THE EPO is experiencing unprecedented unrest and "Upcoming coverage," said one person the other day (addressing several people including myself), shall be about "unaccountable EPO and patents on Italian TV. Next Sunday." This coverage will be in Italian, but hopefully some time thereafter there will be translations, such as subtitled versions, added days or weeks later (there are usually people out there willing to produce these).

Investigation Unit

One of the most controversial aspects of the current functioning of the EPO is the "Investigation Unit" which conducts internal investigations (sometimes also using external investigation companies such as Control Risks) into staff conduct under "Circular 342", which came into effect in January 2013. During such investigations, failure to cooperate is itself a disciplinary offence (so no right to silence), and no legal representation is permitted. Here at least there is some progress - the President has started a review of the functioning of the Investigation Unit, and SUEPO has provided its comments. Merpel will cast her last piece of hope that this review may lead to a disciplinary procedure that does not offend basic principles of due process.

“In its communique of its meeting in October 2015, the Administrative Council saw no reason to doubt that the general principles of law were correctly applied throughout the investigative and disciplinary procedure against a member of the Boards of Appeal.”
      --Anonymous"SUEPO’s document on the Investigation Guidelines," wrote one commenter, "illustrates the pressure exercised on EPO staff including members of the Boards of Appeal. However, there seems to be little hope that the Administrative Council is willing to change the situation. In its communique of its meeting in October 2015, the Administrative Council saw no reason to doubt that the general principles of law were correctly applied throughout the investigative and disciplinary procedure against a member of the Boards of Appeal. In its March meeting, the Council could not agree on a resolution insisting on an external review of the actions taken against staff representatives based on the results of the Investigation Guidelines and exceeding even the proposals of the Disciplinary Committee. Instead, the Council eroded the personal independence of Board members by allowing suspension as a preliminary measure for a period of 2 years and even longer, i.e. for an essential part of the appointment period. This amounts to a temporary removal from office which makes Article 23 of the Convention meaningless, ignoring the exclusive competence of the Enlarged Board of Appeal to propose removal from office."

We are still eager to receive and publish material regarding yesterday's protest, which has so far yielded no press coverage that we can find (in English at least). Press coverage can expand the scope of concern; in Bavarian, for instance, this led to parliamentarian interventions last month. ⬆