Bonum Certa Men Certa

The Committee on Patent Law (PLC) Informed About Overlooked Issues “Which Might Have a Bearing on the Validity of EPO Patents.”

A space suit
The 'suits' who run Europe's second-largest institution hate science and law; all they understand is money and power



Summary: In a publication circulated or prepared last week the Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO explains a situation never explored in so-called 'media' (the very little that's left of it)

LATELY we've covered the lies from IAM and the severe patent quality (hence invalidity) issues at the EPO, as explained by the EPO's very own patent examiners.



Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos have been pampering Joff Wild and his fellow PR operatives (advertising company disguised as "news" site). So the public isn't supposed to know what's really going on and the Administrative Council will likely just pat itself on the back/shoulder, based on poor-quality misinformation in very large quantities.

"Who does the EPO actually work for?"In a newly-circulated communication, the CSC (elected staff representation basically) shares an item on "interferences in competencies of Divisions" (targeting the Committee on Patent Law or PLC). In its own words:

The Committee on Patent Law (PLC) shall advise the Administrative Council inter alia on any legal matters concerning a revision of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and on matters concerning the harmonisation of national law in the Contracting States relating to the implementation of the EPC. The 53rd meeting of this Council body took place on 24 November 2021. The Staff Committee informed the PLC about possible consequences arising from Judgment No. 4417 issued by the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization.

The Tribunal held that decisions taken by the President with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications are not appealable by affected examiners. In the underlying case, the competent Examining Division apparently had taken the decision to refuse a patent application. The director, however, ordered the entrusted Examiner of the Division to issue a communication under Article 94(3) EPC. The Tribunal did not examine whether said order was lawful but simply declined jurisdiction because it allegedly concerned a decision with respect to patent procedures.

Examiners can thus not approach the Tribunal about potentially unlawful interferences in their competencies as members of Divisions. Nor can they appeal before the Boards of Appeal. In conclusion, examiners have no means of legal redress against potentially unlawful orders given by someone from management outside a Division to one or all of its members.

Therefore, one may also question whether decisions in examination and opposition proceedings are always taken by the competent body as foreseen in the EPC. As this affects not only the work of examiners but possibly national invalidity proceedings as well, the Staff Committee referred in its intervention in detail to the possible legal gap and the associated potential of violations of the law. The electronic tools currently used in examination and opposition proceedings make the situation even worse, since for example authentication of communications and decisions hardly meet the standards usually foreseen in Europe. Furthermore, the tools do not guarantee the confidentiality of the debate within a Division.


Here is the accompanying document about an intervention dated a fortnight ago:



53rd PLC, 24.11.2021

Manuscript for the intervention of the Staff Representation under point any other business

Staff representation has the duty to make the PLC aware of a possible legal gap affecting examiners carrying out their duties as members of examining and opposition Divisions and which might have a bearing on the validity of EPO patents.

In a recent Judgment of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO, Judgement No. 4417, the Tribunal held that decisions taken by the President with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications are not appealable by affected examiners as they do not adversely affect staff members.

This is particularly remarkable since Judgment No. 4417 relates to a case, where the competent examining Division apparently had taken the decision to refuse a patent application. However, the director ordered the entrusted Examiner of the Division to issue a communication under Article 94(3) EPC instead, which eventually has been sent to the applicant.

The Staff Representation takes the view that such interferences in the Examining Divisions’ decisions amounts to a violation of several Articles of the EPC, inter alia Articles 15, 18, 94 and 97 EPC and, since the communication under Article 94(3) EPC presumably was sent for the examining Division and with the entrusted Examiner’s seal, also Rule 113(1) EPC.

Concerning the use of the Divisions’ seal the EPO Boards of Appeal decision J 16/17 may be cited wherein the Board found that Rule 113(1) EPC, according to which decisions from the European Patent Office must be signed by and state the name of the employee responsible, is not just a mere formality but an essential procedural step in the decision-taking process since the name and the signature serve to identify the decision's authors and express that they unconditionally assume responsibility for its content. This is to prevent arbitrariness and abuse and to ensure that the competent body has taken the decision. The Boards of Appeal furthermore ruled that any violation of the requirement pursuant to Rule 113(1) EPC amounts to a substantial procedural violation and renders the decision erroneous.

Unfortunately the Administrative Tribunal did not examine at all whether the order of the director was lawful but, as already mentioned, simply declined jurisdiction as it allegedly concerned a decision with respect to patent procedures.

On the other hand the Boards of Appeal are not competent to examine such cases, too.

As a result it appears that neither the Tribunal nor the Boards of Appeal can be called by examiners in such cases to examine whether unlawful interferences have taken place or unlawful orders have been given to Divisions’ members.

In conclusion examiners have no means of legal redress against unlawful orders given by somebody from management outside the examining or opposition Division to one or all of a Division’s members concerning patent procedures. Moreover, examiners even have to accept that their signature is misused and that the public as well as the patent applicants can be misled about the decisions’ authors.

It is noted, that the case dealt with in Judgment No. 4417 is not the only case of interferences with Divisions’ responsibilities and orders to Divisions, which Staff Representation is aware of.

With the electronic tools nowadays used in the examination and opposition proceedings the situation has become even worse since it is questionable whether the minimum standards usually foreseen in Europe for electronic authentication and signature are met.

It can therefore at present not be ensured that decisions in examination and opposition proceedings are always taken by the competent body. This not only affects the working conditions of the examiners but might also have a bearing in national invalidity proceedings.

In order to close the legal gap outlined here and to protect the Organisation’s far reaching immunity from national law, Staff Representation urges the Patent Law Committee

- to review the situation, - to ensure that the patent applicants and the public are transparently informed about the examination and opposition proceedings, in particular about all persons involved in each step of the patent granting procedure, as well as about all internal instructions and influences on the Divisions’ decisions, - and to ensure that there is independent jurisdiction available for examiners if they consider an interference with the responsibilities of the Divisions or a specific order to members of a Division being unlawful.


Tribunals at the EPO have long failed to function, but media controlled by patent litigation firms won't speak about it because their business depends on perpetuating the status quo instead of correcting injustices. Moreover, "the tools do not guarantee the confidentiality of the debate within a Division," the CSC says. Yes, well... confidentiality issues go much futher; Microsoft and the US government see everything, including data and interactions between Asia and Europe. Instead of tackling the issue, the Administrative Council worked hard to cover this up a few months ago (in summer and again again in autumn). Who does the EPO actually work for?

Recent Techrights' Posts

How the European Union (EU) Fell Out of Love With Free/Libre Software
Lots of bribery
Certificate Authority Let's Encrypt Has Almost Gone Down to Zero, Nearly Totally Extinct in Geminispace, the Few Capsules Still Using It Are Spam/Dead/Stagnant
This represents another decrease for Let's Encrypt; the last decrease was last week
Trying to Silence Techrights Was a Huge Mistake
Peter Thiel attacked a publisher for asserting, correctly, that he was gay. Now everyone knows it.
 
EPO Workers Point Out that the EPO is Destroying the Planet Under the Guise of "Hey Hi" (It Also Grants Many Patents Illegally)
On 12 March and 16 June 2025, staff representation met with the administration in the Local Occupational Health, Safety and Ergonomics Committee (LOHSEC) in Munich
Turn Off Microsoft's Restricted Boot ("Secure Boot")
We're still running a series on this issue
Social Control Media Sites Have Become Bot Farms (Not Limited to LLMs and Automation)
linkedin.com was nothing but trouble and losses for Microsoft
Deep in Debt With the Magnitude of Losses Quickly Growing, Microsoft "Open" "Hey Hi" Now Uses Broadcom for Vapourware, Pretending It'll Do OK Next Year
At some stage it'll collapse
You Can Tell Microsoft is in Trouble When Its Own Fans and Staff Blast it
"Microsoft sinks billions into chasing artificial intelligence fads to hype up its share price."
Multiple Undersea Cable Cuts and We're Still OK
Microsoft customers experience problems
Lawyers Who Think They Are Online Assassins Don't Deserve a Licence to Operate
they've become a laughing stock in their "sector"
Microsoft Windows Fell to 3.9% "Market Share" in Bahamas
Based on statCounter
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, September 07, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, September 07, 2025
Gemini Links 07/09/2025: Scanner, Slop, and Chadobear
Links for the day
The UEFI 9/11 is 3 Days Away
Nobody denies that bad things will happen
Google Versus Journalism
Google played a big role in the demise of news sites
Gemini Links 07/09/2025: Advertising, Decentralized Archival, and Outsourcing to Bezos
Links for the day
Not Much Left in News Cycles
To be very clear, this does not describe "Linux" anything; it's true in just about every facet of news, except the paid-for fake "journalism" about "hey hi" (sites getting paid explicitly to maintain or rekindle hype)
Throwing Away "Old" Computers (Mozilla and Other Climate Deniers)
Mozilla is not leftist
The UEFI 9/11 - Part VIII - Denial of Service and Selling Us WSL (Windows) Instead of "Risky" (Prone by Breakage by Microsoft) GNU/Linux
Restricted Boot (so-called 'SecureBoot') does not improve security. It is nothing but trouble. It's meant to trouble non-Windows users. In dual-boot setups, SecureBoot is a recipe for disaster because Microsoft keeps erasing or tampering with the boot sector, to paraphrase an associate
Slop is Extremely Rare in Geminispace, Slop Images Are Unheard Of (Despite Images Being Supported)
As long as Geminispace grows in terms of domains it's safe to predict the protocol will still be used in 2029 and hence Geminispace will turn 10
Links 07/09/2025: Robodebt Class Action, Fines, and Copyright Settlement
Links for the day
Links 07/09/2025: Yle Impersonated in Social Control Media, Boat-Attacking Orcas, Midjourney Sued Again
Links for the day
Slopwatch: LinuxSecurity, Linux Journal, and the Serial Slopper
Google won't tackle the issue because Google participates not only in relaying slop but also in generating lots of it
Links 07/09/2025: Google Fines in EU and "Your Internet Access Is at Risk"
Links for the day
Gemini Links 07/09/2025: Little Brother and Corporate Theatre
Links for the day
Links 07/09/2025: More Harms of Slop and Anthropic's Nightmare Scenario (Huge Legal Liabilities for Slop)
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, September 06, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, September 06, 2025
Microsoft Sites Now Talking About September's Mass Layoffs at Microsoft
It's noteworthy that even Microsoft's MSN now covers the latest revelations about mass layoffs
Gemini Links 06/09/2025: SpellBinding Moving and "The Cloud" Ridiculed
Links for the day
Slopwatch: On "the Apology Industry", Chatbots (Punchbag for Customers), and Fake Articles About "Linux"
"news reporting priorities changed"
Links 06/09/2025: "Covid Incidence on the Rise" and Many Attacks on the Press Worldwide
Links for the day
The Register Bill
The Register MS - putting the "MS" in your centre of the universe
Analogies for "Memory Safety" in Rust
Don't worry, it's Rust! It can do anything!
Nobody Denies That SecureBoot Will Cause Problems After September 11
Not even Microsoft
Gemini Links 06/09/2025: Infinite Scrolling and Posting from Emacs
Links for the day
Links 06/09/2025: GitHub Meltdown Over Slop, "U.S. Jury Says Google Should Pay $425 Million in Privacy Lawsuit"
Links for the day
Despite Its Severe Financial Problems Gnome Foundation Inc Paid Rosanna Yuen Over 100,000 Dollars Last Year
maybe relocation should be considered
The "Left" and the Right"
It poisons everything
Mozilla and Rust Are Not Leftists
they're part of the mass consumerism machine
Disposable to Microsoft
There is an extensive set of people who got used by Microsoft, only to be thrown away a month later or a year later or a decade later
The UEFI 9/11 - Part VII - This Coming Week Many PCs Will Refuse to Boot "Linux" (Because of Microsoft's Expired Certificate)
The real solution is, disable "secure boot" or "SecureBoot" while it's still possible. [...] Just like submarine patents, a lot of this problem was "hibernating" for a while
The Thing Nobody in Red Hat Wants to Talk About Openly
There is a real sentiment or worry among Red Hatters, Europeans and Americans in particulars (because of higher salary expectations)
Slopwatch: Small Parade of Fake News About "Linux" and Scams Borrowing the Name (or Word) "Linux"
In practice, LLMs are a risk
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, September 05, 2025
IRC logs for Friday, September 05, 2025