Summary: The disastrous policies of Battistelli are rapidly becoming common knowledge across Europe and the entire world, so the EPO pretends that it's taking feedback into account and maintaining patent quality (a lie, as usual)

IF ONE searches for or looks up (e.g. on the Web) information about patent quality at the EPO, the search results are not exactly flattering. They are worrisome to potential applicants and mortifying to businesses that spent millions of Euros pursuing European Patents (EPs). The EPO's management is aware of it and right now, in a rather shallow effort to conceal the facts -- that Battistelli has essentially demolished quality control and reduced patent quality (EPs) -- it is using Orwellian language (warning: epo.org link), with old favourites such as "Early Certainty", i.e. telling people something about the outcome before actually properly examining the facts. Battistelli ruined the EPO and no doubt there are attempts to shift blame/pass liability to the staff below him, including examiners whom he constantly abuses, dismisses (based on his personal taste), and bullies against the law -- possibly an arrestable offense if he wasn't hiding under the table surrounded by bodyguards who are a total, utter waste of money.

Here is one part of the 'prose' (hogwash) which the EPO filed under "news" today:

The participants appreciated the highly visible results from Early Certainty from Search and welcomed the opportunity to hear more from the Office about how it will implement Early Certainty from Examination and Opposition. EPO representatives stressed the Office's determination to continuously improve quality levels.

Examiners across the board mock this policy, as they know it cannot accomplish what their job was intended to accomplish. It's all about speed, obviously compromising quality and thus doing a disservice to applicants.

"The danger to the EPO's future is very real and even existential."epi, which bemoaned the EPO's behaviour before its letter simply vanished, is today being cited by the EPO. This page about speeding up examination is cited and the EPO says "These are the flexible options offered by the EPO to help you shorten and/or speed up the grant process" (other than nepotism).

Put in simpler terms, there are ways to undermine the patent examination/application assessment process. How does that help the applicant? To be granted a patent in error (only to be thrown away by a court later) or to be denied a patent in error? You cannot use two women to deliver a baby in 4.5 months. You also cannot just deliver a baby after a few months and hope that an incubator will make up for the absence of a uterus, to use an awkward analogy. Battistelli's unreasonable expectations are revealing; he never studied issues pertaining to patents and he's not even qualified to do so. He has absolutely no background in science. He's just a right-wing politician like Donald Trump and he relies on "alternative facts" like "Early Certainty" in order to shape policy in a disastrous way.

"By that point, however, Battistelli will already have left the EPO -- left it all ruined but cynically recalling the "production" figures which he essentially faked by cheating."Stempeutics, by the way, based on today's announcement [1, 2], still believes EPs are worth enough to merit press releases. That's misguided, more so now than ever before.

The danger to the EPO's future is very real and even existential. The EPO under Battistelli won't attract many more applications; it's overpriced and the Office is incompetent (the management). The EPO is still living/surviving on the backlog; it's dealing with old applications, which are expected to run out some time next year, whereupon a lot of the examiners simply become redundant. By that point, however, Battistelli will already have left the EPO -- left it all ruined but cynically recalling the "production" figures which he essentially faked by cheating. ⬆