Martti Enäjärvi, António Campinos and João Negrão (above) visited Matti Päts in Tallinn in January 2010. But what exactly was the purpose of this visit?

As mentioned in the last part, the close connections of the Finnish delegate Martti Enäjärvi with the Estonian Patent office appear to have provided Battistelli with the entry point he needed for conducting his “Baltic Crusade” to “capture” the votes of those delegations during the EPO succession race of 2009/2010.

“Although the evidence is largely circumstantial, when the dots are joined up there are clear signs of carefully orchestrated “collaboration” between Battistelli and Enäjärvi on the Baltic front at the beginning of 2010.”In this part we will examine the evidence for this hypothesis.

Although the evidence is largely circumstantial, when the dots are joined up there are clear signs of carefully orchestrated “collaboration” between Battistelli and Enäjärvi on the Baltic front at the beginning of 2010.

This was the crucial period when the Council delegates were preparing themselves for the March 2010 meeting and the next round of the voting procedure to elect a new EPO President.

Previous attempts of the Administrative Council to elect a President in October and December 2009 had failed (warning: epo.org link) because no candidate was able to command the required majority.

The head of the Estonian delegation, Matti Päts, described [PDF] the deadlock at the EPO in his foreword to the 2009 Annual Report [PDF] of the national patent office:

> The representatives of the Estonian Patent Office as the members of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation took part in the elections of the new president of the European Patent Office at the regular meeting of the Administrative Council in December 2009. There were four candidates – from Switzerland, Denmark, France and Sweden.

> Despite several votings nobody got the required majority of votes. A large office needs a president and firm management, but it is difficult to tell how to achieve it. Here democracy reveals some obstacles.

“This clue is in the form of a photo showing Benoît Battistelli and Gilles Requena, flanked by Matti Päts (on the left) and his deputy Toomas Lumi (on the right).”The 2009 Annual Report of the Estonian Patent Office also provides a clue to what was going on behind the scenes.

This clue is in the form of a photo showing Benoît Battistelli and Gilles Requena, flanked by Matti Päts (on the left) and his deputy Toomas Lumi (on the right).

> “Benoît Battistelli and Gilles Requena from the French National Institute of Industrial Property in the Estonian Patent Office.”

No further information is provided about the circumstances in which the photo was taken.

By a mysterious coincidence, the very same photo reappears [PDF] in the 2010 Annual Report [PDF] of the Estonian Patent Office.

This time the caption accompanying the photo is a bit more informative (emphasis added):

The managerial staff of the Estonian Patent Office at a meeting with Benoît Battistelli, a candidate for the presidency of the EPO, in January 2010.

So now we know: the photo was taken in January 2010 and it shows “a candidate for the presidency of the EPO” on the occasion of a visit to the Estonian Patent Office.

A piece of text appearing on the next page of the report provides some additional context:

> Several members of the EPO Administrative Council paid a visit to the Estonian Patent Office: Benoît Battistelli, Gilles Requena, António Campinos, João Negrão and Martti Enäjärvi. The development trends of both EPO and OHIM were discussed with them.

The impression give here is that this was just a routine meeting with members of the EPO Administrative Council to discuss “the development trends of both EPO and OHIM”.

However, when the dots are joined up, it becomes apparent that the aforementioned “members of the EPO Administrative Council” had travelled to Tallinn for a very specific purpose.

“However, when the dots are joined up, it becomes apparent that the aforementioned “members of the EPO Administrative Council” had travelled to Tallinn for a very specific purpose.”The group of delegates that visited Matti Päts in January 2010 consisted of the head of the French delegation (Battistelli) together with his valet from the INPI (Requena), the head of the Finnish delegation (Enäjärvi) and the head of the Portuguese delegation (Campinos) together with his deputy (Negrão).

This self-appointed “select committee” had no known mandate from the EPO’s Administrative Council and it was clearly following its own agenda.

The giveaway here is the presence of Gilles Requena who was not at that time – nor at any time since – a member of the EPO’s Administrative Council.

“The giveaway here is the presence of Gilles Requena who was not at that time – nor at any time since – a member of the EPO’s Administrative Council.”In January 2010, Requena was Battistelli’s gofer at the INPI. As is well known, he followed his master to the EPO soon after Battistelli had taken up his new position as President in July 2010 and is now the EPO’s “Chief International and Legal Officer”.

It’s fairly clear that the “select committee” which turned up in Estonia in the early days of 2010 was a pro-Battistelli delegation – led by Battistelli himself – and that its primary mission was to canvass support for his election as the next President of the EPO.

“It’s fairly clear that the “select committee” which turned up in Estonia in the early days of 2010 was a pro-Battistelli delegation – led by Battistelli himself – and that its primary mission was to canvass support for his election as the next President of the EPO.”The presence of the Finnish delegate is of particular significance here given his recognised standing as “a good friend of Estonia and a steady cooperation partner”.

It seems reasonable to conclude that Enäjärvi’s role at this meeting was to act as the intermediary or “facilitator” who would open doors for Battistelli in Estonia, as a bridgehead to the other Baltic States.

Although we are not privy to what was discussed behind closed doors on that occasion, those involved appear to have obtained the outcome that they desired.

“…Enäjärvi’s involvement in Battistelli’s EPO election campaign is confirmed by his submissions to the District Court of Helsinki during his trial for credit card fraud in October 2011.”Battistelli was elected as EPO President in March 2010 with the support of the Baltic delegates and he took up his new position on 1 July 2010. After securing a three year extension from the Administrative Council in 2015 – again with the support of the Baltic delegates – he finally departed on 30 June 2018.

During his term of office Battistelli was consistently supported by the Baltic States who never once wavered in their loyalty to him.

Before concluding, it’s worth noting that Enäjärvi’s involvement in Battistelli’s EPO election campaign is confirmed by his submissions to the District Court of Helsinki during his trial for credit card fraud in October 2011.

On that occasion, Enäjärvi made the following statement [PDF] which was reported in the Finnish press:

> “At the turn of last year [2010], for example, there were a number of important foreign guests in connection with the election of the Director of the International Patent Office. I wanted to pay for it myself to avoid accusations of corruption. It was clearly a matter of official business anyway. Nor did I want to end up on the lists of Eurocard users published in the media.”

“During his term of office Battistelli was consistently supported by the Baltic States who never once wavered in their loyalty to him.”The “International Patent Office” referred to here can only be the EPO as there was no election for the “director” of any other international office in progress at the time. The election of the Director-General of WIPO had taken place some years earlier in 2008.

The clear and unambiguous inference which can be drawn from Enäjärvi’s statement to the District Court of Helsinki in October 2011 is that he was involved in entertaining “a number of important foreign guests” in connection with efforts to secure Battistelli’s election to the top job at the EPO.

“It’s worth noting that he admitted that he was anxious to avoid accusations of corruption in connection with these activities and also that he did not want his expenditure to become the subject of media attention.”It’s also apparent that Enäjärvi used his official Finnish credit card to provide the cash to cover these expenses. It’s worth noting that he admitted that he was anxious to avoid accusations of corruption in connection with these activities and also that he did not want his expenditure to become the subject of media attention.

What we don’t know is who the “important foreign guests” were and how much Enäjärvi splashed out to entertain them.

It also isn’t clear is whether Finnish taxpayers are aware that official credit card facilities appear to have been used to bankroll Battistelli’s election campaign at the EPO.

Due to his forced “retirement” in the summer of 2010, Martti Enäjärvi was no longer around to participate in the success of his “good brother” from the French INPI.

“It also isn’t clear is whether Finnish taxpayers are aware that official credit card facilities appear to have been used to bankroll Battistelli’s election campaign at the EPO.”In a later part we will see how Enäjärvi managed to turn up to pay his respects in Tallinn in March 2012 when the Estonian Patent Office celebrated the 20th anniversary of its re-establishment.

But we are not yet finished with our analysis of the secretive meeting which took place in Tallinn in January 2010.

“But we are not yet finished with our analysis of the secretive meeting which took place in Tallinn in January 2010.”Stay tuned for the next part where we will look at another issue that seems to have been on the agenda on that occasion, namely the 2010 succession race at the EU trademark agency in Alicante (known as OHIM in those days). █

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

● 08.29.21

●● EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part VII – A Self-Appointed “Select Committee”