EPO's Gareth Lord Asked About "Quality and Productivity" or, Put Another Way, Why the EPO Keeps Granting So Many Invalid/Illegal Patents
The "EPO compels examiners to break the law in the name of obeying illegal "rules" or "orders"," the last part said. The message from the EPO's Central Staff Committee (CSC) took note of two communications or letters. The second one was sent to Gareth Lord, a Director at the European Patent Office (EPO), Europe's second-largest and perhaps most corrupt institution. Having recently spoken about neglect of families' needs and the needs of women with kids in particular, the CSC send the following letter to Lord: (it's dated this week)
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
GermanyCentral Staff Committee
Comité central du personnel
Zentraler PersonalausschusscentralSTCOM@epo.org
Reference: sc25035cl
Date: 10/06/2025
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
To:
Mr Gareth Lord
(DG1 Director 1001)By email:
To: glord@epo.org
Cc: socialdialogue@epo.orgOPEN LETTER
Dear Gareth, dear director of 1001,
We would like to raise several concerns that have been brought to our attention regarding current workplace conditions and management practices, which are having a noticeable impact on staff motivation, wellbeing, and operational efficiency. We would like to share them with you in line with our mandate to "provide a channel for the expression of opinion by the staff" (Article 34(2) ServRegs). We believe that fostering clarity and transparency in the topics below will contribute to a smoother running of the services.
Importantly, we also hope that this message will help counter speculation and rumours. In the absence of clear communication, uncertainties can spread and affect morale. By raising these topics openly, our intention is to contribute to a more informed and constructive exchange.
1. Parental Leave
Colleagues have reported challenges in accessing parental leave. In some instances, the approval of such requests appears to be linked to increased expectations for production/productivity in return. This would of course place additional strain on those with caregiving responsibilities. Furthermore, there is a perception that taking parental leave disproportionately affects outcomes in the reward exercise. We believe this area would benefit from greater clarity and support.
1.1 Could you clarify how parental leave requests are handled and have been handled in the past in your directorate?
1.2 We would also appreciate clarification on how parental leave is taken into account in managerial decisions on rewards. If available, statistical information on past reward allocations to colleagues who have taken parental leave - ideally in comparison to other directorates and Office-wide figures - would be helpful.
2. Office Allocation
Some colleagues apparently have been asked to increase their physical presence in the office to four days per week - up from the previously established three days - as a condition to retain their allocated office. We would welcome further communication on this matter to ensure transparent and consistent application of such requirements.
2.1 Could you outline how fixed office allocation is handled in your directorate?
3. Flexi-time Arrangements
We have received feedback suggesting that Flexitime regulations in your directorate may differ from the general Office policy. This has raised concerns about reduced flexibility and work-life balance.
3.1 Could you please confirm whether the Flexitime policy in your directorate follows the standard Office rules, or clarify any local arrangements that may apply?
4. Quality and Productivity
Colleagues have expressed concerns about a growing emphasis on productivity metrics, often at the expense of meaningful discussions on quality standards. In particular, the limited time allocated per file appears to affect the search phase most significantly. There is a widespread perception that, in order to meet productivity targets, examiners are compelled to restrict their search to the top documents found during the pre-search, foregoing a more thorough and comprehensive search. A renewed and balanced focus on both quality and realistic productivity expectations would be welcomed by many.
4.1 Do you share these concerns, and are any countermeasures being considered or planned?
5. Outliers in Productivity
We have received reports regarding individual outliers in terms of productivity, with some colleagues reportedly producing at a significantly higher rate than the average for their grade. These reports are accompanied by concerns about a potential decline in quality, particularly in the area of search.
5.1 Could you confirm whether such productivity outliers exist?
5.2 Do you share these concerns, and are any countermeasures being considered or planned?
5.3 It would be helpful if relevant statistics could be produced.
6. Part-Time Work
We have received feedback indicating that new part-time work requests are being declined, and that existing part-time colleagues are being encouraged to increase their working time and presence in the office. Ensuring continued access to part-time arrangements is important for maintaining flexibility and inclusion.
6.1 Could you kindly outline how part-time requests are currently handled in your directorate?
6.2 If possible, a statistical comparison with other directorates and Office-wide figures would be helpful for context.
7. Work Autonomy and Reporting
We have received feedback from colleagues who have experienced an increase in detailed, daily reporting requirements. While we acknowledge the importance of oversight and coordination, we believe that maintaining professional autonomy and mutual trust is equally essential for a productive and motivated workforce.
7.1 To better understand the context, we would appreciate clarification on the circumstances under which such daily reporting requirements are introduced. In particular, it would be helpful to know how many colleagues are currently subject to this practice and the criteria used to determine its necessity.
8. Reward allocation and technical fields
We have received reports, which raise concerns regarding the transparency and fairness of the reward allocation process. Given the number of examiners and the variety of technical fields covered within your directorate, we would like to seek clarification on the following points.
Colleagues have observed inconsistencies in reward allocation across different teams. In some teams, more than 60% of eligible examiners reportedly receive a pensionable reward, whereas in others, fewer than 50%. These discrepancies appear to correlate with the main technical field handled by the team.
We would appreciate your response to the following questions:
8.1 Is it correct that pensionable rewards are not uniformly allocated across teams? If so, could you explain the reasons for these differences in allocation? Furthermore, would it be possible to provide us with a graph showing the percentage of pensionable rewards granted per eligible staff member, broken down by team (in anonymized form)?
8.2 Are there technical fields within your directorate for which the average working time per file is considered to be higher than in others? If this is the case, how is examiner performance compared across technical fields with differing work time requirements?
9. Wellbeing and Health
Finally, several colleagues have expressed concern about the impact of the current management approach on stress levels, motivation, and overall wellbeing. Reports of increased sickness are particularly worrying and merit attention.
Do you share these concerns, and are any countermeasures being considered or planned?
To conclude:
We hope that the above points provide a clear and constructive overview of the concerns raised by colleagues in recent months. As staff representatives, we share these observations in line with our mandate under Article 34(2) ServRegs, and with the intention of fostering a respectful and informed dialogue. We believe that greater clarity and open communication can help reduce uncertainty, counter speculation, and ultimately contribute to a more supportive and efficient working environment. We look forward to your clarifications and remain available for further discussion in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.
Sincerely yours,
Derek Kelly
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee
Many aspects are covered above. Will Lord bother talking back to these "peasants"?
Lord has been at the EPO since 1992. To work one's way up in today's EPO we already know one must be a toady or flunky of the corrupt management at the top floor. Insiders say so themselves. █