"Abuse of Power, Abuse of Law, Suicides, Harrassment and much more...welcome to Grand Theft EPO VI (Battistelli (Psycho), Topić (Suspected Criminal), Ernst (Hypocrite), Kongstad (got fired), Minnoye (Crook), Bergot (Psycho II) and a good many others)" --Anonymous

Summary: The Boards of Appeal are unable to stop the ride down the slippery slope of patent maximalism; the Office now congratulates itself for granting a lot of European Patents, including many that aren't in compliance with the law

THE European Patent Office (EPO) in 2019 still suffers a nepotism epidemic, with former colleagues of António Campinos getting top jobs and even his former 'boss'. Illegal patents (against the EPC) are being granted, e.g. European software patents and the Office lobbies to accomplish the same in the US despite 35 U.S.C. €§ 101/Alice.

"In the meantime, the repository of European Patents -- once the pride of the EPO -- is rapidly being 'polluted' with patents that aren't supposed to even exist."What the heck is going on? We recently learned that it's now approaching a boiling point and there may be protests/strikes on the way provided SUEPO (the staff union of the EPO) gives the "green light" or EPO staff organises some other way. Based on recent polls (from the EPO itself, even the management), EPO staff is still depressed and demoralised. Earlier today SUEPO noted their similarity to the suicides epidemic in France Telecom (by linking to several new reports on the subject) and as SUEPO noted in April (almost exactly a month ago), quality of work has collapsed (that's also based on the data from the EPO itself).

What did the EPO do in light of these findings? Namely that about 75% of European Patents are granted in error? The usual. They're trying to bury facts. The EPO itself has found that a quarter of the patents it grants are fake European Patents (we sometimes call them IPs, Invalid Patents), i.e. those not compatible with EPC and hence unlikely to have any worth in courts. Watch the typical managerial tricks from Stephen Rowan, as explained earlier today by an insider:

In the previous article, Märpel presented the results of the staff survey. One of the concerns of the staff is that with production increases, quality has decreased.

Apparently, our internal quality control (DQA) also noticed. Compliance decreased from 85% to 75% last year. Märpel is not so good at maths, but understands that a quarter of the searches and granted patents do not respect the EPC. Märpel is also not so sure, but believes that this figure puts the EPO behind all other major patent offices.

Management also noticed. They had to.

Common sense would have that management would lower production pressure, maybe set time aside for retraining, etc… This is pretty standard. But not, Stephen Rowan, Vice-President DG1 had a better idea: Collaborative Quality Improvements (CQI).

[...]

In summary, Examiners are supposed to spend more time discussing the files together. They are also supposed to write everything down in a logbook.

There is nothing really wrong with that, except that it is not really related to compliance with the EPC and that the whole exercise costs time. But what time budget do the examiners get? Exactly zero. What was Vice-President Stephen Rowan thinking?

Rowan's own words, i.e. the management's spin, are included in the above post.

Meanwhile, IPPro Magazine's Ben Wodecki has posted this new article about a patent office that still grants patent monopolies on nature itself and life itself -- that is, European Patents are given in clear defiance of the EPC. "No Patents on Seeds" speaks out again:

The No Patents on Seeds Group has called on politicians to “take responsibility and to change the law” regarding the patentability of conventionally bred animals and plants.

The group said politicians should make it “impossible to grant patents on conventionally bred plants and animals”.

Johanna Eckhardt of No Patents on Seeds warned that if politicians fail to set limits, then “new facts will be constantly created for patent attorneys, companies and the EPO to make even more profit with such patents".

She added: "In the near future even food and drink may be patented as an invention."

Such patent types are prohibited by rule 28(2) for the interpretation of the European Patent Convention (EPC). However, the European Patent Office has come under fire for granting what the groups claim are conventionally bred patents on plants and animals.

The most notable case covering such a patent, T1063/18, saw agrochemical company Syngenta appealing an EPO decision that saw its patent application for a pepper plant denied. The case caused protests outside the EPO’s office building in Munich.

In response, EPO president António Campinos wrote a referral to the Board of Appeals. [sic]

Who or what will stop this lunacy? Can the Board of Appeal, indirectly bossed by Campinos himself, put an end to the practice? We doubt it, but time will tell. In the meantime, the repository of European Patents -- once the pride of the EPO -- is rapidly being 'polluted' with patents that aren't supposed to even exist. Imagine having a scholarly journal where 'only' 3/4 of published papers turn out not to be hoaxes. 'Only'... ⬆