12.23.17

Patent Quality Nosedives at EPO, Say Insiders Whose Permanent Contract is About to be Terminated in 8 Days to Increase Pressure to Grant Patents Sparingly

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Performance-based means number of grants or “products” as Battistelli calls them

Riding rodent

Summary: Hastened/lenient granting (e.g. PPH) and growing ‘production’ demands give greater/broader grounds for dismissal and worker pressure through fear, assuring that the EPO becomes a low-quality ‘production/assembly line’ of patents rather than a patent office (examination)

The EPO-FLIER team’s latest issue, which is now 12 days old, speaks about patent quality. It repeats a lot of arguments heard before; it has citations, too. This was published just before the meeting of the Administrative Council.

“One last message before Christmas: we’re going to grant patents even faster!”The issue has become ever more relevant in light of yesterday’s “news” from the EPO’s Web site (warning: epo.org link). One last message before Christmas: we’re going to grant patents even faster! So EPO management is, in effect, throwing to the sharks what’s left of patent quality — the very thing the EPO long took pride in. The EPO will process applications for speed, not accuracy. Terrible. It’s not just PPH but also PACE, Early Certainty etc. The writings are on the wall. Here’s what the EPO wrote yesterday: “With effect from 6 January 2018, the EPO will be extending its PPH pilot programmes with four partners around the globe, namely Canada, Israel, Mexico and Singapore, thus enabling innovators from Europe and these countries to continue obtaining patents more quickly and efficiently.”

“The reality of the matter is, Battistelli crushed the appeals and opposition process. He just wants patents to be granted quickly with minimal scrutiny, i.e. quality control.”Seriously? The words “quickly and efficiently” miss the point; what applicants want is legal certainty irrespective of speed and “efficiency” — whatever this ludicrous concept even means in the context of patents (it’s ‘production line’ terminology, just like “pay grade” or “return on investment”).

The reality of the matter is, Battistelli crushed the appeals and opposition process. He just wants patents to be granted quickly with minimal scrutiny, i.e. quality control. He wants the EPO to become INPI (France) or SIPO (China).

An article by Matthew Fletcher (Abel & Imray) was published yesterday regarding the EPO Enlarged Board’s decision G1/16. It’s increasingly hard to believe that the EPO Enlarged Board will survive long as Battistelli attacks both the Boards and the EPC (he routinely violates the EPC, not just in spirit). Fletcher wrote:

The inclusion of a disclaimer, where subject matter is carved out from the scope of a patent claim by means of a negative feature is not explicitly allowed for in the European Patent Convention (EPC). In most circumstances, the subject matter of amendments to European patent applications must be derivable from the application as filed. However, Enlarged Board decision G1/03 and G2/10 allowed disclaimers in some circumstances. G1/16 confirms that the criteria for the allowability of an undisclosed disclaimer set out in G1/03 remain applicable and it is not also necessary for the subject matter of the disclaimer to be derivable from the application as filed.

These are structural constraints; not pertaining to technicality per se. The matter of fact is — and it’s crucial to remember this — the Boards are grossly understaffed and they’re unable to look at as many cases as they ought to. This is what Battistelli et al must have intended. They just keep the Boards around to maintain the “perception” of adherence to the EPC (without any real “perception” of independence). The whole thing is catastrophic as it lets patent quality slip without the Boards having the capacity (or courage) to publicly point this out. Nobody there wishes to be the ‘next Corcoran’, who now wastes an extraordinary amount of money — probably his and his wife’s personal savings — on legal fees in two countries with proceedings in a language foreign to him (Croatian and German). It’s classic legal bullying.

“They just keep the Boards around to maintain the “perception” of adherence to the EPC (without any real “perception” of independence).”Now is a good time to reproduce the EPO-FLIER team’s latest issue, which was posted at epostaff4rights.org (No. 33) as a PDF that’s not easy to convert to HTML (we are having to do this manually using a text editor). They too worry a great deal about patent quality and supposed speed, the attack on quality control (“opposition divisions”) etc.

The final straw for patent quality?

Proposed fixed-term contracts for examiners

In its October meeting, some delegations to the Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) heavily criticised proposal CA/103/17 for a “modernisation of the employment framework” presented by the Office. It’s status was then reduced from for opinion to for information. The proposal would have allowed the Office to employ 100% of all new examiners on fixed-term contracts, starting from January 20181.

But the proposal is not off the table. During its last Board 28 meeting2, it was agreed that a final proposal would be tabled for the March 2018 Council meeting. The revised proposal as it stands sets down that up to 40% of examiners may be employed on five-year renewable contracts. But permanent employment is a mandatory requirement for the
independence of the examining divisions (Article 18 EPC), which have already suffered many “reforms” since 2013. We must therefore warn in the strongest terms against the implementation of any “reform” which would further deteriorate the working conditions, the working atmosphere, and the independence of the examining and opposition divisions.

Impact of past “reforms” on employees’ commitment to quality

Until few years ago, examiners and formalities officers were committed to delivering high quality services, including search reports and granted patents. This attitude has more and
more given way to feelings of despair and resignation3. For many, the priority has shifted towards satisfying their line manager’s production demands in order to protect themselves from being targeted as “low performers”.

Examiners are finding it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to comply with the still rising production demands whilst maintaining good quality. But the full adverse impact on
the quality of the EPO’s services of the past “reforms” – the new career system CA/D 10/14, the DG1/DG2 reorganisation CA/65/174 and the “reform” of the internal justice system CA/D 7/17 – is yet to materialise.

Following CA/D 7/17, fast track procedures5 are currently being implemented which will make it rather simple to dismiss employees for professional incompetence – starting on 1

_________
1 LAST NAIL IN THE COFFIN? (13.11.2017; su17019hp)
2 B28/10/17 (04.12.2017)
3 DG1: Rat race 2.0 – Part I – How did we get there? What will come next? (04.12.2017; su17022hp)
4 See EPO-FLIER No. 30 DG1-DG2 Reorganisation (www.epostaff4rights.org)
5 A new body called “Joint Committee on Article 52 and 53” is in charge of dealing with professional incompetence


January 2018. In April 2017 the Techrights blog reported 6 on rumours that the Office intended to dismiss a predefined number of examiners (at least 24 office-wide) in order to instill fear and drive examiners to accept and fulfil even higher production targets. PD-HR was requested to rebut the allegations swiftly, if indeed they were unfounded7. But there has apparently not been any reaction up to now.

Due to the excessive level of production forced out of examiners since the introduction of the new career system, examiners will soon run out of search files and will then be forced to generate their production primarily from examination8. It is likely that fear of dismissal for professional incompetence will drive examiners towards further lowering the quality bar for patent grants.

From 1 January 2018 on, opposition work will be increasingly done with a strong focus on “efficiency” and “timeliness”9. With less time given to deal with a case, members of opposition divisions are likely to examine the parties’ requests less thoroughly, with consequences for the legal certainty of their decisions. Users of the patent system should start seeing the effects in the second half of 2018. It will be interesting to see whether the parties to opposition proceedings consider poorly examined cases to constitute “efficiency”.

An independent 2016 patent survey10 found that less than half of the survey’s participants were happy with the quality of the European patent examination process. The situation has not improved since, rather the contrary11.

Potential impact of planned “reform”

In the current situation, hiring examiners on fixed-term contracts is likely to be the final straw, and the examiners’ commitment to provide quality will collapse completely. This will be a road of no return.

The European Public Service Union (EPSU) expressed the following criticism on the
original proposal:

“… introducing such a comprehensive reform just before the new Director Mr. Campinos takes office smells of bad administration, and frankly of cynicism. It makes the work of Mr. Campinos more difficult to have a proper social dialogue almost setting him up for failure.”12

We at the Flier Team fully agree with that statement.

_________
6 http://techrights.org/2017/04/21/wrong-patents-in-bulk/
7 Letter from SUEPO The Hague to Ms Bergot on Alleged HR dismissal policies for EPO examiners (17.05.2017)
8 Open letter from the CSC to the president (08.11.2017; sc17172cl)
9 Opposition & Central Formalities Directorates; VP1 announcement (06.12.2017) and slideshow (05. & 06.10.2017)
10 Conducted by the well-respected German legal magazine JUVE (https://suepo.org/public/ex17003cpe.pdf)
11 EPO – All Problems Solved? (http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/10/16/epo-all-problems-solved/)
12 Letter on Employment Framework at EPO (https://www.suepo.org/documents/44455/56843.pdf)

www.epostaff4rights.org

It’s worth noting that the EPO closed the year with the above statement about rushed examination. This is a hallmark of Battistelli’s regime. When we leaked details about PACE a little over 2 years ago the EPO went ballistic and threatened to sue. These leaks demonostrated quite clearly that the EPO was discriminating against SMEs. Nowadays (even as recently as yesterday) the EPO writes every single day some tweets with the hashtag #IPforSMEs, probably in an effort to obscure the fact EPO hates/harms SMEs. The basic idea is, if people attempt to find any information related to this, all that will turn up in search engines is EPO puff pieces or ‘studies’.

“It’s like workers of the EPO not only lack human rights but also labour rights.”Also don’t lose sight of the EPO’s very latest (or last) tweets. One says: “Please note that all our offices will be closed over the holiday period from 23 Dec 2017 & will open again on 2 Jan 2018.”

6 working days off is ridiculously low. Most companies give twice as much! The EPO then tweeted: “Happy holidays & warm wishes for 2018 from all of us at the European Patent Office!”

“Happy holidays” after the EPO canceled three holidays. It’s like workers of the EPO not only lack human rights but also labour rights. And who can they complain to? The EPO certainly continues to demonstrate that it’s above the law and beyond any form of accountability.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

This post is also available in Gemini over at:

gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2017/12/23/granting-patents-sparingly/

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. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, March 07, 2021

    IRC logs for Sunday, March 07, 2021



  2. Moving Away From the World Wide Web is a Wise Move, at Least to the Degree Which is Possible

    More Web browsers finally support the Gemini protocol and decentralisation is gaining traction (it's even in mainstream European media right about now)



  3. The Banality of Bribery

    To understand why institutions defend and sometimes even give awards for the very things they claim to be against one must examine the flow of money (with strings attached to it)



  4. When I Discovered People Trafficking in Free/Open Source Software

    Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock



  5. Links 7/3/2021: AviDemux 2.7.8, Thunar 4.16.4

    Links for the day



  6. Links 7/3/2021: Sparky 2021.03, SystemRescue 8.00, and FreeBSD 13.0 RC1

    Links for the day



  7. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, March 06, 2021

    IRC logs for Saturday, March 06, 2021



  8. How To Deal With Your Raspberry Spy -- Part V: All The Rest

    The final part of a series on liberating the Raspberry Spy from an untrustworthy OS that secretly adds Microsoft keys and proprietary software repositories of Microsoft



  9. How To Deal With Your Raspberry Spy -- Part IV: Doing The Task

    We now spell out the steps taken to actually replace the Raspberry Pi OS with something more trustworthy



  10. Corporations Do Not Represent Communities and Activists, They Just Exploit Them, Discredit Them, and Hijack Their Hard Work

    The AstroTurfing and the Googlebombing campaigns of large corporations would have us believe that genuine activists are toxic and malicious people, whereas corporations exist to save the world from evil people; don’t fall for those Public Relations tactics (a gross inversion of narrative)



  11. Why the 'Raspberry Spy' Blunder is a Lot More Serious and Profound Than the Corporate Media is Willing to Acknowledge

    As this video points out, the ongoing series by Gavin L. Rebeiro is justified by the fact that the 'Raspberry Spy' Foundation continues to work with and some might say for Microsoft; it sold out millions of customers



  12. Links 6/3/2021: “SLS” Mitigation and Exiv2/KDE Project

    Links for the day



  13. How To Deal With Your Raspberry Spy -- Part III: Fundamentals

    Following the introductory and preliminary parts we dive deeper into the steps taken to replace the Raspberry Pi's GNU- and Linux-based OS with something like NetBSD



  14. Links 6/3/2021: Linux 5.12 RC2 and OpenSUSE Tumbleweed Woes

    Links for the day



  15. IRC Proceedings: Friday, March 05, 2021

    IRC logs for Friday, March 05, 2021



  16. Links 5/3/2021: Qubes OS 4.0.4 Release and Wine's Project Leader is Open to Wayland

    Links for the day



  17. How To Deal With Your Raspberry Spy -- Part II: Introduction

    Following Part I, published a few hours ago, let's examine what happened from a technical perspective and what can be done about it technically



  18. How To Deal With Your Raspberry Spy -- Part I: Acknowledgements

    March 2, 2021 blog post series from a guest author; for some background, see blog posts from Microsoft in the official blog of Raspberry Pi and our response to these



  19. German Decision on Unitary Patent/UPC Will Take Years (and It Doesn't Matter Because the Whole Thing is Dead Already)

    Kluwer Patent Blog's Dr. Bausch explains why the UPC is pretty much doomed, as it cannot be ratified any time soon and probably will never be ratified either (for a multitude of reasons, including Brexit)



  20. Techrights in Australia (IPFS and Gemini)

    Allies in Australia will help Techrights serve material from another server; we're still bettering ourselves for an era of oppressive World Wide Web



  21. Professional Troll Matthew Garrett Spreads Libel, Defamation and Slander About the Free Software Community to Entertain Microsoft and Friends

    After months of parking in our IRC channels to provoke and troll people (and try to collect 'dirt' from responses) the professional troll Matthew Garrett has been for many years shows his true colours again



  22. Links 5/3/2021: Linux 5.12-rc2 Imminent, Linux Lite 5.4 RC1 in Review

    Links for the day



  23. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, March 04, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, March 04, 2021



  24. Links 4/3/2021: LibreOffice 7.1.1, Cockpit 239, Many Stable Kernel Releases

    Links for the day



  25. Links 4/3/2021: Pardus 19.5 is Out and Free Software Foundation Gets Consulting Grant

    Links for the day



  26. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, March 03, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, March 03, 2021



  27. The Free Software Foundation Should Re-add Richard Stallman to the Board

    Dr. Richard Stallman is missed by many who perceive him to have been wrongly treated; putting Stallman back in the Board (at the very least) would help the image of the Free Software Foundation more than the newly-announced work with Community Consulting Teams of Boston



  28. Free Software Calling

    Fewer people are willing to "put up with the shit" given by so-called 'Big Tech', seeing that it's mostly about social control rather than enablement or emancipation



  29. Meme: EPO Management Totally Gets 'Tehc'

    The bestest patent office in the whole wide world is besting the “hey hi” (AI) cutting edge; don't worry about exam and certification integrity



  30. The EPO's Software Blunders Are Inevitable Outcome of Technically Clueless Management Which Grants Illegal Patents on Software

    The "clusterfuck" which the EPO has become is negatively affecting not only EPO staff but also stakeholders, who sink into depression and sometimes anger, even fury, at great expense to their health; this is how institutions die (for a quick but short money grab, a culmination of corruption which piggybacks half a century of goodwill gestures)


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