Art. 23 1/15, Art. 23 2/15 and Art. 23 1/16

{{main article|European Patent Organisation|Appeal procedure before the European Patent Office}}

The European Patent Convention (EPC) is a multilateral treaty instituting the legal system according to which European patents are granted. It contains provisions allowing a party to appeal a decision issued by a first instance department of the European Patent Office (EPO). The appeal procedure is under the responsibility of its Boards of Appeal, which are institutionally independent within the EPO. According to Robin Jacob, the members of the Boards of Appeal are "judges in all but name".Sir Robin Jacob, National Courts and the EPO Litigation System, GRUR Int. 2008, Vol. 8–9, pages 658–662, referring to what he said in Lenzing's Appn. [1997] RPC 245 at p. 277 and repeated in Unilin v. Berry [2007] EWCA Civ. 364. See also Leith, P, "Judicial and Administrative Roles: the patent appellate system in a European Context", Intellectual Property Quarterly, Issue 1, 2001.

The members of the Boards of Appeal are appointed by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation on a proposal from the President of the European Patent Office (EPO).{{EPC Article|11|3}} The Administrative Council exercises disciplinary authority over the board members and, during their five-year term, the board members may only be removed from office "if there are serious grounds for such removal and if the Administrative Council, on a proposal from the Enlarged Board of Appeal, takes a decision to this effect."{{EPC Article|23|1}} The Administrative Council is also the appointing and disciplinary authority for the President of the EPO.{{EPC Article|10|1}}, {{EPC Article|11|1}}

Further, employees of the EPO, no matter whether they are members of the Boards of Appeal, may apply to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILO) to resolve employment disputes they may have with the European Patent Organisation.{{EPC Article|13|1}}

Image:Europäisches Patentamt in München.jpg, Germany]]

On 3 December 2014, Patrick Corcoran, an Irish member of Board of Appeal 3.5.05, "was escorted out of the [European Patent] Office by [EPO's] investigation unit," and Benoît Battistelli, president of the EPO, imposed a "house ban" on him.{{cite news|url=http://www.managingip.com/Article/3408714/Is-the-EPO-in-crisis.html|title=Is the EPO in crisis?|last=Nurton|first=James|date=9 December 2014|work=Managing Intellectual Property|accessdate=13 December 2014}}{{cite news|url=http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/namenundnachrichten/2014/12/skandal-im-europaeischen-patentamt-druck-auf-praesidenten-waechst-nach-hausverbot-fuer-richter|title=Skandal im EPA: Druck auf Präsidenten wächst nach Hausverbot für Richter |trans-title=Scandal at the EPO: Pressure on the President is increasing after exclusion order for judge|last=Klos|first=Mathieu|date=9 December 2014|work=JUVE|publisher=JUVE|language=German|accessdate=13 December 2014}}{{cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-patent-judge-must-be-reinstated-in-munich-job-1.3319407|title=Irish patent judge must be reinstated in Munich job|last=Gallagher|first=Conor|date=December 7, 2017|newspaper=The Irish Times|accessdate=26 December 2017}}{{#tag:ref|According to the Enlarged Board in its decision Art. 23 1/16, Summary of Facts and Submissions, point VI, the President of the EPO also ordered his suspension on 3 December 2014.|group=notes}} In reaction, a number of members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the highest body of the EPO judiciary, wrote to the Administrative Council to express their concerns over this move, regarded as challenging the judicial independence of the Boards of Appeal.{{cite web|url=http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2014/12/breaking-news-enlarged-board-appeals.html|title=Breaking News: Enlarged Board appeals - direct to the Administrative Council|author=Merpel|date=8 December 2014|publisher=IPKat|accessdate=13 December 2014}}; {{cite web|url=http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2014/12/leading-european-ip-judges-join-chorus.html|title=Leading European IP Judges join the chorus of condemnation|author=Merpel|date=10 December 2014|publisher=IPKat|accessdate=13 December 2014}}; {{cite web|url=http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2014/12/six-more-judges-criticise-battistellis.html|title=Six more judges criticise Battistelli's actions|author=Merpel|date=11 December 2014|publisher=IPKat|accessdate=13 December 2014}} Battistelli stated that he acted "in accordance with the rules at all times" and that he was "absolutely committed to the independence of the [EPO's] judiciary".{{cite web|url=http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=cd136e13-9c86-46d5-8d99-50796f594f29|title=EPO president defends his actions and achievements in the face of mounting criticism|last=Wild|first=Joff|work=IAM|date=12 December 2014|publisher=Globe White Page Ltd|accessdate=13 December 2014}}

The Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation then suspended Corcoran.{{#tag:ref|The Enlarged Board regards the Administrative Council's move on 11 December 2014 as a decision "to confirm the suspension of [Corcoran]" (decision Art. 23 1/16, Summary of Facts and Submissions, point VII).|group=notes}} The decision{{#tag:ref|The Administrative Council decision CA/D 12/14 of 11 December 2014, as explained in ILO Judgment No. 3958, p. 2.|group=notes}} was taken at the Administrative Council's meeting held on 10 and 11 December 2014 in Munich, Germany. The suspension is unique in the history of the EPO.{{cite web|url=http://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2014/20141212.html|title=Communique on decisions taken by the Administrative Council at its 142nd meeting concerning senior employees and appointments and reappointments to the Boards of Appeal|author=Council Secretariat (of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation)|date=12 December 2014|publisher=European Patent Office|accessdate=13 December 2014}} Corcoran was originally suspended until 31 March 2015, for alleged misconduct "[a]s a precautionary and conservative measure" pending an investigation of the matter.{{cite news|url=http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/namenundnachrichten/2014/12/skandal-im-epa-verwaltungsrat-staerkt-praesident-battistelli-den-ruecken|title=Skandal im EPA: Verwaltungsrat stärkt Präsident Battistelli den Rücken |trans-title=Scandal at the EPO: Administrative Council backs President Battistelli |last=Klos|first=Mathieu|date=12 December 2014|work=JUVE|publisher=JUVE|language=German|accessdate=13 December 2014}}{{cite news|url=http://www.worldipreview.com/news/administrative-council-backs-latest-epo-suspension-7542|title=Administrative Council backs latest EPO suspension|date=12 December 2014|work=World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR)|accessdate=13 December 2014}} According to the French newspaper Les Échos, Corcoran was accused of having launched a smear campaign against Željko Topić, one of the Vice-Presidents of the EPO.{{cite news|url=http://www.lesechos.fr/journal20141212/lec2_industrie_et_services/0204009171427-tensions-a-loffice-europeen-des-brevets-1074346.php|title=Tensions à l'Office européen des brevets|last=Madelin|first=Thibaut|date=12 December 2014|trans-title=Tensions at the European Patent Office|work=Les Échos|language=French|accessdate=13 December 2014}} The Irish Times later reported that Corcoran had been suspended for defamatory statements he allegedly made against Battistelli using a pseudonym, and for bringing "weapons and Nazi memorabilia to work".

After the suspension of Corcoran, the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (RPEBA) were amended by decision of 25 March 2015 (CA/D 3/15) to implement a procedure for Article 23(1) proceedings,{{cite web|url=http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2016/etc/se1/p29.html|publisher=EPO|title=III.1 - Decision of the Administrative Council of 25 March 2015 approving amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (CA/D 3/15)|accessdate=16 May 2016}} and to fill a legislative lacuna in that respect.{{cite web|url=http://ipkitten.blogspot.ie/2015/03/revealed-administrative-council_13.html|title=REVEALED - the Administrative Council prepares procedure for removal from office of members of the Boards of Appeal|last=Merpel|date=13 March 2015|publisher=IPKat|accessdate=3 June 2016}} A new Article 12a RPEBA provides for that the Administrative Council or the Vice President of EPO in charge of the Boards of Appeal may request that the Enlarged Board of Appeal make a proposal to the Administrative Council for the removal from office of a board member.

Following an internal investigation, the Administrative Council requested on 25 June 2015 the Enlarged Board of Appeal to make a proposal for the removal from office of Corcoran, pursuant to {{EPC Article|23|1}} and Article 12a of the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.{{cite web|url=http://www.epo.org/about-us/organisation/communiques.html#a18|title=145th meeting of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (Munich, 14-15 October 2015)|date=15 October 2015|publisher=European Patent Office|accessdate=18 October 2015|location=Munich}}{{cite news|url=http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/namenundnachrichten/2015/10/epa-amtsenthebungsverfahren-gegen-mitglied-der-beschwerdekammer-eingeleitet|title=EPA: Amtsenthebungsverfahren gegen Mitglied der Beschwerdekammer eingeleitet|trans-title=EPO: Dismissal procedure initiated against member of the Boards of Appeal |last1=Geimer |first1=Christina |last2=Klos|first2=Mathieu| date=16 October 2015|work=JUVE|publisher=JUVE|language=German|accessdate=24 October 2015}} This was the first dismissal procedure instituted against a member of the Boards of Appeal in the history of the European Patent Office.

In that first case, which received the case number "Art. 23 1/15" (also referred to as "G 2301/15"), the Administrative Council sent data which it said were sufficient evidence. In its decision issued in September 2015, the Enlarged Board indicated that the Council however failed to make a statement regarding the facts which should lead to removal from office, or give arguments why the evidence should lead to removal. The Enlarged Board thus dismissed the case. Namely, the Administrative Council's request for a proposal that Corcoran be removed from office was rejected as inadmissible.{{cite web|url=http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2015/11/read-it-for-yourself-enlarged-board.html|title=Read it for yourself: Enlarged Board decision Art 23 1/15|last=Merpel|date=20 November 2015|publisher=IPKat|accessdate=2 June 2016}}{{EPO Case law book 2019|v|b|5|5}}: "Adversarial judicial proceedings"

A second case, which received the case number "Art. 23 2/15" (also referred to as "G 2302/15"), was then initiated on 26 October 2015 and subsequently withdrawn by the Administrative Council. The Enlarged Board thus dismissed the case. It also ordered publication of the decision and proposed reimbursement of legal costs by the defendant.{{EPO Case law book 2019|v|b|5|6}}: "Publication of the decision"{{EPO Case law book 2019|v|b|5|7}}: "Reimbursement of costs"

A third case, which received case number "Art. 23 1/16" (also referred to as "G 2301/16"), contained a redrafted request from the Administrative Council asking for a proposal for the removal of Corcoran. During first non-public oral proceedings held on 10 to 12 May 2016, the Enlarged Board of Appeal held that the Administrative Council's request was formally admissible for discussion as to its merits, unlike the first request filed in case Art. 23 1/15. The Enlarged Board also decided that public oral proceedings would be held in June 2016, in order to discuss the merits of the case. However, shortly before the scheduled oral proceedings, the Enlarged Board received a letter from the president of the EPO, who was not a party to the proceedings, indicating that he considered the planned public oral hearing and the hearing of witnesses from the Office as "unlawful". Following this intervention from the president of the EPO, the Enlarged Board considered that it could only proceed further with the proceedings if the chairman of the Administrative Council (the "petitioner" that started the proceedings, and appointing authority of the president) distanced himself from the letter. The Administrative Council replied, but the Enlarged Board deemed that the Administrative Council did not do so satisfactorily. The Board thus decided not to request removal from office of the defendant, i.e. Corcoran, without deciding on the substantive allegations made against him.{{cite news|url=http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/namenundnachrichten/2016/06/eklat-am-epa-battistelli-greift-in-amtsenthebungsverfahren-ein|title=Eklat am EPA: Battistelli greift in Amtsenthebungsverfahren ein |trans-title=Scandal at the EPO: Battistelli intervenes in dismissal procedure|last=Klos|first=Mathieu|date=15 June 2016|work=JUVE|publisher=JUVE|language=German|accessdate=20 November 2016}}{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/15/epo_president_caught_threatening_independent_appeal_board/|title=EPO president caught threatening independent appeal board|last=McCarthy|first=Kieren|date=15 June 2016|work=The Register|accessdate=13 November 2016}}{{cite web|url=http://ipkitten.blogspot.fr/2016/06/enlarged-board-publishes-decision-epo.html|title=Enlarged Board publishes decision: EPO President violated judicial independence|last=Merpel|date=23 June 2016|publisher=IPKat|accessdate=25 June 2016}}{{cite news|url=http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/verfahren/2016/06/epa-streit-richter-fuehlen-sich-von-amtschef-battistelli-bedroht|title=EPA-Streit: Richter fühlen sich von Amtschef Battistelli bedroht |trans-title=EPO dispute: Judges feel threatened by office head Battistelli |last=Behrens|first=Sonja|date=28 June 2016|work=JUVE|publisher=JUVE|language=German|accessdate=20 November 2016}}{{cite web|url=http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2016/11/07/rule-law-rechtsstaat-endangered-needs-defended/|title=The Rule of Law (Rechtsstaat) is Endangered and Needs to be Defended!|last=Bausch|first=Thorsten|at=Section 4|date=7 November 2016|work=Kluwer Patent Blog|accessdate=13 November 2016}}

In 2017, the Administrative Council did not renew Corcoran's term of office.{{cite news|url=http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/namenundnachrichten/2017/10/battistelli-nachfolger-euipo-chef-campinos-soll-zum-epa-praesidenten-gewaehlt-werden|title=Battistelli-Nachfolger: EUIPO-Chef Campinos soll zum EPA-Präsidenten gewählt werden|first1=Mathieu|last1=Klos|first2=Christina|last2=Schulze|trans-title=Battistelli successor: EUIPO Head Campinos would have been elected EPO President|date=10 October 2017|work=JUVE|publisher=JUVE Verlag für juristische Information GmbH|accessdate=14 October 2017|quote="Ende 2014 suspendierte er einen Richter und erteilte ihm Hausverbot. In diesem Jahr wurde seine Amtszeit nicht verlängert."}}

On 6 December 2017, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILO) issued two decisions, i.e. judgments 3958 and 3960,{{cite web|url=http://www.ilo.org/dyn/triblex/triblexmain.fullText?p_lang=en&p_judgment_no=3958&p_language_code=EN|title=C. (No. 3) v. EPO; 125th Session; Judgment No. 3958|date=6 December 2017|website=ilo.org|publisher=International Labour Organization|accessdate=29 December 2017}} See also [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-7GvAN22cg&t=12m20s Public delivery of the judgment at the 125th Session of the ILO Administrative Tribunal], International Labour Organization, Uploaded on 6 December 2017.{{cite web|url=http://www.ilo.org/dyn/triblex/triblexmain.fullText?p_lang=en&p_judgment_no=3960&p_language_code=EN|title=C. (No. 5) v. EPO; 125th Session; Judgment No. 3960 |date=6 December 2017|website=ilo.org|publisher=International Labour Organization|accessdate=29 December 2017}} in which the Tribunal largely sided with Corcoran in ordering his immediate reinstatement in his position as well as monetary compensations to be paid to cover lost wages, legal costs and “moral damages”. Corcoran had filed complaints with the ILO Administrative Tribunal against his suspension.{{cite news|url=https://www.juve.de/nachrichten/namenundnachrichten/2017/12/schlappe-fuer-battistelli-suspendierter-epa-richter-siegt-vor-gericht-auf-ganzer-linie|title=Schlappe für Battistelli: Suspendierter EPA-Richter siegt vor Gericht auf ganzer Linie |trans-title=Defeat for Battistelli: Suspended EPA judge wins in court all around |last=Klos|first=Mathieu|date=8 December 2017|work=JUVE|publisher=JUVE|language=German|accessdate=29 December 2017}} The Tribunal held that Battistelli, the President of the EPO, should not have played a decisive role in the suspension proceedings since he was the subject of the alleged defamation by Corcoran. That is, the Tribunal held that Battistelli had acted in a partial manner, had a conflict of interest,{{cite web|url=http://www.ippropatents.com/ippropatentsnews/article.php?article_id=5640|title=EPO president's impartiality questioned at ILO|last=Dixon|first=Barney|date=6 December 2017|work=IPPro Patents|publisher=Black Knight Media Ltd|accessdate=27 December 2017|location=Geneva|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171226184119/http://www.ippropatents.com/ippropatentsnews/article.php?article_id=5640|archive-date=26 December 2017|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|url=https://www.ip-watch.org/2017/12/06/international-labour-organisation-orders-reinstatement-epo-appeals-judge/|title=International Labour Organisation Orders Reinstatement Of EPO Appeals Judge|last=Standeford|first=Dugie|date=6 December 2017|work=Intellectual Property Watch|accessdate=29 December 2017}} and "had improperly involved himself in the decision to suspend [Corcoran]".{{cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/suspended-irish-patent-judge-appeals-to-government-for-help-1.3322425|title=Suspended Irish patent judge appeals to Government for help|last=Gallagher|first=Conor|date=10 December 2017|newspaper=The Irish Times|accessdate=26 December 2017}}

The "house ban" issued in December 2014 was later lifted on 11 December 2017, and Corcoran resumed his work as member of the Boards of Appeal. However, as his five-year term as member of the Boards of Appeal was not renewed by the Administrative Council, he returned to work at the EPO first-instance departments in January 2018.{{cite news|url=https://www.juve.de/nachrichten/namenundnachrichten/2017/12/disziplinarfall-am-europaeischen-patentamt-pyrrhussieg-fuer-suspendierten-richter|title=Disziplinarfall am Europäischen Patentamt: Pyrrhussieg für suspendierten Richter |trans-title=Disciplinary case at the European Patent Office: Pyrrhic victory for suspended judge |last1=Klos|first1=Mathieu |last2=Schulze|first2=Christina|date=19 December 2017|work=JUVE|publisher=JUVE|language=German|accessdate=29 December 2017}}{{cite web|url=http://www.ippropatents.com/ippropatentsnews/europenewsarticle.php?article_id=5682|title=EPO judge subject to "forced transfer"|last=Dixon|first=Barney|date=25 January 2018|work=IPPro Patents|publisher=Black Knight Media Ltd|accessdate=27 January 2018|location=Munich|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127202739/http://www.ippropatents.com/ippropatentsnews/europenewsarticle.php?article_id=5682|archive-date=27 January 2018|url-status=dead}} He was then reportedly transferred from Munich, Germany, to the EPO branch in The Hague, Netherlands, and assigned to a position outside his area of expertise.{{cite news|url=https://www.cicero.de/wirtschaft/mobbing-internationale-organisationen-unternehmen-skandal|title=Mobbing bei internationalen Organisationen: Wo kein Richter...|trans-title=Harassment in international organisations: Where no judge... |last=Sorge|first=Petra|date=3 May 2018|work=Cicero|publisher=Res Publica Verlags GmbH|language=German|accessdate=29 June 2018}} (full article available [https://suepo.org/documents/44838/57488.pdf here]; and English translation available [https://www.suepo.org/documents/44838/57489.pdf here]) In the meantime, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILO) issued two further decisions, i.e. judgments 3959 and 3961, dismissing Corcoran's complaints relating to the confiscation of his USB memory stick by the EPO Investigative Unit on 3 December 2014, and to his "request that the Administrative Council [of the European Patent Organisation] investigate the alleged unauthorized disclosure of confidential information relating to the ongoing disciplinary procedure against him".{{cite web|url=http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/01/30/ilo-administrative-tribunal-dismisses-complaints-epo-president/|title=ILO Administrative Tribunal dismisses complaints against EPO president|last=Kluwer Patent blogger|date=January 30, 2018|work=Kluwer Patent Blog|accessdate=3 February 2018}}{{cite web|url=http://www.ilo.org/dyn/triblex/triblexmain.fullText?p_lang=en&p_judgment_no=3959&p_language_code=EN|title=C. (No. 4) v. EPO; 125th Session; Judgment No. 3959 |date=24 January 2018|website=ilo.org|publisher=International Labour Organization|accessdate=3 February 2018}}{{cite web|url=http://www.ilo.org/dyn/triblex/triblexmain.fullText?p_lang=en&p_judgment_no=3961&p_language_code=EN|title=C. (No. 6) v. EPO; 125th Session; Judgment No. 3961 |date=24 January 2018|website=ilo.org|publisher=International Labour Organization|accessdate=3 February 2018}}

In 2018, it was revealed that Benoît Battistelli, then President of the EPO, and Željko Topić, one of EPO Vice-Presidents, had initiated criminal proceedings against Corcoran before courts in Munich. These proceedings eventually resulted in the Regional Court I of Munich ({{langx|de|Landgericht München I}}) declaring in November 2017, on appeal, Corcoran innocent of all charges, including the alleged defamation.{{cite web|url=http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/06/20/landgericht-munchen-patrick-corcoran-innocent-acquitted-charges/|title=Landgericht München: Patrick Corcoran is Innocent and Acquitted of all Charges|last=Bausch|first=Thorsten|date=20 June 2018|work=Kluwer Patent Blog|publisher=Kluwer Law International|accessdate=29 June 2018}}{{cite web|url=http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2018/06/EPA-v-Corcoran-LG-Munchen-2017-11-6.pdf|title=Landgericht München I, Az.: 24 Qs 18/17 1122 Bs 4/17 AG München (decision pronounced on 6 November 2017)|date=June 20, 2018|language=German|accessdate=30 June 2018}} (English translation [http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2018/06/Trans.-EPOvsCorcoran-Dec.LG-MUC-6.11.17.pdf here])

In October 2015, Siegfried Broß, a former judge of the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Patent Division of the Federal Court of Justice, expressed the opinion that the procedure followed by the President and the Administrative Council did not comply with the rule of law and had been conducted in a manner comparable to criminal proceedings, and that confidentiality requirements had not been adhered to. He furthermore criticized the role of EPO's internal investigation unit.{{cite news|url=http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/namenundnachrichten/2015/10/epa-disziplinarverfahren-verwaltungsrat-und-battistelli-handeln-ohne-rechtliche-grundlage|title=EPA-Disziplinarverfahren: "Verwaltungsrat und Battistelli handeln ohne rechtliche Grundlage"|trans-title=EPO Disciplinary Proceedings: Administrative Council and Battistelli are acting without legal basis|last1=Geimer |first1=Christina |last2=Klos|first2=Mathieu| date=29 October 2015|work=JUVE|publisher=JUVE|language=German|accessdate=25 May 2016}} EPO Vice-President Raimund Lutz strongly rejected these criticisms, stating that the disciplinary proceedings against the board member were conducted by the EPO and the Administrative Council in accordance with the EPC provisions.{{cite news|url=http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/namenundnachrichten/2015/11/epa-disziplinarverfahren-amtsfuehrung-weist-kritik-von-ex-verfassungsrichter-zurueck|title=EPA-Disziplinarverfahren: Amtsführung weist Kritik von Ex-Verfassungsrichter zurück|trans-title=EPO Disciplinary Proceedings: Management of the Office rejects criticisms from former Constitutional Court judge |last=Klos|first=Mathieu|date=17 November 2015|publisher=JUVE|language=German|accessdate=3 June 2016}}

The case has fueled the discussion about the lack of sufficient independence of the Boards of Appeal from the executive branch of the European Patent Office, and the shortcomings of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILO) in effectively resolving employment disputes within the EPO. It has also been cited as an example of what can go wrong in supranational organizations.

• R 19/12, decision issued in 2014 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO, in which the Enlarged Board allowed an objection of suspicion of partiality against its Chairman

{{reflist|group=notes}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

• {{cite news|url=http://www.suepo.org/public/ex14350cp.pdf|title=Staat im Staate|trans-title=State within a state|last1=Riedel|first1=Katja|last2=Schrader|first2=Christopher|date=20 December 2014|work=Süddeutsche Zeitung|publisher=Süddeutscher Verlag|page=36|language=German|accessdate=7 January 2015}}
• {{cite news|url=http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/internes-schreiben-patente-ueberwacher-1.2511405|title=Europäisches Patentamt überwachte Mitarbeiter mit Keyloggern|trans-title=The European Patent Office carried out secret surveillance on employees using keyloggers|last=Riedel|first=Katja|date=8 June 2015|work=Süddeutsche Zeitung|language=German|accessdate=9 June 2015|location=Munich}}
• {{cite news|url=http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/europaeisches-patentamt-der-erfundene-skandal-1.2695424|title=Der erfundene Skandal|trans-title=The invented scandal|last=Riedel|first=Katja|date=17 October 2015|work=Süddeutsche Zeitung|language=German|accessdate=24 October 2015|location=Munich}}
• {{cite web |title=Chronology (of the Case against Mr. C) |url=http://www.amba-epo.org/docs/mrc.pdf |website=amba-epo.org |publisher=Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal (AMBA) |date=2021 |access-date=4 May 2022}}

{{Decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Art. 23 1/15, Art. 23 2/15 and Art. 23 1/16}}

Category:Judicial misconduct

Category:Case law of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office

Category:Case law of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization

Category:German case law

Category:International Labour Organization

Category:Defamation case law

Category:2015 in case law

Category:2016 in case law

Category:2017 in case law