Bonum Certa Men Certa

Awful Quality of EPO-Granted European Patents (EPs) Becomes a Mainstream Topic

The mainstream media is finally talking about it

EPO patent quality declining



Summary: The sharp decline in quality of EPs is being noticed by EPO insiders, EPO stakeholders (attorneys, applicants etc.) and even the media, which tells the wider public about it

TECHRIGHTS has already spent years writing about declining quality of patents granted by the EPO, usually but not always based on words from the inside (insiders do express great concern about it, only to face threatening words from Team Battistelli if they do so publicly rather than privately).



As recently became apparent, outsiders too are noticing and Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle) did a whole series about it. Not only he is complaining; watch the comments on his posts (mostly from other patent practitioners) and recall this recent poll from Juve, which showed that patent practitioners are getting fed up with the EPO. So do their clients. In other words, nobody at all seems to be happy and nobody is gaining from this. Maybe some patent trolls overseas are already licking their lips over the potential to sue a lot of European businesses they previously could not sue. Look what happens in Germany, which is quickly morphing into a hub for patent trolls. At whose expense would they gain if the UPC became a reality in Germany? Has Germany learned nothing from the errors of the USPTO?

"Usually the more you speak about something," someone wrote today. "the less you practice it. Let's us try with Quality at EPO, article over 2 pages..."

This refers to this morning's article from The Register, which is based on our posts and posts from Thorsten Bausch. To quote the opening portion alone (it's a long article):

When he's not ignoring national laws and threatening employees, the president of the European Patent Office (EPO), Benoit Battistelli, is on a crusade to make things work faster.

Against an ever-more unhappy background of EPO staff and patent examiners, Battistelli has for several years put forward the same defence: he is making things run more efficiently.

Last month, as some countries called for his ousting, Battistelli presented figures and later gave a press conference focused on one thing: the EPO has granted more patents faster than ever before. And it has done so, he claims, with rising quality.

"The first of these is a key result," he wrote in a subsequent blog post. "The number of patents granted has risen by 40 per cent, with the total reaching 96,000. It indicated that we're processing more patents, more efficiently and with the minimum of delay. This achievement is not because there has been a significant rise in the granting rate. It is the result of the consistent application of a quality and efficiency policy and the reforms that we have made."

A very similar philosophical thread was pushed by Battistelli last year as well. That time it was a pre-occupation with "early certainty" – which means an early indication to someone applying for a patent whether they are likely to have it approved or not.

Battistelli pushed the exact same points: greater speed while retaining quality. This is his overarching vision and the justification behind his campaign of intimidation against staff, as well as his rewriting of the rules of every part of the EPO that has resisted - even for a second - his reform ideas.


As usual, nobody disagrees with the author in the comments. The first comment says:

How long can it be before Battistelli's Reality Distortion Field finally gives up on him?

The sooner the better I say....


"What makes you think He'll relinquish his position in 2018," one person asked about Battistelli. "The way he's re-writing the the organisations remit, I wouldn't be surprised if the necessary 'hooks' were already in place to ensure permanent control."

We wrote quite a lot about that lately.

"A cynic might question whether this is partly because there's less time to bill hours," another person said. "It would be interesting to see whether, despite being busier, lawyers are billing less time against each patent."

The situation may be good for Team UPC, which is now pushing Battistelli's agenda, including at IP Kat sometimes. These are people who would profit if there was chaotic patent litigation all across Europe. They don't care at whose expense...

"No doubt some companies like long processing times (likely phrarma who patent a lot)," said another person. "I seriously doubt most small companies do though: the last patent I got through took five years! What odds your company's inventor works for you anymore by the time you know if spending R&D for v2.0 is financially viable?"

Another wrote: "Would somebody like to tell the US Patent Office? Where the practice is that not even a superficial examination is performed with just a rubber stamping and adding to statistics to prove how innovative US business are. All that then happens is that patent validity is considered "somebody else's problem", much to the delight of the US legal system."

Actually, the EPO has sunk below the quality of the USPTO in many ways. Patents that the USPTO is denying are now being welcomed by the EPO. The EPO is trying to outSIPO SIPO or simply become another SIPO. It would be highly destructive if it was allowed to go on.

"I can't wait for the EPO to become a proper EU institution like so many others," wrote another person. "Answerable to normal procedures (and ultimately to Parliament), normal laws, normal operating frameworks that can be amended if needed and people that can be fired if they don't perform. These fiefdoms don't benefit innovation."

The way things are going, there might soon be no EPO left. UPC is an EU thing (hence Britain cannot participate) and EU-IPO seems to be getting close enough to the EPO to make a merger feasible.

Here is a comment relating to a subject we covered earlier this week:

"From 54 per cent unhappiness to 7.7 per cent by, um, deciding that everyone that didn't answer failed to do so because they were 100 per cent happy with the EPO."

And even then it doesn't really help their case. 7.7% isn't "close" to 4%, it's close to double that number. Even after all those contortions, they still end up claiming that their policies have resulted in a 100% increase in unhappiness among their customers. That's well past the point where a normal business would be asking serious questions about what's gone so horribly wrong, and even if they try to spin it to not look so bad to the outside world they certainly wouldn't be crowing about it in internal communications. I've mainly viewed Battistelli as your run-of-the-mill power-mad dictator, but it's seeming more and more as though the entire management team has completely lost contact with reality. We've gone from regular Soviet-style propaganda to all out "Kim-Jong Benoit was born on a unicorn and invented rainbows".



A suitable/apt response to that was:

As the old saying goes - Lies, damn lies and statistics.

If you take the figures in the story and change the spin to the opposite direction:

14.28% response rate because every one else is unhappy but don't see any benefit in responding either because it will impact on any future applications, or because they think it won't make a difference. This means 144 non-respondents with the 13 who did and weren't happy is 157 of the 168 sample.

Or tp put it another way 93.45% of are unhappy. As is often the case with these things the actual figure will be somewhere between but just as a purely speculative number for take it half of non-respondents were happy and half weren't. The satisfaction rate would then be 72 no response plus 13 who did = 85 of 168 = 50.59%

Seems to me that is still a much bigger unhappiness level than there was.


None of this would be complete with some quotes from concerned patent practitioners. One of them focused merely on the pace of granting rather than the quality. It's about a controversial pilot programme we leaked in 2015, whereupon (after a huge amount of negative publicity) the EPO made it available to everyone and changed history (revisionism). To quote:



I fully understand and approve the comment. One size fits all is not what applicants/user of the EP system need. The present rush for quick grant (of easy files) is nothing else than applying the PACE procedure indistinctly. The number of PACE application, has been, beside certain applicants, never been very high in the past. The reasons are obvious: it is when the validation start that it becomes expensive for the applicant/proprietor. Why then get a patent quickly? There are no reasons to get a patent as quickly as possible for an applicant, unless specific reasons are present. The only parties interesting in a quick grant are actually the member states. After grant, the annual fee go to the member states, and only 50% of the annual fees are for the EPO. Before grant, if grant takes more than 3 years, 100% of the annual fee goes to the EPO, and 0% to the member states. How to get a “positive” vote from member states? Simply allow them to cash in very rapidly annual fees, or to “enhance” cooperation, in other send money from the EPO to the member states (or certain member states which are “worth it “. Then one should not wonder why certain decisions are issued by the Administrative Council of the EPO. Tactically very clever. The question is thus: is the primary aim of the EPO or the EPC to help member states or to help the users of the EPO/EPC system? I think the answer is pretty obvious…..


Another person from that profession wrote:

Thorsten it is my understanding that the “early certainty” from search was intended for the public as much as the Applicant. I mean, when you review emerging A (and WO) publications, you want to do a clearance study. For that you need the prior art. Ideal then would be an A publication, supplemented by a perfect search report and perfect analysis of the adverse effects on patentability, and a law on “added matter” that excludes any improvement in Applicant’s position after filing. That’s as close to a “certain” clearance as you can reasonably get.

After that, it doesn’t matter so much to the public, if Applicant has divisionals pending till the end of the 20 year term, or if nothing at all issues till near the end of the 20 year patent term.

Is the EPO to be commended then, for giving more deference, these days, to the needs of the public, the same degree of deference in fact, as it gives to the needs of the Applicant community?


The original author, Thorsten Bausch, then wrote:

I am not sure whether the EPO management introduced this program in order to satisfy a heretofore unmet need of the public for earlier certainty, which I personally fail to recognize. Other motives suggested by some of the responders appear to me much more plausible. Add to this the quantity-quality fallacy, i.e. the wrong (in my view) belief that high production numbers are always good and a sign of efficient management. In the end, however, it is quality that matters.


The programme was actually introduced secretly and made available only to few large corporations after Microsoft had asked for it. So it was actually designed with large patent bullies in mind. Not even European companies...

Defending Bausch, another person wrote:

The problem is not to obtain as quickly as reasonably possible a search result and an opinion about the patentability of the claimed invention.

There is nothing to say against this, provided the search is carried out seriously and the opinion is not a collection of standard phrases, which looks like an evaluation, but is often not an evaluation of the true value of the invention.

What the problem is, is the idea of the top management of the EPO to grant an application as quickly as it thinks that it is needed by the applicant.

This is what is criticised, and rightly so, by Mr Bausch. The only beneficiaries of this hurry are the member states, and not necessarily the applicants.


The following comment said "this does not justify the rush to patent everything within 12 months after a shoddy search and a meaningless examination."

As an applicant I want to keep my options open as long as possible, but as third party, I want to have as early as possible certainty on what I might face.

It appears quite difficult to reconcile both points of view, but this does not justify the rush to patent everything within 12 months after a shoddy search and a meaningless examination.

Early certainty yes, but at reasonable cost and in a way that my patent does not risk being pulled apart at the first occasion, or that the patents of my competitors are so bad, that I cannot decide what they cover.

As things develop presently, we are rather in the position of having early certainty in everything meaning early certainty of nothing…


The last comment about this alluded to Battistelli and "his macho instincts, willy-waving at the Americans. Anything you can do, France can do better." Here is the comment:

OK. I see in your Part II the “early certainty” mantra extension, from mere “search” now to “examination” and “opposition”. I regret to say that I think it is another manifestation of BB indulging his macho instincts, willy-waving at the Americans. Anything you can do, France can do better.

But I stand by my original point, that not only Applicant but also the patent owner’s competitor would like to have “early certainty” to be delivered by the EPO.


Years ago we hoped that examiners and stakeholders alike would start a debate about the declining quality of patents granted by the EPO. Today, the subject is finally in the mainstream media (Britain's biggest technology site) and people in Team UPC-affiliated blogs are equally concerned. They must be aware that the EPO's declining reputation is a threat to their project (and Battistelli's project), the UPC. That's now how they foresaw this so-called 'reform' (more like a coup in practice).

Recent Techrights' Posts

Trolls With LLM Slop Are Disrupting Communications About Mass Layoffs at IBM
LLM slop to drown out the signal
Bing Might Shut Down - Just Like Skype Did - Some Time in the Coming Months/Years (Parts of It Already Shut Down)
they try to bring the losses under control
 
The SLAPPs From Microsofters Distract From Serious Copyright Infringement by Microsoft and Apparent Business Crimes
Aside from other issues, such as strangling women
Enshittification is Everywhere: You Pay More, the Services Get Worse
"Enshittification" is a term coined by an online friend; I increasingly use this term to describe what's happening even outside the realm of technology (which it was adopted to describe)
Microsoft Reduces Office Space Ahead of More Waves of Mass Layoffs
"The Gerstnerisation of Microsoft"
Anti-Linux FUD Produced by Microsoft LLMs to Blame "Linux" for Microsoft's Own Failures
We call out some of the worst culprits
Gemini Links 16/05/2025: Hoking GPS, Grabovac, and Tanana
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, May 15, 2025
IRC logs for Thursday, May 15, 2025
Microsoft WARN Notices Proliferate in the United States
From what we've seen, this wave was more than 3% (a lot more) and the next wave/s will be even bigger (possible as imminent as weeks from now), based on insider leaks
Links 15/05/2025: Google Betrays Publishers Again, Openwashing by Sysdig
Links for the day
Richard Stallman Still Respected by Many in the Libre Graphics Community
Richard Stallman and Professor Moglen never harmed anyone
If You Read Techrights, Then You Probably Want to Read Tux Machines as Well
That site is more active than this one
Gemini Links 15/05/2025: Forced Music in Publicly Accessible Space and ~silv is Online
Links for the day
Links 15/05/2025: KOSA Censorship (USA Becomes More Like KSA) and More National Cuts
Links for the day
Your Real Ally Would Not Defend the Company of SLAPP and Strangling of Women
who's left to tell us what's true?
Breakdown of Microsoft Layoffs Shows It's About Cost, Not Performance or Hype (Like "AI")
MSN (Microsoft) reposted this with some unnecessary spin
The Lawyers Working for the Serial Strangler From Microsoft on SLAPPing Techrights Have Apparently Lost Their Voice
the moment we mentioned that their media lawyer is leaving they went all quiet in social control media
At IBM, Relocation Can be a Trick or a Trap (IBM Gets Rid of Staff Under the Guise of "Relo")
IBM is not being honest with employees
Microsoft Rumours: This Week's Scale of Layoffs "Higher Than Reported" and More Coming Soon ("A Lot More Severe" Than May's)
The "3%" figure is false
Slopwatch: Sloppy Brian, Brittany Slop, and General Observations
Creative people don't need slop; there's just nothing good about it, slop appeals to lazy people careless about quality
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
Beyond Mass Layoffs at Microsoft: Entire Units Shut Down for Good
And it's far from over
Links 15/05/2025: Crikvenica, Analog Computer, and Slop 'Hallucinations'
Links for the day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, May 14, 2025
IRC logs for Wednesday, May 14, 2025
Links 14/05/2025: Fentanylware (TikTok) Harms Kids, Russia Refuses to Defuse
Links for the day
Gemini Links 15/05/2025: Poseur Nerds and Mennonites
Links for the day
VS Code Is Not FOSS, And Neither Is the Site "It's FOSS"
VS Code is proprietary spyware of Microsoft, yet this site keeps promoting it like it's FOSS
No, Microsoft Didn't Lay Off So Many People Because of "AI" "Innovation" or "Efficiency" or "Era" or "Revolution" Etc.
Debunking one very common lie
What We Do When We Say "GNU/Linux" to People
It talks about "Linux", "GNU", and what it means to say "GNU/Linux"
Links 14/05/2025: Facebook And Instagram Risk Nationwide Bans, Microsoft Subsidiaries Have Mass Layoffs Too
Links for the day
Canonical Will Give You Money Only If You Work for Microsoft!
Only if you are servicing (being a slave to) proprietary forges that Microsoft and the NSA control while violating the GPL will Canonical give you money
If Microsoft Staff That Strangles Woman Pays You to Write Lies, It Will Not End Well
The past couple of years were our most productive ever
Gemini Links 14/05/2025: "Writing My Story with Inspiration from Notable Lives" and People Start Shovelling Up LLM Slop Onto Geminispace,
Links for the day
Microsoft is Very Highly Stressed About Adoption of GNU/Linux at Windows' Expense (on Former "Vista 10" PCs)
What does this tell us?
Slopwatch: BetaNoise (BetaNews), LinuxSecurity, and Slopfarms Still Promoted by Google News
The primary goal is to demonstrate the problem persists
Links 14/05/2025: Google Agrees to $1.3 Billion Settlement After Spying, China Tariffs Don't Work
Links for the day
There Are Also Loads of Microsoft LinkedIn Layoffs Today (Keep Track of the Subsidiaries They Keep Out of Headlines)
Perhaps lost in the smokescreen
There Are Bigger Rounds of Microsoft Layoffs Coming, a Cull of 10% Implemented in Waves (the "3%" Figure is Misleading, Face-Saving)
Last night we said they might do the layoffs in three or at least two waves
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, May 13, 2025
IRC logs for Tuesday, May 13, 2025