EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

08.09.16

Deviation From (and Violation of) the EPC Under Battistelli at the EPO for the Sake of ‘Production’

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: New document questions the legitimacy of patent policy under Battistelli — a policy which strives to maximise grants and bypasses a lot of quality control so as to achieve high ‘production’ (measured using a self-serving yardstick which retroactively devalues all patents)

NO wonder Battistelli is so afraid of SUEPO. As a sort of watchdog representing half of all EPO staff, it has highlighted legitimate concerns shared by a lot of the staff, which believes Battistelli steers the EPO into a registration system (like early certainty) a lot worse than even the USPTO.

A lot of people have already seen the document below and someone decided to leak it to us. We have decided that, as IP Kat comments already speak about it, it’s worth presenting in full:

Getting there faster, a case of unclarity?

An Efficiency Presentation has been given in a number of administrative directorates in Berlin during the recent weeks. It was based on a power point presentation titled “Getting there faster” and was further complemented by individual remarks by administrative as well as examining staff.

It has come to the Berlin staff committee’s attention that some parts of this presentation appear to have been misunderstood by many technically qualified examiners in Berlin who felt that those parts of the presentations in their respective directorate lead to undue interferences, be it from interested circles outside or inside the Office, with the responsibilities directly vested by the Contracting States in Examining Divisions (Articles 15 and 18 EPC) to which these examiners are administratively assigned. The title as well as some remark was understood as a prompt to ignore some of the Examining Divisions’ responsibilities in order to more quickly grant patents on European patent applications. Apparently, the following messages were perceived:

(a) the requirements under Article 84 EPC, especially clarity, were often less essential for the quality of the granted patent

(b) the description and figures should be employed, together with the claims, to determine the subject-matter for which protection is sought with the procedure up to grant

(c) clarity of the claims was no ground for opposition, and lack of clarity as such should thus not be the basis to refuse a European patent application

(d) the procedure up to grant should be a co-operative and an interactive process involving essentially the entrusted examiner and the applicants’ representatives as partners, preferably via telephone conversations instead of oral proceedings

(e) a benefit of the doubt on the part of the entrusted examiner should lead to a proposal to grant

(f) the other members of the divisions should follow the entrusted examiners’ proposals to grant

(g) the proposal to grant should promptly be signed by the other members when their own merely administrative checks have been done, i.e. without their own assessments of the requirements e.g. for patentability.

Examining staff thus defied the Berlin staff committee to take position on these issues, and the Berlin staff committee is prepared to dispel any doubts:

The Berlin staff committee finds the title “Getting there faster” as unclear as the title of the Office’s “Early Certainty” presentation in the Patent Law Committee (CA/PL 7/16), because both the term “there” and the term “Certainty” are not unambiguously defined in the presentations. For pending examination procedures (Articles 94 and 97 EPC), the applicants as well as third parties have the right to get in due time a legitimate decision of the Examining Division, be it grant or refusal pursuant to Article 97(1) respectively Article 97(2) EPC (see e.g. point 1.2 of T1131/12, or point 7 of T1515/07). It would thus be illegitimate to understand these terms in the manner that “there” or “Certainty” merely meant grant, even if some parts of the presentations rather apply only to grant. Any bias in this direction does not come as a surprise to the Berlin staff committee, however, since more and more patents are granted directly without any objections, or directly after the applicants answer to any objections, and the percentage of refusals has thus become marginal in most of the technical domains, compared to direct grants.

A grant cannot legitimately be decided by a responsible Examining Division before the patent application and the invention meet all the requirements of the EPC (Article 97(1) EPC), and knowingly skipping any requirement thus amounts to not discharging the responsibilities vested in the Examining Division (e.g. the Catchword and points 2.5 to 2.8 of T0075/09, or point 3 of T1849/12). For a legitimate refusal, on the other hand, a failure of the applicant to comply with a single requirement is sufficient (e.g. Headnote of T0005/81) unless the EPC provides for a different legal consequence (Article 97(2) EPC), i.e. inter alia unless procedural violations are to be overcome (e.g. point 2 of T2411/10), e.g. meeting the principles of party disposition or of the right to be heard (Article 113 EPC, e.g. point 8 of T1969/07). In effect, examination procedures up to grant of a patent in the mean drastically differ from examination procedures up to refusal.

Clearly, not discharging the responsibilities of the Examining Division is often much more “efficient” and “timely” than trying to get from the applicant’s representative a grantable request which meets all the requirements, and this without any procedural violation. And not spending any time and effort for a point, or for the paid search and examination fees, would drastically reduce the beloved “unit costs” and the Office’s liabilities (e.g. point 7 of T1515/07). It was therefore very fortunate that Examining Divisions at least were legitimately able to successfully propose minor amendments to the text in a proposal for grant (in the “Druckexemplar”) in order to overcome minor objections and thereby discharge the responsibilities of the Examining Divisions in a somewhat more efficient manner (e.g. point 14 of T0121/06).

Whereas the staff representation thus certainly supports all legitimate measures to keep and improve the timeliness of the EPO’s services, this end cannot justify illegitimate decisions, i.e. illegitimate grants or refusals, since a lack of discharge of the Examining Divisions’ responsibilities cannot ensure the functioning of the Office in the sense of Article 10 EPC. The Berlin staff representation should thus take position with regard to the misunderstanding as follows:

(a) Article 84 EPC comprises an enumeration of requirements which should be met by the text of the claims proposed for a grant, since these claims define the subject matter for which protection is sought. The wording of Article 84 EPC (“shall”) does not involve any discretionary powers of the Examining Divisions to skip any identified objections (e.g. the Catchword and points 2.5 to 2.8 of T0075/09). Valid objections thus simply need to be overcome by amendments, as submitted or agreed by the applicants, in order to meet the principle of party disposition enshrined in Article 113(2) EPC (e.g. point 14 of T0121/06). A level of “sufficient quality” as promoted for a grant is thus not commensurate with the EPC, since merely ignoring identified objections, thereby not even informing the applicants about them at all, simply amounts to a violation of the principle of party disposition, and it is harmful for third parties, the public as well as the patent system as a whole when examining divisions fail to fully discharge their responsibilities.

(b) Article 84 and Article 97 EPC make no difference between major and minor clarity objections, and they do not define essential or inessential clarity objections which must or must not be communicated to the applicants and considered for the decision to grant or to refuse. The EPC rather is built on the assumption of due administration which does not encompass arbitrary decisions, or decisions tainted by partiality of the (members of) Examining Divisions, and deviations from due administration thus amount to a violation of the EPC.

(c) The claims shall define the subject-matter for which protection is sought, not the descriptions nor the figures. They additionally (“and”) shall support the clear claims. Article 69 EPC, together with the Protocol on its Interpretation, is not applicable to the assessment of the text of the claims proposed for a grant (e.g. point 3.3 T2613/11) and inappropriately assessing the clarity of the claims by invoking the description for the claims’ interpretation, instead impinges upon third parties’ rights to oppose illegitimately granted patents, since lack of clarity of the claims is no ground for opposition (Article 100 EPC, “only”) nor can it be employed for revocation in national proceedings (Article 138(1) EPC, “only”). Other grounds for opposition or revocation are indeed not always suitable to make good for any negligence on the part of the Examining Division in glossing over an instance of lack of clarity, and the public is thus merely left with ill-defined claims under these circumstances. If an applicant does not submit or at least agree to amendments overcoming the identified lack of clarity, the responsible Examining Division cannot legitimately grant a patent.

(d) The procedure up to grant is essentially defined in Part IV of the EPC as complemented by the common provisions governing procedure (Part VII EPC). As regards examination by the Examining Divisions, the procedure before the examining division shows all essential elements of a quasi-judicial administrative procedure leading to collective decision making within the Examining Divisions. It is furthermore based on the legal principles of party disposition, of parties’ right to be heard, and of reasoned administrative decisions. The Examining Divisions have been vested by the Contracting States with discretionary powers pursuant to Articles 94(3) and 116(1) EPC in certain cases or situations only, namely to object in writing “as often as necessary” and hold oral proceedings when “expedient”. These discretionary powers should be duly applied by the responsible Examining Divisions when deciding on the course of the procedure. Informal contacts between certain representatives and individual officers, whether members of the responsible Examining Division or not, are not foreseen at all in the EPC, can easily raise issues of suspicion of partiality or lack of independence in the sense of Article 14 ServReg, and suspicion of breach of the principle of collective decision making (e.g. point 2 of T1251/08). The suggested co-operative and interactive processes merely involving the entrusted examiner instead of the responsible Examining Division thus merely enhance the risk of illegitimate grants but hinder and postpone legitimate refusal decisions (e.g. point 3 of T1101/05, or points 3 and 4). It is observed in passing that the Office’s administration has tried more than once to convince the Contracting States of examination procedures involving merely one examiner (most recently in connection with automatic communications and reimbursement of examination fees, see inter alias points 84 and 85 of the minutes of the 42nd meeting of the PLC, CA/PL 13/12). The attempts were refused by the representatives of the Contracting States.

(e) In the proceedings before them, the Examining Divisions shall examine the facts of their own motion, cf. Article 114(1) EPC, and the members shall thereby come collectively to the Examining Divisions’ decision pursuant to Article 97 EPC. Pursuant to Article 97(1) EPC, the Examining Division thus shall be “of the opinion” that all requirements are met before a legitimate grant can collectively be decided. The Examining Divisions’ collective opinion is thus crucial in accordance with the principle of free evaluation of evidence and the measure of proof according to the balance of probabilities. The Contracting States did not vest in the Examining Divisions any discretionary power to disregard any deficiency or to apply a benefit of the doubt (e.g. point 3 of T0622/02, page 11 of T0869/06 or T0075/09, T1849/12), while the legal concepts of the distribution of the burden of proof and the benefit of the doubt rather apply in inter partes procedures.

(f) The other members of the responsible Examining Divisions thus have a duty to contribute to the collective decision making within the Examining Divisions, if necessary by taking votes, and they cannot legitimately follow the entrusted examiners’ proposals to grant when they have identified any requirement that has not been met, and thus come to a different opinion. Rather, it is their duty to determine the Examining Divisions’ collective opinions and correspondingly follow the legitimate procedure.

(g) The Examining Divisions’ appointed members shall collectively decide for the Examining Divisions (Article 97 EPC), and the authentications of all appointed members thus confirm the approval of the collective decisions (Rule 113 EPC). Merely signing without approving the collective decision thus amounts to a procedural violation since the collective decision has not been taken at all if the other members have not duly made an assessment of their own (e.g. points 1 and 2 of T1538/05 or point 1 of T2076/11). Each member is thus individually responsible that her/his own authentication legitimately approves the Examining Divisions’ collective views. Any Guidelines, PPNs, Internal Instructions and other individual instructions can only be understood in accordance with the Contracting States contractual will as enshrined in the EPC. The Berlin staff committee is thus convinced that legitimate timeliness requires fewer administrative interferences with the responsible Examining Divisions, balanced and unbiased examination procedures which are appropriate for both final results, i.e. refusal as well as grant, fewer informal procedural steps which furthermore should be left at the discretion of the responsible examining divisions, and more collective decision making skills which are essential for the legitimate functioning of the EPO.

The Local Staff Committee Berlin, 23 July 2016

Techrights has some more EPO material in store and will resume more frequent updates later this summer or in autumn.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. We Don't Know Who Will Run the Free Software Foundation, But We Know Who Will Run the GNU Project

    Software Freedom is under a heavy and perhaps unprecedented attack; some people out there are paid by the attackers to celebrate this attack and defame people (cheering for corporate takeover under the blanket of “Open Source”), but the founder of the Free software movement remains alive, well, and very much active



  2. New EPO Meme: Who Wants to Make Billions From a 'Public' Monopoly?

    What was supposed to be a cash-balanced patent office became a money-making monster that fakes ‘crises’ to attack hard-working examiners



  3. EmacsConf Without Richard Stallman

    Now that emacs is being 'rebranded' this kind of meme seems apt



  4. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, October 17, 2019

    IRC logs for Thursday, October 17, 2019



  5. Guest Article: In the Absence of Richard Stallman OEM Source Software ('Open Source') is Trying to Hijack Even Emacs

    "Now they have to create some fictional history. No need to worry."



  6. Guest Article: Techies Should Not Dictate the Free Software Movement

    "We should start a second phase of the Free software movement that's making good software and putting users at the center."



  7. Links 17/10/2019: Ubuntu Turns 15, New Codename Revealed, Ubuntu 19.10 is Out

    Links for the day



  8. Free as in Free Speech (Restrictions May Apply)

    When limits of speech are not safety-related rules but political correctness or conformism



  9. There Won't be Patent Justice Until Patent Trolling Becomes Completely and Totally Extinct

    SLAPP-like behaviour and extortion/blackmail tactics using patent monopolies are a stain on the patent system; it's time to adopt measures to stop these things once and for all, bearing in mind they're inherently antithetical to the goal/s of the patent system and therefore discourage public support for this whole system



  10. EPO Staff Union and Staff Representatives Ought to Demand EPO Stops Bullying Publishers and Censoring Their Sites

    An often neglected if not forgotten aspect of EPO tyranny is the war on information itself; EPO management continues to show hostility towards journalism and disdain for true information



  11. Bribes, Lies, Fundamental Violations of the Law and Cover-Up: This is Today's European Patent Office

    It has gotten extremely difficult to hold the conspirators accountable for turning Europe’s patent office into a ‘printing machine’ of the litigation industry and amassing vast amounts of money (to be passed to private, for-profit companies)



  12. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) Lost Almost Half (3 Out of 8) Board Members in Only One Month

    As the old saying goes, a picture (or screenshot) is worth a thousand words



  13. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, October 16, 2019

    IRC logs for Wednesday, October 16, 2019



  14. Startpage and System1 Abuse Your Privacy Under the Guise of 'Privacy One Group'

    Startpage has sold out and may have also sold data it retained about its users to a privacy-hostile company whose entire business model is surveillance



  15. Links 16/10/2019: Halo Privacy, Ubuntu Release Imminent

    Links for the day



  16. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 15, 2019

    IRC logs for Tuesday, October 15, 2019



  17. No, Microsoft is Not an 'Open Source Company' But a Lying Company

    The world’s biggest proprietary software companies want to be seen as “open”; what else is new?



  18. Meme: Setting the Record Straight

    Stallman never defended Epstein. He had called him “Serial Rapist”. It’s Bill Gates who defended Epstein and possibly participated in the same acts.



  19. EPO Staff Resolution Against Neoliberal Policies of António Campinos

    “After Campinos announced 17 financial measures,” a source told us, “staff gathered at multiple sites last week for general assemblies. The meeting halls were crowded. The resolution was passed unanimously and without abstentions.”



  20. Satya Nadella is a Distraction From Microsoft's Real Leadership and Abuses

    "I’m merely wondering if his image and accolades that we’re incessantly bombarded with by the press actually reflect his accomplishments or if they’re being aggrandized."



  21. Raw: EPO Comes Under Fire for Lowering Patent Quality Under the Orwellian Guise of “Collaborative Quality Improvements” (CQI)

    Stephen Rowan, the President’s (António Campinos) chosen VP who promotes the notorious “Collaborative Quality Improvements” (CQI) initiative/pilot, faces heat from the CSC, the Central Staff Committee of the EPO



  22. Making The Most of The Fourth Age of Free Software

    "For better or for worse, we can be certain the Free Software Foundation will never be the same."



  23. FSF is Not for Free Speech Anymore

    The FSF gave orders to silence people



  24. Links 16/10/2019: Plasma 5.17.0, Project Trident Moves to GNU/Linux, NuTyX 11.2

    Links for the day



  25. ...So This GNU/Linux User Goes to a Pub With Swapnil and Jim

    It's hard to promote GNU/Linux when you don't even use it



  26. How to THRIVE, in Uncertain Times for Free Software

    "The guidelines are barely about conduct anyway, they are more about process guidelines for "what to do with your autonomy" in the context of a larger group where participation is completely voluntary and each individual consents to participate."



  27. When They Run Out of Things to Patent They'll Patent Nature Itself...

    The absolutely ridiculous patent bar (ridiculously low) at today’s EPO means that legal certainty associated with European Patents is at an all-time low; patents get granted for the sake of granting more patents each year



  28. EPO Boards of Appeal Need Courage and Structural Disruption to Halt Software Patents in Europe

    Forces or lobbyists for software patents try to come up with tricks and lies by which to cheat the EPC and enshrine illegal software patents; sadly, moreover, EPO judges lack the necessary independence by which to shape caselaw against such practices



  29. Professor Dr. Maximilian Haedicke on Lack of Separation of Powers at the EPO (Which Dooms UPC)

    Team UPC (“empire of lies”) is catching up with reality; no matter how hard media has attempted to not cover EPO scandals (after the EPO paid and threatened many publishers that tried), it remains very much apparent that EPOnia is like a theocracy that cannot be trusted with anything



  30. As Expected, the Bill Gates Propaganda Machine is Trying to Throw/Put Everyone off the Scent of Jeffery Epstein's 'Incestuous' Ties With Gates

    Media ownership up on display; it's amplifying false claims for a whole month, whereas truth/correct information gets buried before a weekend is over


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts