Bonum Certa Men Certa

Leaked: Letter to Quality Support (DQS) at the European Patent Office (EPO)

One has to wonder how many more letters like this are being suppressed (never seen by the outside world) and how widespread these problems really are

Letters



Summary: Example of abysmal service at the EPO, where high staff turnover and unreasonable pressure from above may be leading to communication issues that harm stakeholders the most

THE FOLLOWING IS AN anonymised letter to senior EPO staff, bemoaning what was a horrible (and possibly not exceptional) service from the EPO, which caused enormous financial loss and the loss of many years (stuck in a limbo).



⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆ ⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆ Director, Directorate 2.5.2 Quality Support (DQS) Principal Directorate Quality Management I DG2 European Patent Office 80298 Munich Germany

Application No: ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆

Dear Mr. ⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆,

Re Letter of ⬆⬆ & ⬆⬆ ⬆⬆⬆

Under rule 71 (2): -

‘Any communication under Article 94, paragraph 3, shall contain a reasoned statement covering, where appropriate, all the grounds against the grant of the European patent.’

At the first oral hearing the EPO stated that Claim 1 as set out in document ⬆⬆ met the EPC criteria for grant. It was recognised that dependent claims along with possible additional IP that could be added. The directions of the chairman were that these small outstanding matters were to be addressed by email. This resulted in submission of ⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆. This provided 4 areas for discussion and detailed mark-up of the changes. There was no separate response to this communication. The response that was given was added by way of an addendum to the intention to grant Rule 71 (3) of ⬆⬆⬆⬆.

In contravention of Rule 71 (2) the response did not include a reasoned response on all grounds. There was no way of telling which mark-up was acceptable and which wasn’t. Had a full response been provided I would have known those part that may have been acceptable or not could have been addressed or incorporated into any further revision. In fact this failure to provide a full response is confirmed by the fact that no sooner than the initial objections were met than further grounds of objection by the EPO were added (see EPO’s later correspondence). The last such revision of objection being set out in the examining divisions letter of ⬆⬆⬆. Not only have I been subject to a grossly incomplete first response but further objections have been drip fed over months greatly adding to delay. The last of these objections I haven’t even been given an opportunity to contest because the examining division has refused the application in its entirety; not withstanding that the EPO has stated that a patent could be granted. It would appear that if you challenge the EPO you simply lose the IP that is rightly yours. Why was Rule 71 (2) not followed and why am I not given the opportunity to respond and possibly correct objections before my application is refused?

In your letter you state: “A grant can only be given on the basis of text approved by the applicant.” This would suggest that Rule 71 (3) (the intention to grant) is only instigated when agreement has been reached. I am left confused by the approach of the EPO on this front. The first letter of intent to grant was made under Rule 71 (3) on ⬆⬆⬆. This was later withdrawn. The exact same approach was then adopted on ⬆⬆⬆⬆. In your letter of ⬆⬆⬆ you state that the text was not approved by me. The text in both instances was the same. As the text was not approved I do not understand why the EPO moved to issuing a letter of intention to grant. What had changed between the withdrawal of the intention to grant of ⬆⬆ and later resubmission of the same words in ⬆⬆? As detailed in the previous paragraph it is clear from the changing grounds of the EPO that discussions with the EPO were ongoing as at ⬆⬆⬆. Why are applications refused when discussions are ongoing? Does the applicant have no right of reply? Why was the intention to grant issued when clearly agreement had not been reached? The evidence suggests that this approach has simply been used as a procedural move to refuse the application and curtail criticism.

From paragraph 7 of your letter of ⬆⬆⬆ it would appear that under Rule 71 (3) applicants are allowed to contest wording but if they do so they run the risk of a complete refusal of your application! The right to contest looks more like Russian Roulette. It would appear that the applicant is being restricted from contesting his case. At the point applicants are offered the prospect of contesting wording, the consequences of doing so should be set out in BOLD print. This they are not. In fact the insight in your letter is the first I have heard of this position and it came precisely at the same moment that this action was taken. You have previously provided a full set of references to substantiate the legal basis for the actions of the EPO but alas there are none here. Please could you supply me with the legal basis for this and references as you have done previously. I think it is critical that all applicants should understand when they are genuinely allowed to contest points and clearly when they are not.

In your letter of ⬆⬆⬆⬆ paragraph ⬆⬆⬆ you have still failed to address the contradiction that the EPO is claiming inventive step and no inventive step on identical wording. You claim that my suggestion that the division contradicts itself may simply be due to a misinterpretation of the communication of the division (para 11). Please could you tell me what this misinterpretation is because I haven’t clue and you haven’t stated what it is? In para ⬆⬆ you state that ⬆⬆⬆ has been deemed inventive with regard to the document ⬆⬆. This issue concerning contradiction can readily be resolved if you or your examining division simply tell me what this inventive step is. Currently the examiner is complaining about the metal pipes of the heat exchanged as not being inventive, yet the wording concerning the metal pipes is the same in all documents ⬆⬆, ⬆⬆ and ⬆⬆. You have asserted that ⬆⬆ shows inventive step over ⬆⬆⬆, please can you tell me what it is? I bet this cannot answered honestly without agreeing with my assertion about contradiction is correct. Why is the inventive step not documented in the minutes of the oral hearings?

In para ⬆⬆ of your letter ⬆⬆⬆ you claim that; “the EPO has taken all possible steps to support your constituent (me)”. I ask you then: -

1. Why did the EPO not suggest I seek, or they themselves seek, an adjournment to the oral proceedings when they knew I could not attend due to being on my honeymoon? 2. Why did the EPO not tell me that I may lose my patent all together if I contested the EPO’s wording or lack of dependent claims? 3. Why has the EPO steadfastly refused to address the issue that the EPO contradicts itself? 4. Is the median turn around for applications greater than 6.5 years? 5. Is it normal to simply refuse an application on which the EPO asserts a patent can be granted without first consulting the applicant? 6. Why has the examining division not followed the order of priority for reviewing claims as set out in correspondence? This would have prevented the refusal letter from being submitted. 7. How are my interests served by being forced into an appeals process that will costs a minimum of 1,860 euros for the appeal, probable a further circa 3,500 euros on renewal fees and a further wait of 3 years when it is accepted by invention is patentable!?

In paras ⬆⬆⬆, ⬆⬆⬆ and ⬆⬆⬆ you suggest that I should employ the services of a competent professional. Setting aside the inference that I am not competent and setting aside all possible steps of support that the EPO has given me I have to ask what happens when the lack of competence lies with the EPO?

In the letter of refusal of ⬆⬆⬆ the examiners claim there is no ⬆⬆⬆ document on file. Is there little wonder then that I, and probably many others too, lose all faith in the EPO as an organisation when one realises that not only does the document exist on file but it has historically been replied to. This statement that the document does not exist on file has been signed by three of your examiners! What legal options for redress are there available to applicants who find their applications so evidently mistreated? What actions will you be taking to ensure this does not happen again?

In accordance with the spirit of Rule 71 (2) please could I have a full response to all points raised in this letter. May I suggest a response by email will significantly save time.

Regards

⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆ ⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆


Have you encountered similarly bad service? If so, please get in touch with us.

Recent Techrights' Posts

European Authorities, Already Bribed and Infiltrated by Microsoft, Won't Help You Find BigBlueButton, Jami, Ring, and Jitsi
Because they're paid by Microsoft and are Microsoft 'addicts' themselves
Moving From Content Management Systems (CMSs) to Static Site Generators (SSGs) Saves You Time, Makes You a Lot More Productive
try to reduce the cost (financial and computational) of running your site
Leak: European Patent Office (EPO) is Now Attacking Amicale Clubs
corruption has become the norm and scientists are robbed of any dignity
Oracle Fraud (or Defrauding Shareholders)
"the obvious [lie] is that watts are (wasted) electricity [and] and FLOPS are computing capacity"
Explaining (in Length and Depth) the Damage Matthew Garrett Did to Linux and to GNU/Linux Users
no matter how many threats we receive
 
The Register MS Still Takes Money to Hype Up "AI" in Articles by Microsoft Resellers With the Term "AI" 30+ Times in Them
Notice how many times they mention "AI"
The Apache Logo News is VERY Old, Racists and 'Anti-Woke' Bigots Look for Something to Incite Other Bigots With
Nothing to see here, move along
Linux Mint 9/11: "4th One Today..." (in Reddit)
Remember that not everyone having an issue reports it to social control media like Reddit
Nepal Will Fall Without a Single Shot Fired, Thanks to Social Control Media
Or very few shots (by the authorities)
European Corruption in the European Patent Office (EPO) Targets Culture
"In reality, the project includes a new “legal instrument” shifting administrative burden and liability on EPO staff while creating new uncertainty and externalising Amicale activities."
UEFI Secure Boot Failing, as Expected for Nearly 15 Years Already (Techrights Said This Since 2012)
in the media
Debian 9/11
people report this issue
Gemini and Web Links 13/09/2025: MElon's Slop Grift and "Autonomous Trains"
Links for the day
Pursuing Peace Through Violence
You cannot "see" a person's mind, until the mouth opens
Can We Please Stop Celebrating Shooters?
"An important point to hammer on is that CoCs were never intended for uniform or symmetric application"
Geminispace is Growing Faster in 2025 Than It Did in 2024
What matters is that corporations haven't ruined it and LLM slop is extremely rare
Links 13/09/2025: China Punishes for 'Negative' Posts, US Police Unable to Find Shooter
Links for the day
Who's the Mystery Financier of SLAPP Against Techrights and Is That a Millionaire/Billionaire?
Whose idea was it to fund meritless lawsuits against my wife and I?
Slopwatch: Slow Slop Day
This distracts from or may take traffic away from the original articles, actually written by actual people
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, September 12, 2025
IRC logs for Friday, September 12, 2025
CoC Gone Wrong: Celebrating Murder OK, Complaining About the Celebration Gets You Banned
Hopefully the NixOS Foundation will have a word with (maybe replace) the moderator/s
Gemini Links 12/09/2025: Familiarity and Secondary Dominants
Links for the day
Links 12/09/2025: "Bad Reviews" as Extortion Weapon, "Free Speech At Risk in America’s Schools" According to ACLU
Links for the day
Only One Speaker Does Not Do Sharecropping for MElon (in X.com)
The man who puts principles before PR/optics
The Mind of the 'Hulk Hogan of UEFI'
in a nutshell
A Day After "UEFI 9/11": UEFI Secure Boot Bypass
In the news today (right now), as published in the past few hours
Links 12/09/2025: Slop Code as Liability, Microsoft Outlook Down for Many
Links for the day
It's Still Not to Late to Turn Off "Secure Boot"
If people reboot their PC or server today, and it relies on "Secure Boot" on Sept. 12 or later, then depending on the firmware there may be trouble ahead
Links 12/09/2025: Shira Perlmutter is Back, “Software Per Se” Patent Rejections in In re McFadden
Links for the day
Slopwatch: Linux Plagiarism, Slopfarms Still Infesting Google News, Many Images Are Fake
Google is promoting plagiarism
"This Morning Might Turn Out to be an Interesting One for System Admins Who Haven't Updated Their Devices' Secure Boot Certificate" (If They Reboot)
Who asked for this anyway?
Gemini Links 12/09/2025: Metric System, Dumping Windows, and Software Architecture is Dead
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, September 11, 2025
IRC logs for Thursday, September 11, 2025
Microsoft Admits the Workers Have Lost Trust (Endless Layoffs, 12-13 Rounds of Layoffs This Year), So Now It's Trotting out Its Peter Bright-Like Media Prop Jordan Novet
What they don't want people to pay attention to right now
Links 11/09/2025: Windows TCO and Russian Drones Invading Poland (EU/NATO)
Links for the day
Gemini Links 11/09/2025: xkcd, misfin, and Alhena 5.3.2
Links for the day
Repetition of Last Summer (Microsoft Breaking Dual-Boot Systems)
UEFI 9/11 is about to kick in
UEFI 'Secure Boot' Boiling Frogs (Cannot Turn Off 'Secure Boot')
"MSI laptop is locked on Secure Boot and doesn't allow me to turn it off"
UEFI 9/11 Aftermath - Part IV: The 'Hulk Hogan of UEFI' and His 'Hideout' Holiday (Retreat From Reality)
Let's keep an eye on what matters
UEFI 9/11 Aftermath - Part III: Mr. 'Secure Boot' (Shim) and His Fake 'Holiday' (Sending My Wife and I Threatening E-mails on 9/11)
despite being on holiday, according to him, he finds time to instruct lawyers to contact my wife
UEFI 9/11 Aftermath - Part II: "The SecureBoot Thing Got Out of Hand."
The next few weeks might be... interesting
UEFI 9/11 Aftermath - Part I: "I Believe This Affects Thousands of Devices... Because Multiple Devices I Checked, Whether Client or Server [...] Affected."
Most people aren't even aware that this is happening or about to happen
The UEFI 9/11 - Part X - An Outline of the Series About Microsoft Sabotaging GNU/Linux (With Ramifications to Unfold Online in Coming Weeks as People Reboot)
Today is UEFI 9/11 (9/11/2025)
Ron Wyden: Microsoft Should be Held Accountable for Security Breaches (He Has Said This for Years Already, It Never Happens)
Negative media coverage isn't a fine and it does nothing to compensate Microsoft's billions of victims
Culture of silence: Ubisoft harassment convictions, Mozilla, Sylvestre Ledru & Debian make no comment
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Disable 'Secure Boot' (If It Lets You)
it doesn't put you in control
Links 11/09/2025: "Hey Hi" Ponzi Schemes at Oracle (Unpaid Contracts) and Cindy Cohn is Leaving the EFF
Links for the day
Longtime Red Hat Staff: Maybe Just Disable 'Secure Boot'
A refreshing take from Adam Williamson
Gemini Links 11/09/2025: Playdate Console, Dichotomy between the Real and the Digital
Links for the day
A Dozen Observations About "UEFI 9/11" Deflections
What we are expected to see, tentatively
The Microsoft AstroTurfing and Microsoft-Led Blame-Shifting Tactics Are Ahead of Us
Of course it has nothing to do with security, it's about control, i.e. them controlling everything
Celebrating Assassination is Bad Because It Legitimises Assassination of the People You Like, Too
Condoning or even celebrating political assassinations is bad optics (and taste)
The World's Richest Ponzi Scheme (Faking Value Using Net Waste)
The higher they go the harder they fall
We Could Dual-Boot Back in the 1990s, Why Has This Become So Difficult?
And prone to breakage
Being Conditioned to Accept Unreliable Computer Systems That Fail With Black Screen of Death (BSoD)
Welcome to 2025
Slopwatch: Google News is Still Promoting Many Fake Articles About "Linux", in Effect Rewarding Misinformation and Plagiarism
things continue to deteriorate
New Series: The Coup Against GNU/Linux Has Begun
today, this year in particular, we shall also focus on Secure Boot, which is sold based on a lie and tortures many computer user
New Paper on "BYOVD, but in firmware. Signed UEFI shells, vulnerable modules offer new paths for Secure Boot bypasses."
One might say digital "security theatre"
Links 11/09/2025: Oracle Layoffs, Drunk Pilots in Japan Airlines, US-Korea Tensions Grow
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, September 10, 2025
IRC logs for Wednesday, September 10, 2025