The "Alicante Mafia" at the European Patent Office (EPO) Experiments With New Methods for Crushing Industrial Actions

posted by Roy Schestowitz on May 10, 2026

Open letter to VP1 and the COO

Instead of cracking down on corruption and cocaine at the EPO, the EPO's management shelters the corrupt and the drug addicts while cracking down on those who insist on lawfulness.

What does this tell us about the status quo at the European Patent Office, Europe's second-largest institution?

On May first we showed a letter Sent to the Chair and Heads of Delegation of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation regarding industrial actions. Days later (at the start of May) there was an update, with an end-of-April letter from the Central Staff Committee regarding efforts to crush the actions. In the words of the staff representatives:

European Patent Office
80298 Munich
Germany

Central Staff Committee
Comité central du personnel
Zentraler Personalausschuss

centralSTCOM@epo.org

Reference: sc26031cl

Date: 29/04/2026

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY

To: Mr Steve Rowan (Vice-President of DG1) and
Mr Angel Aledo Lopez (Chief Operating Officer)

By email:
To: vp1@epo.org, coo@epo.org

OPEN LETTER

Oral instructions being given to examiners to ignore priorities and ranking, and treat grantable files ASAP

Dear Mr Rowan,
Dear Mr Aledo Lopez,

The Central Staff Committee has received multiple consistent reports from colleagues in the main part from Directorate 1218, but also some cases from other Directorates, that instructions have been given to deviate from the established file ranking and file priorities and to immediately treat files that have a positive opinion, and thus are more likely to lead to grants. To this end, specific file numbers have been communicated to staff, imposing a “cherry picking” of grantable files on examiners.

According to these reports, such instructions are often only delivered orally, leaving staff in a situation of uncertainty since there is no written trace of the instruction to deviate from the usual practice, in some cases violating the rights of applicants by treating the files before certain deadlines have passed. In addition, colleagues indicate that they are threatened that should they not comply, the files will be reassigned to other examiners, resulting in the loss of recognition for work already performed. In this context, it should be noted that in cases of reassignment of divisions, the Boards of Appeal recently decided that there was a substantial procedural violation (T 758/23 and T 759/23, see OP minutes). This practice raises serious concerns regarding fairness, integrity, and the proper functioning of the Office.

The ranking of files and priorities are the official mechanism guiding the order of treatment of applications. Any deviation from this framework,

---

particularly when applied selectively and without transparency, constitutes a form of manipulation of production output. These actions are further undermining the trust of staff.

These reported practices have arisen in the context of ongoing industrial actions, during which a reduction in grants has been observed. Attempting to counteract this through informal instructions and pressure on staff, rather than addressing the underlying causes through meaningful dialogue, is deeply concerning. In particular, the timing of such reported measures, shortly before the upcoming Budget and Finance Committee, raises serious questions as to whether efforts are being made to influence the reported number of grants presented to the delegates.

In this context, we request your immediate clarification on the following points:

• Are such instructions to deviate from file ranking supported by you?

• On what legal and operational basis can such deviations and associated threats be justified?

• What measures are in place to prevent coercion and ensure equal treatment of staff?

Given the seriousness of these actions, including the reported use of threats and the risk of manipulation of production figures, we expect a clear and timely response.

Sincerely yours,

Derek Kelly
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee

"In this open letter to VP1 and the COO," the staff representatives told staff, "the CSC asks for their immediate clarification."

As far as we know, none has been provided so far. █