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

02.20.18

Another Loud Warning From EPO Workers About the Decline of Patent Quality

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Patent examiners must be able to examine patent applications thoroughly and to deliver valid monopoly rights.”

Decadence of monopoly

Summary: Yet more patent quality warnings are being issued by EPO insiders (examiners) who are seeing their senior colleagues vanishing and wonder what will be left of their employer

TECHRIGHTS was never a foe of the EPO. It was actually a lot more supportive of the EPO than of the USPTO and I’ve personally sent letters to the EPO for over a decade with constructive suggestions (mostly regarding software patents). The reason Techrights is now blocked by the EPO is that Team Battistelli cannot stand any constructive suggestions and it cannot tolerate criticism. EPO insiders know the feeling as some of them too got fired for that. If the EPO was a scientific institution, it would sack people with differing/dissenting points of view, like Galileo and his ‘crazy’ theory about the Solar System.

“If the EPO was a scientific institution, it would sack people with differing/dissenting points of view, like Galileo and his ‘crazy’ theory about the Solar System.”Either way, our history speaks for itself. I’ve long loved the EPO personally and none of us who are connected to this site (mostly Europeans) have anything to gain from EPO weaknesses/detriments. Quite the contrary.

Yesterday, once again, the EPO gave the false impression of caring for outside input. “Battistelli will make all decisions on his own regardless,” I told them, “just like in the Disciplinary Committee. This is just EPO giving the illusion of public participation…”

“I’ve long loved the EPO personally and none of us who are connected to this site (mostly Europeans) have anything to gain from EPO weaknesses/detriments. Quite the contrary.”“The Boards of Appeal invite users to participate in this online consultation on proposed amendments to their rules of procedure,” they said, but I very much doubt Battistelli will care what the ‘users’ have to say. He repeatedly ignores, overrides and sometimes derives suggestions given to him. It’s like a mental illness. It’s megalomania.

Right now, as before, the EPO’s management or the Administrative Council (which is in theory supposed to govern Battistelli) is being warned about imminent damage to patent quality (which already suffers). We have been given explicit permission to repost the following new text:

The final straw for patent quality 2.0

Highly qualified and motivated permanent employees have been ensuring the quality of the EPO’s services for more than 40 years.

The draft “reform” proposal CA/3/18 will, if it is allowed to enter into force, put an end to permanent employment at the EPO1. The proposed new Article 53(1)(f) Service Regulations will give the appointing authority the power to terminate the service of an employee at any time “if the exigencies of the service require abolition of their post or a reduction in staff”2, without the usual compensation and without a social security system to fall back on. The Article will apply to all – current and future – staff. We fear that the first victims will be the DG1 directors who have been made redundant and put on specially created posts.

Article 33 EPC3 makes a clear distinction between the “Service Regulations for permanent employees” and the “conditions of employment for other employees”. The proposal violates Article 33 EPC by removing this distinction. It is incompatible with the acquired rights and legitimate expectations of the current permanent staff4. It is also incompatible with the Office’s dual role – arising out of its status as an international organisation – as an employer and as a state. Its role as a state means that the Office’s duty of care is put at a much higher level than for a regular employer. If it over-recruits5,6 in a specific technical field, for example, it is not free simply to fire staff that are surplus to requirements, but must care for them in the way that a state would, or better.

The Office’s attractiveness as an employer has already suffered through recent “reforms”7,8. If this draft proposal gets approved by the Administrative Council, it will scare off even more of the best job candidates. Future recruits will not feel welcome with such rules in place. Under such conditions, highly qualified candidates are unlikely to accept an employment, move to another country with their family, and take the risk of investing in an expensive new home.

Permanent employment is a prerequisite for the independence of examining divisions, which have already suffered many “reforms” since 20139. Patent examiners must be able to examine patent applications thoroughly and to deliver valid monopoly rights. The head of the German Patent Office recently explained why patent offices need examiners on permanent posts:

“… I could just go ahead and say that you should do it that way. We could then recruit many examiners who will not come to you. On behalf of the German Delegation, I cannot agree. Examining patents requires highly qualified experts. … The special significance of patent examiners for the society justifies a special employment relationship. …”7

Users of the European patent system have already noticed a significant drop of the quality of the EPO’s services10,11.

Mr Battistelli’s successive “reforms” have not only been detrimental for staff, they may spell the end of the European patent system as we know it. If that has not already happened then the latest proposal could represent the point of no return.

_________
1 In addition to «minor» inconveniences like the suppression of home leave for new recruits and the suppression of any form of regulated recruitment procedure.
2 Latest EPO employment proposals under fire (http://www.ippropatents.com/ippropatentsnews/article.php?article_id=5704
3 Article 33 EPC (http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar33.html)
4 Open letter Abolishing permanent employment for current and future EPO staff, Central Staff Committee, 09.02.2018
5 Patent rain, brain drain and quality bust at the EPO – Overcapacity and insecurity as an HR tool, Central Staff Committee, 23.06.2016
6 Open letter Running out of Search-Files …, Central Staff Committee, 08.11.2017
7 Feedback from the 128th Meeting of the BFC and of the 154th meeting of Administrative Council in Munich, SUEPO Local section The Hague, 20.12.2017
8 The EPO’s Vision (II) – “expert, well supported and motivated staff”, Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle) (http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/02/14/epos-vision-ii-expert-well-supported-motivated-staff/) Mr Bausch considers the combination of “a permanent position with high job security and a good salary” as the factors which “enabled the EPO to recruit very good scientists and engineers and to train them on the job to become expert examiners.” He writes that the EPO management would in his view “be well advised to maintain these conditions.”
9 EPO-FLIER No. 33 The final straw for patent quality? (www.epostaff4rights.org)
10 2016 Patent Survey, conducted by the well-respected German legal magazine JUVE, English translation (https://suepo.org/public/ex17003cpe.pdf)
11 EPO – All Problems Solved? (http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/10/16/epo-all-problems-solved/)

Over the years we have been given examples, including of particular European Patents, from EPO insiders. We cannot name these examples publicly as those may give away the identity of examiners who dealt with them. We know for a verifiable fact that patents are being granted which otherwise (without Battistelli’s ‘reforms’) would not be granted. We are being told so. People are pressured to grant invalid monopolies because they might otherwise lose their job and need to move their entire family — children included — to another country.

Later today there’s an important political debate in Germany; we shall cover that in our next post.

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. Links 18/9/2018: Qt 5.12 Alpha , MAAS 2.5.0 Beta, PostgreSQL CoC

    Links for the day



  2. Today's European Patent Office (EPO) Works for Large, Foreign Pharmaceutical Companies in Pursuit of Patents on Nature, Life, and Essential/Basic Drugs

    The never-ending insanity which is patents on DNA/genome/genetics and all sorts of basic things that are put together like a recipe in a restaurant; patents are no longer covering actual machinery that accomplishes unique tasks in complicated ways, typically assembled from scratch by humans; some supposed 'inventions' are merely born into existence by the natural splitting of organisms or conception (e.g. pregnancy)



  3. The EPO Has Quit Pretending That It Cares About Patent Quality, All It Cares About is Quantity of Lawsuits

    A new interview with Roberta Romano-Götsch, as well as the EPO's promotion of software patents alongside CIPA (Team UPC), is an indication that the EPO has ceased caring about quality and hardly even pretends to care anymore



  4. Qualcomm's Escalating Patent Wars Have Already Caused Massive Buybacks (Loss of Reserves) and Loss of Massive Clients

    Qualcomm's multi-continental patent battles are an effort to 'shock and awe' everyone into its protection racket; but the unintended effect seems to be a move further and further away from 'Qualcomm territories'



  5. Links 17/9/2018: Torvalds Takes a Break, SQLite 3.25.0 Released

    Links for the day



  6. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Helps Prevent Frivolous Software Patent Lawsuits

    PTAB with its quality-improving inter partes reviews (IPRs) is enraging patent maximalists; but by looking to work around it or weaken it they will simply reduce the confidence associated with US patents



  7. Abstract Patents (Things One Can Do With Pen and Paper, Sometimes an Abacus) Are a Waste of Money as Courts Disregard Them

    A quick roundup of patents and lawsuits at the heart of which there's little or no substance; 35 U.S.C. § 101 renders these moot



  8. “Blockchain” Hype and “FinTech”-Like Buzzwords Usher in Software Patents Everywhere, Even Where Such Patents Are Obviously Bunk

    Not only the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) embraces the "blockchain" hype; business methods and algorithms are being granted patent 'protection' (exclusivity) which would likely be disputed by the courts (if that ever reaches the courts)



  9. Qualcomm's Patent Aggression Threatens Rationality of Patent Scope in Europe and Elsewhere

    Qualcomm's dependence on patent taxes (so-called 'royalties' associated with physical devices which it doesn't even make) highlights the dangers now known; the patent thicket has grown too "thick"



  10. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Are Still Desperate to Crush PTAB in the Courts, Not Just in Congress and the Office

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) improve patent quality and are therefore a threat to those who profit from spurious feuding and litigation; they try anything they can to turn things around



  11. IAM, Watchtroll and the EPO Still Spread the Mentality of Patent Maximalism

    The misguided idea that the objective (overall) should be to grant as many monopolies as possible (to spur a lot of litigation) isn't being challenged in echo chamber 'events', set up and sponsored by think tanks and pressure groups of the litigation 'industry'



  12. Watchtroll and Other Proponents of Patent Trolls Are Trying to Change the Law Outside the Courts in Order to Bypass Patent Justice

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) voids almost every software patent — a reality that even the most zealous patent professionals have come to grips with and their way of tackling this ‘problem’ is legislative, albeit nowhere near successful (so far)



  13. Links 16/9/2018: Windows Plays 'Nice' Again, Elisa Music Player 0.3 Beta and Latte Dock 0.8.1

    Links for the day



  14. Slamming Courts and Judges Won't Help the Patent Maximalists; It Can Only Make Things Worse

    Acorda Therapeutics sees its stock price dropping 25% after finding out that its patent portfolio isn't solid, as affirmed by the Federal Circuitn(CAFC); the only way out of this mess is a pursuit of a vastly improved patent quality, thorough patent examination which then offers legal certainty



  15. Patent Trolls Are Still Active and Microsoft is Closely Connected to Many of Them

    A roundup of patent trolls' actions in the United States; Microsoft is connected to a notably high number of these



  16. Advancements in Automobile Technology Won't be Possible With Patent Maximalism

    Advancements in the development of vehicles are being discouraged by a thicket of patents as dumb (and likely invalid) as claims on algorithms and mere shapes



  17. Battistelli “Has Deeply Hurt the Whole Patent Profession, Examiners as Well as Agents” and Also the Image of France

    A French perspective regarding Battistelli's reign at the EPO, which has not really ended but manifests itself or 'metastasises' through colleagues of Battistelli (whom he chose) and another French President (whom he also chose)



  18. António Campinos Needs to Listen to Doctors Without Borders (MSF) et al to Salvage What's Left of Public Consent for the EPO

    Groups including Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and Médecins du Monde (MdM) have attempted to explain to the EPO, with notoriously French-dominated leadership, that it’s a mistake to work for Gilead at the expense of the public; but António Campinos is just another patent maximalist



  19. The Max Planck Institute's Determination on UPC's (Unitary Patent) Demise is Only “Controversial” in the Eyes of Rabid Members of Team UPC

    Bristows keeps lying like Battistelli; that it calls a new paper "controversial" without providing any evidence of a controversy says a lot about Bristows LLP, both as a firm and the individuals who make up the firm (they would not be honest with their clients, either)



  20. Links 15/9/2018: Wine 3.16, Overwatch's GNU/Linux (Wine) 'Ban', New Fedora 28 Build, and Fedora 29 Beta Delay

    Links for the day



  21. Max Planck Institute Pours More Water on the Dying Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Max Planck Institute gives another sobering reality check for Team UPC to chew on; there's still no sign of any progress whatsoever for the UPC because even Team UPC appears to have given up and moved on



  22. EPO Seals Many Death Sentences With Acceptance of EP 2604620

    Very disappointing news as EP 2604620 withstands scrutiny, assuring that a lot of poor people will not receive much-needed, life-saving treatments



  23. Links 13/9/2018: Compiz Comeback, 'Life is Strange: Before the Storm'

    Links for the day



  24. Now We Have Patents on Rooms. Yes, Rooms!

    The shallow level of what nowadays constitutes "innovation" and merits getting a patent for a couple of decades



  25. EPO Granted a Controversial European Patent (Under Battistelli) Which May Literally Kill a Lot of People

    The EPO (together with CIPA) keeps promoting software patents; patents that are being granted by the EPO literally put lives at risk and have probably already cost a lot of lives



  26. Links 13/9/2018: Parrot 4.2.2, Sailfish OS Nurmonjoki, Eelo Beta

    Links for the day



  27. Patents on Life at the EPO Are a Symptom of Declining Patent Quality

    When even life and natural phenomena are deemed worthy of a private monopoly it seems clear that the sole goal has become patenting rather than advancement of science and technology; media that's controlled by the patent 'industry', however, fails to acknowledge this and plays along with privateers of nature



  28. Defending the World's Most Notorious Patent Trolls in an Effort to Smear the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is an Utterly Poor Strategy

    The 'case' for patent maximalism is very weak; those who spent years if not decades promoting patent maximalism have resorted to attacks on judges, to defense of trolls like Intellectual Ventures, defense of patent scams, and ridiculous attempts to call victims of patent trolls "trolls"



  29. The Belated Demise of Propaganda Sites of the Litigation 'Industry'

    Sites that promote the interests of Big Litigation (patent trolls, patent law firms etc.) are ebbing away; in the process they still mothball the facts and push propaganda instead



  30. Links 11/9/2018: OpenSSL 1.1.1, Alpine Linux 3.8.1, Copyright Fight in EU

    Links for the day


CoPilotCo

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

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts