The European Patent Office (EPO) is Still Hiding From Scandals
New letter to the EPO's drunk and stoned management, led by António Campinos
Back in June we mentioned a couple of letters to two managers at the EPO [1, 2] and a manipulator of polls was later contacted along with Steve Rowan (Vice-President DG1) regarding very serious governance issues that local authorities turn a blind eye to. 5 days ago the Chairman of the Central Staff Committee, Derek Kelly, wrote a follow-up letter, 3-4 months later than original correspondence.
"No answers from VP1 to our letters to two Directors," they've just told staff. "All the concrete questions remain ignored..."
This is the latest communication from the Central Staff Committee to staff:
Dear Colleagues,
In July, the Central Staff Committee sent two detailed letters (first and second letter), raising questions inter alia about file reallocations, internal “quality groups,” and the transparency of the reward system, particularly in relation to colleagues working part-time or on parental leave.
A single generic reply from VP1 on 16 July 2025 merely reiterated slogans about the harmonious and consistent application of rules and an allegedly “constructive and active [Social] dialogue,” while ignoring all the concrete questions raised.
While the Office claims to foster engagement and modern management, colleagues experience instead a workplace driven by quantity over quality, image over substance, and control over trust.
We firmly believe that transparency, the ability to self-reflect, and the willingness to address legitimate concerns openly are essential qualities that strengthen the Office and reinforce the trust of its staff.
Read our new open letter addressed to VP1.
Here is the open letter in full:
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
GermanyCentral Staff Committee
Comité central du personnel
Zentraler PersonalausschusscentralSTCOM@epo.org
Reference: sc25067cl
Date: 06/11/2025
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
To: Mr Steve Rowan (Vice-President DG1)
By email:
To: vp1@epo.orgOPEN LETTER
Reply to your letter dated 16 July 2025
Dear VP1, dear Steve,
We thank you for your reply of 16 July 2025.
We regret to note that your letter again fails to address the substance of the concerns raised by staff and instead reiterates general managerial statements suggesting that all is well within the Organisation.
1. Social Dialogue – When Quantity Replaces Quality
Your letter cites the number of meetings held with staff representation in 2024 and 2025 as evidence of a “constructive and active [Social] dialogue.”
But dialogue is not a matter of counting meetings; it depends on substance, openness, and outcomes. None of the listed meetings have allowed a real space for genuine discussion or dissent on the matters related to DG1 operations
It is telling that the last in-person meeting with DG1 management took place before the COVID-19 pandemic. What remains today is a social dialogue reduced to form without content, a procedural exercise devoid of substance.
2. Absence of Substantial Answers to open letters
Our open letters (first and second letter) of 10 June raised precise and well- documented questions on matters that affect the functioning of the Patent Granting Process and the wellbeing of staff.
We asked for factual clarifications, statistics, and explanations on concrete managerial practices. Instead of addressing these points, your reply limits itself to broad assurances that processes and rules are applied “harmoniously and consistently”.
We did not receive (inter alia):
• Clarification on the criteria and justification for file reallocations, including related statistics. Clarification about the existence, mandate, and legitimacy of internal “quality groups” and their authority to overrule examining divisions.
• Transparency concerning the allocation and reallocation of Search files.
• Explanation on the exclusion of certain examiners from second member or chair roles, and the lack of prior notification or justification for such exclusions.
• Clarification on the issues raised about citing additional prior art during the examination phase and the handling of dissenting opinions. Transparency on the criteria for reward allocation, including the treatment of colleagues , on part-time and on parental leave, and differences across technical fields.
• Responses to our questions on productivity outliers, workload fairness, or target-setting.
3. File Reallocation, Internal “Quality” Groups and Managerial Interference
The reallocation of files without consultation of the examining division, the existence of internal “quality groups” with decision-making powers, and the apparent suppression of dissenting opinions are practices that should have no place at the EPO. They risk violating the EPO’s own rules and Guidelines, and weaking the institutional safeguards that ensure impartial decision-making and procedural fairness.
The independence of the examining division is a cornerstone of the European patent system. When managers overrule the technical and legal work of divisions - often under the pretext of “timeliness” or “harmonisation” - they undermine the integrity of the granting process and erode the trust of applicants, the Boards of Appeal, and the public in the Office’s decisions.
4. HR Policies – Image versus Reality
While we acknowledge your assurance that rules on parental leave, office allocation, and flexi-time are to be applied consistently across DG1, we regret that the Office appears unwilling to examine reports indicating otherwise. This can only undermine the credibility of official diversity and inclusion claims and leaves affected colleagues feeling isolated and powerless.
A family-friendly image must be backed by substance - by the transparent application of rules that genuinely support work–life balance. The EPO, too, stands to gain from such credibility and trust.
5. Quality, Productivity and Reward Cycle
We again note the absence of answers to our questions regarding the inconsistencies in reward allocation across teams working in different technical fields We note that these inconsistencies also concern colleagues at
different grades and those on five-year contracts. Our question regarding productivity outliers has likewise remained unanswered.
These are not marginal or rhetorical matters; they strike at the very core of how the Office defines, measures, and rewards work. The reward system remains opaque, marked by significant discrepancies between technical areas.
In the absence of transparency and by refusing to share anonymised statistical data, management misses an obvious opportunity to demonstrate fairness and integrity - and instead reinforces the perception of arbitrariness.
Many colleagues report to us that a push for rapid production - granting patents quickly to score performance points - has made quality secondary to quantity. Decisions appear to be increasingly driven by dashboards rather than by sound legal and technical reasoning. This is a grave situation for an international organisation that claims to serve innovation and legal certainty in Europe.
Conclusion
Many colleagues feel that the EPO lacks sufficient transparency, and many share the impression that our workplace is frequently driven by quantity rather than quality, image rather than substance, and control rather than trust.
We are confident that a constructive social dialogue — one based on facts, transparency, and mutual respect — can help address these concerns and build a stronger, more cohesive Organisation.
We firmly believe that transparency, the ability to self-reflect, and the willingness to address legitimate concerns openly are essential qualities that strengthen the Office and reinforce the trust of its staff.
Sincerely yours,
Derek Kelly
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee
It does not seem too likely that Steve Rowan will respond any time soon. The EPO has long relied on stonewalling, more so any time there was a scandal. Then it paid money for publishers to help distract from the scandal.
The person who now manages money for publishers is a cocaine user. These people claim to be running an office responsible for legal matters (patent law), but in reality it's run by outlaws. █