The EPO, Europe's Largest Patent Office, Admits Outsourcing to Microsoft Slop
The Local Staff Committee Munich (LSCMN) at the EPO has a new report about a recent meeting with the appointee of Benoît Battistelli - meant to serve him and his other crony, António Campinos, surely under the guise of "appeals" inside the EPO. As it turns out, software patents came up. Remember that European software patents are both illegal and undesirable, but the EPO's unaccountable tribunal and the illegal kangaroo courts (also unconstitutional) don't care about either legality or constitutionality. Their sole goal is to make more money. At whose expense? Europe. Who stands to benefit? Not Europe.
LSCMN wrote to colleagues:
Dear Colleagues,The Local Staff Committee Munich met with the Boards of Appeal (BoA) on 4 June 2025.
In the meeting, we addressed the declining workload, the upcoming relocation and the use of AI.
The Management Report of the BoA for 2024 (CA/9/25) mentions that “[t]here has been a decrease of 31% in new inter partes cases because, as foreseen, opposition divisions have eased production. Ex parte cases have shown a decrease of 11.3% (from 2023 to 2024), partly due to a significant decline in a particular technical field (IPC class G06Q, business methods) of over 90% since 2022. The incoming workload decreased across all technical fields, although more markedly in the field of mechanics.”
Notice in the above "business methods", which are closely related to software patents i.e. patents which are granted illegally (and consciously so). The Office is so unhinged that even its own tribunals just play along with deliberate violations of the European Patent Convention. From the 3-page report dated 4 days ago:
Örtlicher Personalausschuss München Innenstadt, Haar und Brüssel
Local Staff Committee Munich City, Haar and Brussels
Le Comité local du Personnel de Munich Ville, Haar et BruxellesMunich, 12-06-2025
sc25004mpReport on the meeting between the EPO Boards of Appeal
and the Local Staff Committee Munich
on 4 June 2025On 4 June 2025 members of the Local Staff Committee Munich met online with the Boards of Appeal, as represented by the President of the EPO Boards of Appeal (BoA) Carl Josefsson; Director Administrative Services BoA Philippe Lahorte; Advisor to the President of the BoA Marielle Piana, Lawyer Judith Soentgen, and HR Administrator BoA Katja Warneck.
Meeting opened: 15:00
Opening of the meeting
Mr. Josefsson opened the meeting by welcoming Staff Representation and introducing the other EPO Boards of Appeal meeting participants.
State of Play in BoA
Mr. Josefsson summarised the state of play in the BoA. The objective for the end of 2025 was to have no more than 10% of cases being older than 24 months, and the BoA were on target to achieve this. The trend was for less incoming cases, with a yearly reduction of 500 cases, and the backlog of pending cases continued to steeply decrease with currently less than 3000 cases pending. The main reason for the decline was a decline in the number of oppositions and a consequent decline in the number of appeals1. The BoA would be working with the Office to investigate why the number of oppositions was decreasing, which might involve a user satisfaction survey.
3.000 cases were completed last year, with 1.600 oral proceedings. Of these, 60% were carried out by video conference and 40% in person, a stable situation over the last years. The number of BoA members was decreasing and would be down from 230 to 225 by the end of the year, with retiring colleagues not being replaced.
______
1 “Management Report of the BoA”, CA/9/25, p. 4, “There has been a decrease of 31% in new inter partes cases because, as foreseen, opposition divisions have eased production. Ex parte cases have shown a decrease of 11.3% (from 2023 to 2024), partly due to a significant decline in a particular technical field (IPC class G06Q, business methods) of over 90% since 2022. The incoming workload decreased across all technical fields, although more markedly in the field of mechanics.”
Staff Representation asked why clearing the backlog was a priority when the amount of incoming work was decreasing. Mr. Josefsson explained that it was important to users that pendency time was reduced as much as possible, and courts should aim to work on cases as they come in. Any extra capacity would allow the BoA to focus on non-core work and quality. Examples of quality were that decision abstracts were being provided externally, a European judges’ conference was held annually in Vienna, and workshops were held jointly with national judges, including those of the UPC.
Staff Representation asked if this would mean a change in targets for the BoA members. Mr. Josefsson answered that there used to be productivity and number objectives, but now there were solely timeliness objectives. However, members were never asked to achieve the impossible. Workload was allocated as evenly as possible, although this needed more flexibility from members as the cases were reallocated. The career system for members had been amended two years ago. In the new system there was the possibility to be promoted after the first reappointment, and then one chance to get to G15/4 after ten years. For Chairmen there was a chance to get to G16/4 after ten years. It was too early to say what effect the change to the career system had had.
Relocation - Update
Mr. Josefsson was not able to say what was discussed in the closed session of the administrative council. All he could say was there was not a concrete date for the move, but the BoA was looking forward to moving. BoA staff had inspected the building and were apparently satisfied.
Staff Representation noted that after the closure of the large canteen in PH 1-4 the next largest would be in PH VII, and so the reopening of PH VII was of interest to all staff.
Staff Representation commented that PH VII would be too large for just the BoA. Mr. Josefsson said that it would be up to the Office what the rest of the building would be used for, but it would not be used for patent examiners as a clear separation between the first and second instances was needed.
Use of AI in the BoA
Mr. Lahorte stated that AI was a topic of keen interest, and the BoA might work with BIT to develop internal AI tools. Mr. Lahorte explained that Mr. Josefsson had set up an AI working group which was tracking developments in AI. Corporate AI tools were being tested, such as CoPilot. There was, as yet, no operational use of AI. The AI working group had been mandated by Mr. Josefsson to develop guidance on the use of AI, including the benefits, risks, reliability and safeguards. This guidance was a working document. Mr.
Josefsson added that although this document was not available outside the BoA the core of it was in the BoA management report.
Staff Representation referred to their intervention in the recent BFC meeting regarding AI classification and autoclosure of circulation. It was pointed out that CPC classification typically determined IPC classification at the EPO, hence AI classification would have an effect on the business distribution plan at the BoA. Staff Representation asked if the BoA had noticed any problems resulting from poor AI classification. Mr. Josefsson replied that he had not heard of any, although there had not been any systematic monitoring.
AOB
Staff Representation asked if there were any interesting enlarged BoA cases pending. Mr. Josefsson replied that there were three – G1/23, G1/24 and G2/24. Of these, G1/24 was of most interest to the public, it concerned taking account of the description when interpreting the claims. Hearings had been heard for G1/23, this concerned the enablement requirement when judging novelty. No hearings had as yet been held for G2/24, which concerned interventions.
Staff Representation asked whether examiners were able to discuss cases they had worked on which had reached the appeal stage. Mr. Josefsson replied that pending cases could not be discussed at all, and the best approach would be to ask for a presentation after deliberations had closed. This was a useful and productive exercise for both examiners and BoA members.
Closing of the meeting
Staff Representation thanked Mr. Josefsson for the meeting.
Meeting closed: 15:50
Your representatives of the Local Staff Committee Munich (LSCMN)
When they speak about CoPilot they speak about: 1) slop (typically associated with illegal things in the legal context). 2) sending sensitive data to Microsoft, which can use it to further perturb Office affairs. This is related to other ongoing EPO scandals. Maybe the EPO should speak to Denmark, but the EPO is not accountable to anyone. █