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

Certificate Authority Let's Encrypt Has Almost Gone Down to Zero, Nearly Totally Extinct in Geminispace, the Few Capsules Still Using It Are Spam/Dead/Stagnant
This represents another decrease for Let's Encrypt; the last decrease was last week
Trying to Silence Techrights Was a Huge Mistake
Peter Thiel attacked a publisher for asserting, correctly, that he was gay. Now everyone knows it.
 
Gemini Links 07/09/2025: Scanner, Slop, and Chadobear
Links for the day
The UEFI 9/11 is 3 Days Away
Nobody denies that bad things will happen
Google Versus Journalism
Google played a big role in the demise of news sites
Gemini Links 07/09/2025: Advertising, Decentralized Archival, and Outsourcing to Bezos
Links for the day
Not Much Left in News Cycles
To be very clear, this does not describe "Linux" anything; it's true in just about every facet of news, except the paid-for fake "journalism" about "hey hi" (sites getting paid explicitly to maintain or rekindle hype)
Throwing Away "Old" Computers (Mozilla and Other Climate Deniers)
Mozilla is not leftist
The UEFI 9/11 - Part VIII - Denial of Service and Selling Us WSL (Windows) Instead of "Risky" (Prone by Breakage by Microsoft) GNU/Linux
Restricted Boot (so-called 'SecureBoot') does not improve security. It is nothing but trouble. It's meant to trouble non-Windows users. In dual-boot setups, SecureBoot is a recipe for disaster because Microsoft keeps erasing or tampering with the boot sector, to paraphrase an associate
Slop is Extremely Rare in Geminispace, Slop Images Are Unheard Of (Despite Images Being Supported)
As long as Geminispace grows in terms of domains it's safe to predict the protocol will still be used in 2029 and hence Geminispace will turn 10
Links 07/09/2025: Robodebt Class Action, Fines, and Copyright Settlement
Links for the day
Links 07/09/2025: Yle Impersonated in Social Control Media, Boat-Attacking Orcas, Midjourney Sued Again
Links for the day
Slopwatch: LinuxSecurity, Linux Journal, and the Serial Slopper
Google won't tackle the issue because Google participates not only in relaying slop but also in generating lots of it
Links 07/09/2025: Google Fines in EU and "Your Internet Access Is at Risk"
Links for the day
Gemini Links 07/09/2025: Little Brother and Corporate Theatre
Links for the day
Links 07/09/2025: More Harms of Slop and Anthropic's Nightmare Scenario (Huge Legal Liabilities for Slop)
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, September 06, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, September 06, 2025
Microsoft Sites Now Talking About September's Mass Layoffs at Microsoft
It's noteworthy that even Microsoft's MSN now covers the latest revelations about mass layoffs
Gemini Links 06/09/2025: SpellBinding Moving and "The Cloud" Ridiculed
Links for the day
Slopwatch: On "the Apology Industry", Chatbots (Punchbag for Customers), and Fake Articles About "Linux"
"news reporting priorities changed"
Links 06/09/2025: "Covid Incidence on the Rise" and Many Attacks on the Press Worldwide
Links for the day
The Register Bill
The Register MS - putting the "MS" in your centre of the universe
Analogies for "Memory Safety" in Rust
Don't worry, it's Rust! It can do anything!
Nobody Denies That SecureBoot Will Cause Problems After September 11
Not even Microsoft
Gemini Links 06/09/2025: Infinite Scrolling and Posting from Emacs
Links for the day
Links 06/09/2025: GitHub Meltdown Over Slop, "U.S. Jury Says Google Should Pay $425 Million in Privacy Lawsuit"
Links for the day
Despite Its Severe Financial Problems Gnome Foundation Inc Paid Rosanna Yuen Over 100,000 Dollars Last Year
maybe relocation should be considered
The "Left" and the Right"
It poisons everything
Mozilla and Rust Are Not Leftists
they're part of the mass consumerism machine
Disposable to Microsoft
There is an extensive set of people who got used by Microsoft, only to be thrown away a month later or a year later or a decade later
The UEFI 9/11 - Part VII - This Coming Week Many PCs Will Refuse to Boot "Linux" (Because of Microsoft's Expired Certificate)
The real solution is, disable "secure boot" or "SecureBoot" while it's still possible. [...] Just like submarine patents, a lot of this problem was "hibernating" for a while
The Thing Nobody in Red Hat Wants to Talk About Openly
There is a real sentiment or worry among Red Hatters, Europeans and Americans in particulars (because of higher salary expectations)
Slopwatch: Small Parade of Fake News About "Linux" and Scams Borrowing the Name (or Word) "Linux"
In practice, LLMs are a risk
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, September 05, 2025
IRC logs for Friday, September 05, 2025
Genini Links 05/09/2025: Community, ROOPHLOCH, and PITkit
Links for the day
Links 05/09/2025: Vaccine Sceptics Poison the Well, Two Exploited Vulnerabilities Patched in Android
Links for the day
Gemini Links 05/09/2025: Logitech Lift and DIY Gemini Servers
Links for the day
Links 05/09/2025: Sainsbury's Caught Spying on In-Store Shoppers and Microsoft "OpenAI is Using Legal Threats to Harass its Critics"
Links for the day
BASIC Predates Microsoft by Over a Decade, Microsoft-Controlled Sites Like The Register MS Don't Want You to Know This
The state of the media is really bad when it relies a lot on oligarchs' money and is appointing editors who are working for oligarchs
Brian Kernighan, "Only Third to Dennis Richie and Ken Thompson" (UNIX), Agreed With Someone Who Said Rust Was Just Hype, Should Not Replace C
17 hours ago
Reminder: Microsoft's "Secure Boot" Certificate for "Linux" Will be Expired in One Week
Many PCs won't manage to 'rotate' to another certificate
"Many of the Red Hat Employees Are Still Looking for Work"
Shame on IBM's CEO
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, September 04, 2025
IRC logs for Thursday, September 04, 2025
Microsoft Started With Code Literally From The Trash, Nothing Has Improved Since
The reality is, there are systems and code that are reliable. But they're not Microsoft's.
Hypothesis That New McKinsey/Microsoft Executive Inside Red Hat Will Outsource Research and Development Operations to India (Like They Do in IBM)
IBM is floundering
Slopwatch: Scams, Fake Articles About "Linux", Plagiarism, and Worse
Perhaps some time soon the LLMs or the "Big LLMs" will run out of money (to borrow) and go offline, leaving those slopfarms in a tough place