UPDATE 3: Is (CTRL + C and CTRL + V) 2 = INVENTIVE = PATENTABLE = INNOVATIVE? NO, not in Europe!
Two years ago (May 3, 2016) I wrote an article with the title “Is (CTRL + C and CTRL + V) 2 = INVENTIVE = PATENTABLE = INNOVATIVE?”:
https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/ctrl-c-v-2-inventive-patentable-innovative-peter-buitelaar/
One year ago (May 11, 2017) I wrote the first update of this article: “UPDATE 1: Is (CTRL + C and CTRL + V) 2 = INVENTIVE = PATENTABLE = INNOVATIVE? NO, not in the Netherlands”:
https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/update-1-ctrl-c-v-2-inventive-patentable-innovative-peter-buitelaar/
Recently (September 22, 2018) I wrote the second update of this article: “UPDATE 1: Is (CTRL + C and CTRL + V) 2 = INVENTIVE = PATENTABLE = INNOVATIVE? NO, not in Europe”:
Please read these articles first.
Ethics are moral beliefs and rules about right and wrong. Ethics is the study of questions about what is morally right and wrong.
Code of Conduct for Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys
Professionally accepted standards of personal and business behavior, values and guiding principles. Codes of professional ethics are often established by professional organizations to help guide members in performing their job functions according to sound and consistent ethical principles.
(b) must not knowingly make a false or misleading statement in relation to work done for a client or a prospective client; and (c) must not prepare, or assist in the preparation of, a document in relation to a matter if the registered attorney knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the document contains a false or misleading statement; and (d) must not file, or assist in the filing of, a document in relation to a matter if the registered attorney knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the document contains a false or misleading statement; and (e) must not willfully misrepresent facts or otherwise mislead another person in relation to a matter.
The instructions given by a client are not automatically a defense of, or an explanation for, the way a registered attorney acts for the client.
Note: A registered attorney is likely to have to choose the way in which material such as a specification, application or evidence is best prepared in the interests of the client. The registered attorney’s obligation, having regard to all of the registered attorney’s obligations under this code, is to explain the implications adequately to the client and represent the client in the most diligent way possible but without perpetuating a falsehood or knowingly making a statement which is misleading.
It is possible that the patent and trade marks attorneys in Denmark, or the patent and trade marks attorneys in Patrade, have special and different codes of professional ethics and are thus allowed to do all necessary in the interest of their client.
Interview Mr. Bo Georg Serwin Cobouw newspaper
On May 17, 2018 with as title “We keep our lead, also without a patent”, a one direction “interview” with Mr. Bo Georg Serwin was published in the Dutch building newspaper Cobouw. It is not completely clear for me if it was Mr. Bo Georg Serwin who made the first contact or if it was the journalist Mr. Ad Tissink. Before the publication the journalist sent me the concept and I made some remarks and comments and I referred to the large amount of evidence sent by me to him in 2015 and resend some evidence again. For whatever reason the journalist chooses, despite the evidence, to publish the interview without any changes, a critical note or even comments thus basically a perfect advertisement paid for by the readers. Mr. Bo Georg Serwin told that the reason for the interview was because I ‘touched’ his family. Besides that most of it it is again unproven Bo Georg Serwin nonsense, it is also quit hypocrite when all the damage to families caused by Mr. Bo Georg Serwin is taken in account. When somebody caused damage to his family, including physical damage as his family and the police can confirm, it is Mr. Bo Georg Serwin. Of course, Mr. Bo Georg Serwin started to express his gratefulness to Rijkswaterstaat (yes, the governmental organization he cheated during 15 years) that they have helped his small company Contec (who, what he doesn’t mention, actually went bankruptcy in 2017 under very suspicious circumstances after placing large orders for raw materials at suppliers and moving assets to other companies from Mr. Bo Georg Serwin). Of course, Mr. Bo Georg Serwin neither mentioned the many lies he wrote in his reactions to the European Patent Organization and the disrespectful claimed Bauma Innovation award in 2016. Mr. Bo Georg Serwin told the interviewer that he only had applied for the patent to protect his company interests (however, patent is on name of his private holding thus for clear private financial gain) against large cement producers as HeidelbergCement en LafargeHolcim. Further he referred to the excellent cooperation with the large Dutch contractor Heijmans and that his sales manager Mr. Peter Buitelaar was laid off because he was demanding too much and even wanted to stop the pouring of the Hybrid Reinforced High Performance Concrete overlay on the Scharberg bridge in 2011 because of fictional quality issues with the by Contec ApS supplied concrete. While I did had a lot of influence on the pouring, Mr. Bo Georg Serwin certainly gives me too much credits here to claim that I can force a very large contractor to shut down a project this size and with enormous financial risks. A bit peculiar note too (as his statements in my court case in 2013) because just 2 months before, as a consequence of my activities when Contec ApS was selected as one of the 3 possible suppliers for a very large offshore project (€9,000,000), he was qualifying me as the most experienced and specialized employee in the field of UHPC. While, in my court case, Mr. Bo Georg Serwin claimed that the large Dutch Contractor Heijmans had, together with me, made a complot against Contec (many know that Mr. Bo Georg Serwin is extremely good in inventing stories and theories) and he even attached the summons and documents from Heijmans lawyer with the Dutch text and the Danish translation to his “evidence” to the Danish court as evidence for his complot theory. This complot theory was supported by the statements of a very loyal Mr. Konopka from HFT Stuttgart Germany who declared under oath that he didn’t recognize a document sent to him by Heijmans (while he replied to that document) and that nothing was wrong with the material supplied to the bridge project. Mr. Konopka also didn’t mention that the material that was tested was adjusted with extra superplasticizer on the building site by me. Further Mr. Konopka was not only accusing me to actually work for Heijmans, since I was more loyal to them according him, but also that I had no knowledge regarding HPC, UHPC and overlays. So far I haven’t found one publication from Professor Dr.-Ing. Eduard Konopka regarding HPC, UHPC and overlays and I never met Professor Dr.-Ing. Eduard Konopka on symposia and conferences regarding HPC, UHPC and overlays. But Professor Dr.-Ing. Eduard Konopka is a self-declared specialist since he is doing external Quality Control for Contec ApS and is thus getting paid by Mr. Bo Georg Serwin. His role, expertise and his input are thus not independent and a clear point for discussion. To be honest, I’m not impressed by Professor Dr.Ing. Eduard Konopka nor his knowledge regarding HPC, UHPC and overlays.
Mr. Bo Georg Serwin, of course, didn’t told the journalist (who had the evidence with the real facts) that Heijmans stopped the project because 50% of the material supplied by Contec didn’t had the right properties as demanded and that Heijmans strict quality control on site, instructed and supervised by me, had the negative results according to the later received information (good and wrong trucks) from Contec’s production manager. After checking with the production in Denmark it became clear that Mr. Bo Georg Serwin had ordered the production to use another superplasticizer for the production of 100-ton Binder because he didn’t had money available to buy a new stock of superplasticizer while knowing the large order months in advance and having a bank guaranty from Heijmans to cover all costs. The production manager sent, after my phone call, an email, with a copy to me later, to Mr. Bo Georg Serwin with the details which superplasticizer and the change made in the production as ordered by Mr. Bo Georg Serwin. Mr. Bo Georg Serwin called me, not aware that I received a copy of the email he received from the production manager, and told me to lie to the client Heijmans and Rijkswaterstaat and tell them that everything was according the specifications. He knew very well that I was always able to convince people since they respected my knowledge and expertise. Further he made different treats to me which he repeated later. Last time when I saw Mr. Bo Georg Serwin accompanied by Professor Dr.-Ing. Eduard Konopka during a bridge symposium at BASt in 2016 in Germany, he was, like most cowards, not so brave and left the symposium after a short time. Maybe he didn't like that my name was mentioned several times. After my refusal to lie and cheat Mr. Bo Georg Serwin not only denied the problems and reacted very unprofessional to the client and his sales manager instead of solving it professional. He could for example react like: thank you for your external Quality Control results, after an internal QC "we" found out that "we" made a production mistake but we believe it can be corrected on site by adding extra superplasticizer. We will arrange this so that you don't have to make extra efforts nor costs. However, but Mr. Bo Georg Serwin decided, while “nothing was wrong”, to sent a pallet superplasticizer and an email with the percentage superplasticizer to add, in a large truck to the building site in the Netherlands.
The production workers in Contec immediately said that he thus acknowledged that something was wrong by sending extra superplasticizer and the percentage to add. It is clear that Mr. Bo Georg Serwin, despite his harsh comments and denial regarding the purposely changed superplasticizer, didn’t came himself to the building site. Because Mr. Bo Georg Serwin was so smart to sent one pallet as a part of a load of a 25-ton truck (thus unloading 24-ton in several other locations). While it was promised in written that the truck will arrive before 12:00 the next day, the truck arrived late in the evening and another testing and pouring day was cancelled. A director, who should know how large and critical the bridge strengthening projects are, with interest in the future of his company would have taken a car, load 500 kg superplasticizer and drove to the Netherlands in less than 10 hours. Testing confirmed that the amount of superplasticizer to add according to the email from Mr. Bo Georg Serwin was adjusting the workability perfectly, but nothing was wrong and Mr. Bo Georg Serwin didn’t know that?
Anybody involved in the composition of an UHPC Binder knows how important the “holy” trinity cement, micro-silica and plasticizer is and that a change of one of these 3 components requires a lot of testing for especially workability, strength and setting time.
On large projects under time pressure and with many people and equipment involved, it is a general standard to solve matters ASAP and discuss problems, costs and responsibilities later. It is not too smart to use the pressure of an ongoing project to put a “knife on the throat” of a contractor. While I only slept 16 hours in one week because of being on site continuously, I started, after testing on Saturday, on Sunday morning to prepare the necessary small bags with the dosage superplasticizer for each m 3 . I had to add the superplasticizer on the conveyor belt to the mixer since there was no other possibility to add extra components into the mixer. During pouring I added the superplasticizer during the night by opening the bags and spread it on top of the aggregates so that the conveyor belt could load it into the mixer. Despite the size of the project and the seriousness of the problem, Mr. Bo George Serwin stayed home. While I knew the consequences for my career and personal future, I decided to fully support the contractor, managing contractor and Rijkswaterstaat anyhow to save the project and to take care that "my" project was finished according their and my standards.
At that moment Mr. Bo Georg Serwin already started to deny my employment and power of attorney in the company in his correspondence to Heijmans because it was me who signed the contracts. Later Mr. Bo Georg Serwin even tried to blackmail and force me to stop legal actions by sending a letter for the Dutch Tax Authorities first to me and, when I went directly with it to the Tax Authorities, to the Dutch Tax Authorities claiming that I was a consultant as he repeated later under oath in the Danish Court. The reason for this became clear later, Mr. Bo Georg Serwin never paid taxes for his employee (while I have a contract as employee Mr. Bo Georg Serwin declared me as an consultant in Denmark).
Mr. Bo Georg Serwin has no scruples to lie and cheat even in court under oath.
That Mr. Bo Georg Serwin and his "witnesses" have no problem to cheat, to commit perjury and to commit forgery with the intentions to deceive judges became very clear during my court case and many other court cases. While in the Cobouw newspaper Mr. Bo Georg Serwin claims that I also worked for him in Venezuela, so he owns me some salary, he used a dealer agreement for Venezuela from 1994 as evidence in the Danish Court that I worked as an independent consultant for him until 2011. While I worked as an independent consultant in the period 1994 – 1998 but not after 1998 since I had a signed contract. However, the " evidence" presented by Mr. Bo Georg Serwin was clearly forgery but completely ignored by the judge in Denmark.
Also, in December 2011, when Heijmans claimed their losses, Mr. Bo Georg Serwin collected the bank guarantee given by Heijmans (I always arranged a bank guarantee in the Netherlands for the very large projects) without, of course, their permission while knowing that there was a conflict because of the quality issues en delays. While my lawyer in Denmark “forgot” to use this very important email regarding the superplasticizer as evidence, Heijmans asked me for it and also asked to write my technical opinion regarding the possible consequences of the change. Heijmans lawyer has sent this document with my statement to the court just before the closing date for evidence. One day before the matter will occur in the court in the Netherlands, Mr. Bo Georg Serwin paid a large sum to Heijmans to compensate their losses for the two-day production stop in 2011.
Instead of searching an alternative, due to the lack of interest, a change of project management and the limited time available after the tender, Heijmans had to order again material from Contec ApS for their next overlay on the Kreekrak bridge in 2014. However, the material had again some quality issues during the mandatory proof of craftsmanship (mockup).
Most remarkable, at least for me, while denied by Mr. Bo Georg Serwin in the Danish Court under oath, denied in his blackmail letter to the Dutch Tax Authorities (while on a request to supply evidence he never replied and he never sent his “evidence”), and denied to Heijmans Wegenbouw (all in written), was that Mr. Bo Georg Serwin mentioned me as the former sales manager Benelux (as also written in the correspondence to the European Patent Office) and that I worked for him also as an employee in Venezuela (thus before my actual contract from 1998). He even offered people to reveal to them some tasty “anecdotes” and stories regarding me in among other countries Venezuela. Mr. Bo Georg Serwin also declared in the interview that after my dismissal I started to inform Rijkswaterstaat, the European Patent Office and the House of Representatives. Further Mr. Bo Georg Serwin stated that I was very proud that I was mentioned as the second inventor, thus Mr. Bo Georg Serwin was the first inventor (something that Mr. Bo Georg Serwin never could prove to the European Patent Office) while, during my court case in the Danish court on May 1, 2013, Mr. Bo Georg Serwin stated that my name was only mentioned as a gesture because that was important for me but not because I was the second inventor. This is also mentioned in the judgement. It is again clear that Mr. Bo Georg Serwin even didn’t read the extensive evidence as sent by me to the European Patent Office including the early correspondence since 2002, thus long before 2011, with Rijkswaterstaat. Further Mr. Bo Georg Serwin is, as how insiders know him as a gasconade, bragging about “his projects” in Louvre Abu Dhabi, National Museum in Qatar and his strong position in Germany to strengthen orthotropic steel bridge decks. Mr. Bo Georg Serwin again forget to mention that it was actually his former sales manager or consultant (it seems that I had a very flexible position), who made the first contacts with the German professor Sedlachek during a conference in the U.S.A. in 2004 and later with BASt and with the responsible persons for the “innovative” Bauma award winning Pilot project and the actual bridge under construction. That Mr. Bo Georg Serwin mentioned his patent to strengthen orthotropic steel bridge decks in the USA shows again how bad he informed himself and how less I was involved in the patent applications since I knew the minimum number of orthotropic steel bridge decks in the USA since my first presentations on the Orthotropic Bridge Conference 2004. It is clear that Mr. Bo Georg Serwin is able and willing to lie and cheat and is demanding this shameful behavior from others. Problem with cheating Mr. Bo Georg Serwin is that you have to maintain your lies and not changing them all the time. After cheating partners, employees, clients, family and many others it seems that he is no longer untouchable.
The journalist Mr. Ad Tissink placed a link (https://www.dhirubhai.net/ feed/update/urn:li:activity:6402422559261933568?c) to his article on his LinkedIn profile and within 24 hours the ex-production manager (the bankruptcy of Contec ApS in 2017) Thomas Serwin (nephew of Mr. Bo Georg Serwin) made some comments. Certainly, Thomas Serwin can, as me and many others, reveal more tasty “anecdotes” and stories regarding his former employer and uncle Mr. Bo Georg Serwin. The journalist wrote me an email that I had support in Denmark and regretting more or less the publication because, according his opinion, he clearly gave Mr. Bo Georg Serwin a too big a stage. When a journalist purposely ignores evidence (according to him he didn’t had time to investigate the evidence nor read his own article from 2015 again) and is more interested in sensation and gossips, he should have published this in a gossip magazine and not in a building newspaper. Unless Mr. Ad Tissink prefers a reputation for bringing fake- and incorrect news.
Points of discussion: ethics and ethical behaviour
Mr. Bo Georg Serwin: While his “employee” or “consultant” (difficult because Mr. Bo Georg Serwin made several different statements during the period 2011 – 2018) made together with Mr. Niek Kaptijn an invention, I prefer to use solution, which brought knowledge, a huge amount of documentation, turnover, profit, reputation and positive advertisement to his company, Mr. Bo Georg Serwin decided to not only ignore agreements made in 2000 - 2002, but also mentioned himself, while not being involved in any part of the invention, as the inventor and transferred the patent rights directly to his personal holding. This transfer to his personal holding shows that the intention of the patent application was not “protection” against LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement, as claimed in his interview with the Cobouw, nor to protect the interests of the shareholders of Contec ApS but that Mr. Bo Georg Serwin only had the intention to enrich himself personally by a patent paid by the Dutch taxpayer and developed and marketed by others. Further, from every project made Mr. Bo Georg Serwin paid his personal holding so-called royalties and himself a bonus while his employee or consultant and other shareholders didn’t get bonusses and/or dividends. This while Mr. Bo Georg Serwin was never involved in any of the projects neither showed any interest, was passing by or, like in 2008 when our child was passing away in the womb of his mother after 7 months, showed any compassion by taking over my responsibilities on a very large and demanding project (Moerdijkbridge phase 3 and 4). Instead, while a Euro 1,000,000 turnover with a large profit was made in just two weeks and my wife and I had to deal with pain and sadness, he stayed home laying on his sofa while I worked 18 hours per day. His lying in the Danish Court, towards Tax Authorities, clients and newspapers and his attempts by using lies and slander to get a patent granted and to keep this patent granted is showing who Mr. Bo Georg Serwin really is. Also, his claimed innovation price during the Bauma in 2016 in Germany and profiling himself as the inventor of the strengthening method of orthotropic steel bridge decks showed again Mr. Bo Georg Serwin ethics and ethical behavior. To ask an employee to make photographs after the ceremony to make it look if it was him who was invited to give a speech, shows again his narcisstic behavior. Further he sold or intended to sell, the patent rights for Germany to another German company. Link: www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/bridges-mad-tuesday-innovation-borrowedbicycles-peter-buitelaar/
During the 3 years of the Opposition Mr. Bo George Serwin continued to make claims and to produce lies. Mr. Bo Georg Serwin even claimed at the European Patent Office that he made a confidentiality agreement with Rijkswaterstaat. Cheating the employee who brought so much to Mr. Bo Georg Serwin personally and to his companies shows who Mr. Bo Georg Serwin actually is.
Patent attorney Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen from Patrade A/S: Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen worked, during many years, for the European Patent Office in the Hague, the Netherlands. As confirmed by Mr. Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen himself during the court case in Denmark on May 1, 2013, he is reading and speaking Dutch. One day in 2006, when the patent application was already made, Mr. Bo Georg Serwin told me that his patent attorney Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen from Patrade A/S used the article from Cement 2003/1 and the test reports from the Adhesion Institute of the Delft University of Technology as main source for the patent claims. Large parts of the text were simply copied, translated in English and pasted in the claims. The first reactions to the patent application by a third party to the European Patent Office in 2006 are showing this copy and paste. For another patent application, several pages of my text from my paper in Leipzig were copied and pasted in the claims without mentioning the source. Unfortunately for Mr. Bo Georg Serwin, the same paper and my actions resulted in a not granted patent application.
It seems thus that Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen from Patrade A/S is extremely skilled in copying and pasting on his personal computer. Further patent attorney Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen didn’t had any limitations in his written reactions to the European Patent Office and used lies and slander, thus without any evidence, in his accusations as an attempt to discredit me and to stop and remove evidence as sent by me. Patent attorney Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen from Patrade A/S must have known exactly what he was doing and had, without any doubt, the intention to cheat and mislead the European Patent Office. It seems that the one who is paying the invoice of patent attorney Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen is also the one who is deciding what needs to be done. Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen also didn’t had any problem to make deceptive statements in the Danish court. It was also Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen who introduces the Danish court case regarding labor issues (Mr. Bo Georg Serwin denied that I have been an employee for 15 years in the Danish court and to the Dutch and Danish Tax authorities) to the European Patent Office to buy time and to give the European Patent Office the impression that this court case was regarding the patent rights (while this is denied in the Danish court by Mr. Bo Georg Serwin). A short summary of some of the many statements of Mr. Jens J. Telefsen European Patent Attorney and partner at Patrade:
August 23, 2006, Mr. Buitelaar is both inventor of the present invention and author of the article in question. The article, however, was written well ahead of the patent application and was written during the initial stages of developing the novel and inventive method and construction according to the present invention before the essential and characteristic features of the present invention became known. In this connection it is submitted that as far as may be determined from the article, although being in a foreign language, the features according to claim 1 as filed on 12 November 2004 appear to be known from said article.
In this context it is submitted that none of the available prior art documents including the article from Cement disclose such a combination of features which in practice provides a comparable construction. Furthermore, it is submitted that the combination of features is not straightforwardly derivable from the article in that problems. with the material as described in the article were alleviated after the article was written through extensive research and testing both by Contec ApS, Bouwdienst Rijkswaterstaat and TNO in Delft.
March 21, 2013, The applicant does not wish to comment on the third party observations filed at this time and hope that the examiner will postpone any judgment relating to the observations presented by third party for the following reasons: Mr. Peter Buitelaar who is the third party filing the observations and the inventor of the present invention is at present engaged in a lawsuit which is being heard in the Danish courts this spring.
Many of the allegations and claims raised by Mr. Buitelaar in his third party observations are unsubstantiated and at this point the proprietor does not wish to comment or argue with respect to these allegations in that some of the items being presented in the third party observations will also be commented on during the legal proceedings before the Danish court where Mr. Buitelaar will present his arguments under oath. It is therefore the applicant's opinion that the court testimony given under oath will present a more objective view on the matter, and after the court has concluded its proceedings we will file a response with appropriate comments to the third-party observations.
July 17, 2013, In the above-mentioned European patent application, a third party, Mr. Peter Buitelaar, has repeatedly filed third party observations and, as we understand it, has been in contact by telephone with the examiner.
As already stated earlier a lawsuit has been pending between the applicant of the present invention and Mr. Buitelaar, former associate of the applicant. This lawsuit has now come to a "temporary" conclusion (the decision has not (yet) been appealed), and Mr. Buitelaar has been found to be in the wrong on all accounts. This aspect has no bearing on the European patent application, apart from what material is to be considered confidential and not part of the public domain and as such not to be considered when evaluating patentability. The applicant would like to take this opportunity to stress that any non-factual statements which cannot be documented as being in the public domain prior to the filing date of the present invention shall be disregarded. It is the applicant's opinion that Mr. Buitelaar has a very unprofessional attitude towards this matter, and in order to illustrate these two e-mails are attached which Mr. Buitelaar has recently sent, one to the proprietor Mr. Bo Serwin and one to the undersigned representative of the applicant.
The applicant reserves the possibility to comment on the extensive material, as a lot of this material is confidential and does not belong in the public domain and as such should not be considered by the examiner when assessing the merits of the present invention.
September 16, 2013, As the examiner may deduce from the amount of documents filed, the nature of these documents and the submissions by Mr. Peter Buitelaar, it is very important for the applicant to make sure that only documents which were without a doubt publicly available prior to the priority date are taken into consideration when evaluating the merits of the third party observation with respect to the present invention.
With respect to the third party observation filed on August 28th 2013 we request that
1) pages 1- 22;
2) pages 28-123;
3) pages 126-131
be completely removed from the public part of the file (and therefore also public file inspection), as these pages contain private and privileged email correspondence between various parties and unfinished and/or unpublished articles. The list of annexes, pages 23-27 shall be edited such that it will not be possible to recognize any of the entries referred to above in 1) to 3) in the public part of the file.
The third party's submissions filed July 20th 2013 shall also be removed as these submissions do not provide any factual input bearing on the patent application, but solely contain slander. The applicant is very concerned that the EPO allows this type of information to be made publicly available.
With respect to the Third party observations filed on April 3rd 2013, the following documents shall be removed from the public part of the file, and furthermore shall not be taken into consideration:
- The internal report "Machinaal aanbrengen Contec Ferroplan Systeem", 23 pages;
- The internal report "Proefvak Machinaal aanbrengen Contec Ferroplan Systeem door Bruil - Ede B.V.", 32 pages;
- The internal report "Concept voor het aanbrengen van het Contec Ferroplan Systeem of stalen Rijdekken", 31 pages;
NOTE: This is the first description made by me as a draft version to inform the project team in 2000 regarding the possible application of the Bonded Hybrid Reinforced High Performance Concrete Overlay on orthotropic steel bridge decks. This document is recognized by the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office as prior art on April 29, 2018.
- The draft article "Heavy reinforced high performance concrete overlay on orthotropic steel bridges in the Netherlands", 15 pages;
- The tender material including prices etc, on "Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat" paper1 11 pages.
With respect to the Third party observations filed on June 7th 2013, the following documents shall be removed from the public part of the file, and furthermore shall not be taken into consideration:
- "annex 11": private and confidential email, 1 page;
- "annex 6": confidential internal report send internally, 12 pages;
- "annex 14": pages 9 to 40 unrelated, undated and unsigned statements;
- "annex 19": internal emails, 20 pages;
- "annex 4": internal project notes, 9 pages;
"annex 12, page 1 to 6: internal notes and emails as well as confidential price calculation, 6 pages;
- "annex 7": internal mails, notes and draft article, 18 pages;
Although the Applicant recognizes and concurs with the intentions of Article 115 EPC, the present example clearly illustrates that the EPO must exercise a certain degree of censorship, such that slander, confidential information which clearly has no impact on the assessment of novelty and inventive step, do not appear in the public part of the file.
As the amount of information supplied in the present case is overwhelming, the applicant shall request the examiner, in case he relies on any of the information supplied by the third party, to clearly identify and justify the information's merits with respect to the present application, and the public nature of such information.
The applicant is of the opinion that the third party has not supplied any factual information relating to the patentability of the application, and at this point does not intend to provide any comments, besides the fact that the amount of information and particularly the interest and industrial success clearly indicate that the invention fulfilled a need and addressed this need in a novel manner obtaining commercial success – all clear indicators of an inventive activity.
April 9, 2014, In this matter a third party, Mr. Peter Buitelaar, former consultant of the applicant, has filed a substantial amount of "documentation".
The applicant has requested that a large part of this material be removed from the public part of the file as the "documentation" comprises confidential internal e-mail correspondence, company secrets, drafts of articles and documents which also are in the confidential internal sphere, in particular when it comes to prior art, as understood in the context of Article 54 EPC.
The applicant is fully aware that any third party may file any observation on a file, but nevertheless expects the EPO to handle this uncontrolled filing with a certain amount of discretion and understanding, particularly when it comes to information of a confidential nature which clearly is not publicly available. The minimum requirement in this situation should be to require the third party to document that this information was in the public domain prior to the recognized filing date. Until such convincing proof is supplied the information should be kept in the secret or non-public part of the case folder.
In this context Mr. Buitelaar also previously filed a lawsuit in a Danish court of law relating to his "employment" situation and rights to patent rights - among these the present patent application. The court found that Mr. Buitelaar's case was completely without merit and dismissed the matter. Mr. Buitelaar was furthermore found to be liable to compensate Contec for associated cost with respect to this matter since he had only worked as a consultant for the company.
Mr. Buitelaar has also accused Contec of tax-fraud - which again has been found without merit after two internationally recognized accountants' companies audited the company books.
Still further, there are also indications that Mr Buitelaar probably is behind further allegations relating to Mr. Serwin (owner and CEO of Contec) and his family. These allegations are reported anonymously, but due to facts in the allegations they most probably originate from Mr. Buitelaar.
All this to illustrate the lengths to which Mr. Buitelaar will go to in order to harass/bother Contec and Mr. Serwin. The patent application has now been pending with the EPO since 2005, and we have received a first communication in February 2006 (referring to the WO of the PCT procedure), and a second communication in December 2011. It appears that the last two years have been spent relating to Mr. Buitelaars non-related submissions under Art. 115 EPC. Mr Buitelaar, or any other third party, has had the opportunity under Art 115 EPC to file relevant observations since the application was published in 2006.
April 1, 2015, With respect to the first question, i.e. whether the applicant upholds his request for exclusion from public file inspection, and the fact that it appears that the EPO does not find that the arguments presented so far are sufficient in order to exclude personal emails and details on the calculation of prices and other company trade secrets from the file inspection, the request for exclusion from public file inspection of material and documents filed by the third party, namely Peter Buitelaar, is upheld.
The applicant is aware that some of the documents filed by Mr. Buitelaar constitute prior art within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC although in the applicant's opinion these documents are not pertinent for the present invention. However, a large part of the documentation filed is of a personal nature and/or of internal company nature and as such are not available to the public and therefore cannot be used as prior art with respect to the present invention. For this reason it is submitted that these types of documents, i.e. internal e-mails, test results etc. which under the EPC do not qualify as prior art, should be excluded from the public part of file inspection.
Mr. Buitelaar who is the third party filing the documents in these two pending applications is a former employee of the applicant and as already stated previously Mr. Buitelaar sued the applicant of the present application in a civil law suit which was settled in Denmark completely in favor of the applicant, in that the court found that all the arguments and allegations presented by Mr. Buitelaar were groundless and without merit.
In the meantime Mr. Buitelaar has been employed by a competitor and is using his knowledge from his years of employment with the applicant although much of this knowledge is covered by a secrecy agreement. This fact only to illustrate that Mr. Buitelaar does not distinguish between proper prior art and any internal and potentially secret information.
Should the EPO maintain its decision not to remove private e-mails and internal communications from the public part of the file inspection material, the applicant will require that should the examiner rely on any prior art from the third party observation it has to be documented and argued why this prior art is to be considered prior art within the meaning of the European Patent Convention (Art. 54(2) EPC).
So far it is clear, and also from later communications to the European Patent Office, that it is Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen who is the only one who is using lies, slander, false arguments, contradictions and other arguments to stop, revoke and delete third party evidence. I reacted in detail, thus including a huge amount of evidence, to the European Patent Office on the accusations but how more detailed my reaction was, how more new lies and slander were produced by the partners in crime Serwin and Tellefsen. That only showed that both Mr. Bo Georg Serwin and his loyal patent attorney Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen knew that they were purposely cheating the European Patent Office and Rijkswaterstaat Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management.
Nothing is going too far for Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen who is acting as the perfect tool of Mr. Bo Georg Serwin. Nothing of any statement made could be proved (like in the Danish court, other court cases and patent matters) and by comparing the different reactions with other evidence including court documents and judgement the contradictions are more than clear: employee, consultant, associate, no associate, inventor, mentioned as a gesture, etc.
On November 3, 2014 I sent an email to the managing director of Patrade, Mr. Leif Nielsen, and complained, with many details, about, according to my opinion, the unprofessional conduct and actions of his employee and partner Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen. His reply was very short: “I have noted your opinion and have no further comment to this case. We have affected normal tasks as patent attorneys and this has been done according to the code of conduct. I see no reason for further discussion of this case.” Thus according Mr. Leif Nielsen patent attorneys are obligated to perform the tasks as dictated by their client including lying, cheating, slander and perjury. Since 2011 nothing is surprising me anymore. I’m wondering if in the job description at Patrade A/S of Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen it is mentioned that he has to lie, cheat and use false arguments to obtain a patent. If all of this is part of the job description of a patent attorney I do not know but the slogan from Patrade Protecting IPR possible means Protecting Intellectual Propriety Regardless of anything (perjury, deceptive statements, lies, slander, lack of evidence, copy and paste, etc.)!
We all know now the outcome of the claimed invention. The involvement of Rijkswaterstaat Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and the former minister of Infrastructure and Water Management shows who wrote the correct history and facts and who were really involved in the “invention” of a very innovative and successful solution for extreme serious fatigue problems in the infrastructure worldwide.
European Patent Office: It took the European Patent Office 12 years before they granted the patent to Serwin Holding ApS and it took the European Patent Office 3 years before they finally revoked the unfairly granted patent. Thus during a period of 15 years evidence widely available on the World Wide Web and as sent, is completely ignored by the European Patent Office. It is very clear, especially with all correspondence in my possession and often published on the public website of the patent application, that also the European Patent Office is it selves open to criticism. The European Patent Office failed in their international and national search since day one because already much was published regarding the invention before and during 2003.
While being informed by a third party in 2006 regarding two articles in the Dutch Journal Cement 1/2003, the European Patent Office failed again to check facts and failed in their international and national search. Also the European Patent Office was to easy to manipulate with incorrect and false arguments without evidence from the applicant Serwin Holding ApS, while also the examiners didn’t check the facts. Especially since 2005 two large projects (a total of 40,000 m 2 ) were executed in the Netherlands and received a lot of national and international media attention. A little bit efforts from the side of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office would have resulted in the information needed to revoke the patent application from Serwin Holding ApS entirely in 2006.
Since 2006 the applicant Serwin Holding ApS started to delay the process by continuously requesting extension of time limits for the response on the communications from the Examining Division of the European Patent Office. When I found out in February 2012, before I never looked to the application nor to the European Patent Office website (even didn’t know that it was all public available), that the applicant Serwin Holding ApS used incorrect arguments to obtain a patent I reacted for the first time directly to the European Patent Office. The reaction from Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen from Patrade on March 21, 2013 and the continuously denial of Mr. Bo Georg Serwin in his correspondence to the Danish court that I was an employee, gave me enough reasons to send, as a third party, a very large amount of evidence to the European Patent Office. In that letter Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen from Patrade already expressed his unlimited (possible like his invoices) support to Mr. Bo Georg Serwin and introduced, without any other reason than misleading the European Patent Office, a court case regarding labor issues.
The Examining Division of the European Patent Office was extremely easy, despite the huge amount of evidence and the complete lack of evidence from the applicant Serwin Holding ApS, to manipulate by Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen from Patrade who, coincidentally, worked 10 years at that office in the Hague. Thus after receiving hundreds of pages evidence requiring a much more demanding examination, the Examining Division of the European Patent Office decided on May 12, 2015 to ignore this evidence and expressed their written intentions to grant a European patent.
My complains resulted in replies from the European Patent Office in which was referred to letters sent by Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen from Patrade as evidence. Thus despite real well documented evidence, the lies and slander from Mr. Bo Georg Serwin and Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen was accepted as the only truth despite the fact that no evidence could be submitted by them. Also, the same European Patent Office denied to accept the Danish court judgement in which Mr. Bo Georg Serwin declared under oath that I was a consultant without any confidential agreement and thus not an employee.
It became very clear for me that not only the Danish judge but also the European Patent Office was corrupted and extremely hypocritical. At that moment I decided to search for publicity and to approach the Cobouw, Rijkswaterstaat and later even the minister of Infrastructure and Water Management. This were the right decisions, especially when the minister decided to take action and to force Rijkswaterstaat to take all necessary actions to revoke the patent entirely. From that moment the dynamic lying and cheating duo Mr. Bo Georg Serwin and Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen had to find new lies instead of directly denigrate and accusing me.
While the final outcome, thanks to the joint efforts of Rijkswaterstaat, Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V., Mr. Niek Kaptijn and undersigned, was as how it should be, I have very negative thoughts regarding the efficiency, reliability and conduct of the European Patent Office in this specific matter. While with an other patent application, the one for a very long existing system developed by Densit A/S including plagiarism by using large parts of my text, of Mr. Bo Georg Serwin and his partner in crime Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen, the European Patent Office acted and responded very professional. Maybe the objectivity and interest of the European Patent Office depends on the relation examiners and applicant, in other words the relation with the hired patent attorney?
Mr. Peter Buitelaar: Since 1999 I have had a very unique and close cooperation with the Task Force Fatigue problems of Orthotropic Steel Bridge Decks of the Civil Engineering Division of Rijkswaterstaat Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. The project was, and actually still is, extremely interesting and I strongly believed in 1999 that the fatigue problems of the orthotropic steel bridge decks could be solved with the application of the Bonded Hybrid Reinforced High Performance Concrete Overlay. This idea was based on the Compact Reinforced Composite principles as suggested by me to Mr. Niek Kaptijn. When I told Mr. Hans Henrik Bache (the inventor of UHPC and CRC) in his kitchen about the proposed solution and showed him video’s and information he was very enthusiastic because this was always his dream: a lot of reinforcement, UHPC and mechanical placing with a slipform paver. Many of the details including reinforcement principle and reinforcement percentage were suggested by me and in a close cooperation with especially Mr. Niek Kaptijn, we made a draft and did all research for the now very successful application. In 2002 I discussed per email the possibility of a patent application with the project manager with a copy to his managers in the Civil Engineering Division of Rijkswaterstaat. We came to the conclusion that a patent application was not the goal nor interest of Rijkswaterstaat. This information was shared with Mr. Bo Georg Serwin who, as we know now, ignored me completely and applied for a patent just before the Pilot Project in 2003. I did what I think is still correct: I informed the project manager, team members, contractors, managing contactor and others involved during the period 2003 – 2011 regarding the intentions of Mr. Bo Georg Serwin. This resulted in the first reaction to the European Patent Office in 2006.
“Professionals” as Mr. Bo Georg Serwin and Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen, with their despicable behavior and disrespect for traditional values like business ethics, shouldn’t be accepted in our professional - and human society. Many people involved in this complex case, including my dismissal, should shame themselves including the judge of the Danish court, my lawyer, the 4 persons who committed perjury in favor of Mr. Bo Georg Serwin, the Danish prosecutors who did everything possible to frustrate an investigation regarding perjury in the Danish Court of 5 persons, Heijmans, etc., all were, and maybe still are, too easy to manipulate by Mr. Bo Georg Serwin and his fairytales. However, they are not the subject here. My wife and I paid a very high price for my actions, but we still do not regret my decision to not cheat Rijkswaterstaat, and thus the tax payers in the Netherlands, and the Dutch contractor Heijmans. That Heijmans later ignored that what happened in the period 2011 – 2013, after making a financial compensation settlement for their losses with Contec ApS one day before the court case in 2013 in the Netherlands, is their decision. Ethics, ethical behavior, principles and loyalty are today possible less important for many than when I started my career as a manager in a contracting company. My first Danish director (Densit A/S) was a very well educated and correct person who was regarded as an example for me and many others because of high ethical standards. My second Danish director was and is clearly another kind of person. However, I can still look every day in the mirror, and besides that I am getting older faster than expected, I don’t have any hesitation to look myself and my wife straight in the eyes. If my actions were ethical and loyal according others? Maybe and maybe not but I have received a lot of mental support from the people who know me for a very long time.
On November 1, 2018 I have sent a 23 pages PDF file with the illustrated version of my 4 articles on LinkedIn to Mr. Bo Georg Serwin, Mr. Jens J. Tellefsen, Patrade A/S, Rijkswaterstaat and many others. Please drop me an email when you are interested to receive a copy.
Peter Buitelaar
WMO nvt
8 个月Ongelooflijk....ik ben er stil van