Workers of the EPO can no longer even speak publicly, not without a 100% assurance of anonymity after Control Risks Group (CRG) got contracted (former Stasi staff from Desa hired)

Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation

THE EPO is not an ordinary institution. People have come to assume that it's supranatural and all-seeing. Fear dominates. It has become epic in terms of its abuses (against its very own staff, just like in WIPO), even if the corporate media does not cover the subject like it covered FIFA. Lobbying events and corrupting influence over the media might be playing a role here because the corporate media did use to occasionally cover the subject (but not anymore, not recently).

"PwC looks very much like EPO," writes one person (probably an examiner judging by the signature). "Is any official recognition of burnout at EPO? Of course not," he or she added in relation to the 'social' 'study' released late on a Friday. To quote the whole comment, which contains link about the so-called 'study' and its preparation (commissioned by Team Battistelli):

EPO Social Study by PwC? Just released this Friday. Look who's talking: https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-PwC-RVW6640457.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-PwC-RVW9485971.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-PwC-RVW1377116.htm http://offbeatchina.com/25-year-old-auditor-at-pwc-shanghai-worked-to-death-time-to-rethink-work-life-balance http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/Bengaluru-Techie-Jumps-to-Death-From-9th-Floor-Flat/2016/04/17/article3384729.ece

PwC looks very much like EPO. Is any official recognition of burnout at EPO? Of course not (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/worker-burnout-worldwide-governments_n_3678460.html).

Dumb and Dumber Examiner

Another person is obviously "uncomfortable by the fact that the EPO appears to be lobbying strongly" and asks if others are equally uncomfortable, in a thread which is stuffed with comments from the patent microcosm (they too are lobbying, e.g. via CIPA). Here is the comment in full:

Is anyone else left feeling very uncomfortable by the fact that the EPO appears to be lobbying strongly for the UK government to take prompt and decisive action in connection with the UPC agreement (ie to either ratify or withdraw)?

The EPO is a non-governmental, international organisation that was created by, and is controlled by, the EPC contracting states. The UK is one of those contracting states. In my view, it therefore beggars belief that the servant is telling one of its masters what to do.

I would have thought that the EPO really ought to be scrupulous in maintaining political neutrality. This is because being seen trying to exert influence over decisions made by a national government (and over which that government has sole authority) would surely raise questions about whether the EPO employees in question were acting beyond their remit. There would also be questions about whether such lobbying could be seen as undemocratic.

Perhaps BB is so used to obedience from the members of the AC that he has mixed up the identities of master and servant. However, if the lobbying efforts of the EPO come to the attention of Brexiteers within the UK government, I have no doubt that they will waste no time reminding him of the natural order of things.

The UK government has a difficult decision to take. As made clear by the Gordon and Pascoe opinion, participating in the UPC post-Brexit could have profound consequences (including signing up in perpetuity to the supremacy of EU law in a significant number of areas) that may well be unpalatable for many of those in government, let alone the electorate. Whilst I am certainly no Brexiteer, my firm belief is that the UK government should be left alone to mull over these consequences and to reach a decision in its own time. If the other contracting states to the UPC agreement cannot wait the time this will take, then so be it.

Meanwhile, this new press article was released at the start of the week and the first section covers the EPO in light of Brexit. There is no issue at all, except for Team UPC. To quote the relevant parts:

The good news is that Brexit will have no effect on European patents or patent applications. European patents are granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), which is not an E.U. institution. E.U. membership is not a condition of membership in the EPO, and non- E.U. member countries, such as Switzerland and Norway, have long been EPO members.

As a result, you will continue to be able to validate your granted European patents in the U.K., and European patents that have already been validated will continue in force. Similarly, U.K. patent attorneys will be able to continue acting as representatives before the EPO.

We certainly hope that politicians won't get bamboozled by Team UPC. "Stjerna," as Benjamin Henrion put it (pointing to a long paper which we mentioned the other day), suggests that the Unitary patent and court system is like "squaring the circle after the Brexit vote" (impossibility).

We certainly hope that nothing will change with regards to the UK's membership in the EPO, but judging by the alarming recruitment figures (the EPO nearly halted hiring British staff and many of them left) one cannot rule this out. The UK might eventually be left out of both UPC (which will likely never happen anyway, with or without the UK) and the EPO. The UK-IPO, based on British sources of ours, gave them better services than the EPO (where quality can no longer be assured, only the high fees are a certainty).

The EPO is in trouble. EPO insiders know this very well. ⬆