EPO Workers Blow the Whistle on Extremely Worrying Discontinuation of the CFS, a Central File Store (Which Means Examination Will Be Hard to Do)

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Jul 30, 2024

And, by default, patents will just be granted without sufficient scrutiny

A letter was sent at the end of last week to the EPO's António Campinos. Signed by Derek Kelly, Chairman of the Central Staff Committe (elected, unlike Campinos), it shows that things continue to deteriorate even further after Benoît Battistelli and his cronies began the demolition. Team Battistelli and a friend of Campinos, a Microsoft collaborator (see EPO and Microsoft Collude to Break the Law -- Part II: Steve Rowan Announces Microsoft “Outlook Migration”), are once again involved. To quote: "In this open letter to the President and Mr Rowan (VP1), we request a proper information policy allowing meaningful exchange of informed views as well as concrete measures rather than generic references to team managers and directors for "appropriate support" for "individual cases"."

The core issues: "The next far-reaching measure would obviously be the discontinuation of the Central File Store (CFS). The following discussion points appear vital: 1. How can colleagues with different working styles and/or medical conditions be accommodated? 2. How can quality within the meaning of legal certainty be assured for granted patents if annotations on paper are lost? After all, a sizable fraction of CFS-applications and patents in opposition are older than 10 years, pre-dating Ansera et al."

Here is the full open letter as it was sent to the Administration (Corrupt Cabal, pure nepotism like Team Battistelli) last Friday:

European Patent Office
80298 Munich
Germany

Central Staff Committee
Comité central du personnel
Zentraler Personalausschuss

Tel. +49 -89- 2399 - 2120
+49 -170- 2251 - 7271

centralSTCOM@epo.org

Reference: sc24048cl

Date: 26.07.2024

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY

Mr. António Campinos
President of the EPO

Mr. Steve Rowan
Vice-President DG1

OPEN LETTER

Discontinuation of the Central File Store

Dear Mr. President,
Dear Mr. Vice-President of DG1,

In the last six months, several actions have been undertaken by the administration related to the paper consumption. First the substantial reduction of printer capacity by over 80% in late 2023¹, second the discontinuation of central printing and storage of (new) paper dossiers² and third the absence of a file store in the new Berlin sub-office (C1)³. In the Berlin case, to date only a vague statement has been made that the “availability” of the files is assured, only the “time component is dilated”. All three actions occurred within half a year, the second and third essentially without warning or major explanations beyond the obvious tip that files may be printed by the examiners themselves.

If no new input is allowed and the stock present eventually expires (e.g. abandoned, refused or granted patents past the opposition time limit), such a file store “evaporates” and becomes obsolete.

This was confirmed in informal talks on several management levels, and in the most recent LOHSEC meeting in Munich by the CSO.

At which point in time the staff representation and the COHSEC as statutory bodies will be formally involved in this far-reaching measure? The following discussion points appear vital:

- How can colleagues with different working styles and/or medical conditions be accommodated?

- How can quality within the meaning of legal certainty be assured for granted patents if annotations on paper are lost? After all, a sizable fraction of CFS-applications and patents in opposition are older than 10 years, pre-dating Ansera et al.

____

¹ Where have all the printers gone? LSCMN, published 12.01.2024

² Discontinuation of central printing and storage of paper dossiers CSC Open letter, published 22.04.2024

³ Comparison table, annex to LSCBE meeting report with new site manager, published 31.05.2024

---

We request clarification and would appreciate concrete measures rather than generic references to team managers and directors for “appropriate support” for “individual cases”. We note that an information policy serving the purpose of allowing meaningful exchange of informed views is needed for changes in working conditions of such a magnitude⁴. Ad hoc implementations achieve the opposite.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Kelly
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee

____

⁴ Staff survey 2024 […] CSC, published 05.07.2024

So we can expect the examiners to have even less tools (i.e. poorly equipped) for rejecting European software patents. Never mind the pressure already put on them to grant irrespective of the illegality. █