Summary: The EPO's Central Staff Committee points out that the European Patent Convention (EPC) is still routinely being violated by Europe's second-largest institution and Europe's largest patent office, which is meant to be strictly governed by the EPC; The European Union (EU) and Commission (EC) do nothing to tackle this rapid departure from the rules of Europe, instead hypocritically deflecting to Poland

THE EPO's insiders have long complained that parts of the EPO were managed by people without suitable qualifications in the field they were entrusted to manage. This actually predates Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos; one glaring example was provided in the area of software patents last year. Battistelli used to boast to the media about three examiners being assigned to each application and last summer we rebutted such lies told in a talk by Campinos. The fact of the matter is, today's EPO is governed by incompetent idiots and sometimes utterly corrupt officials. Examiners have become cynical about their "managers". They now try to rely on kangaroo patent courts to authorise their abuses, even if such courts are both illegal and constitutional. Such 'courts' ought not exist and conventions were deliberately violated to ratify them with help from the EU (the EC had long been infiltrated and was complicit in this, as was the German government).

"The fact of the matter is, today's EPO is governed by incompetent idiots and sometimes utterly corrupt officials."As the 50^th anniversary of the European Patent Convention (EPC) approaches we can expect EPO insiders to keep sounding off, reminding people of the many ways today's EPO violates the EPC, its very founding document.

Today we managed to get a copy of a message to EPO staff, authored by staff representatives, the Central Staff Committee.

Here is what they told staff:

50 years EPC: The right files to the right people?

Dear colleagues,

Following various initiatives, EPO management concluded that a decreasing number of examiners in certain technical fields could only manage the workload with the creation of a “Digital File Marketplace (DFM)”, i.e. a DG1-wide, open and transparent marketplace where workload or examiner capacity can be offered to other examiner teams.

In the years 2020 to 2022 search and examination files were transferred between teams of different technical fields attached with a DFM marker, indicating the quality-ensuring composition of Examining Divisions or possible future Examining Divisions. However, in the same period much more search and examination files were transferred between teams of different technical fields without a DFM marker.

It is thus questionable whether VP 1’s promise to the members of the Industry Patent Quality Charter (IPQC) to further enhance the patent quality could be achieved by redistributing patent applications among different technical teams. Especially as many thousand files had already been redistributed in the period leading to the IPQC’s concerns. It rather appears that an Examining Division composed of members not qualified for the technical field of an application would rather tend to quickly grant patents of lower quality.

The figures show that far too many files are treated by Divisions outside the appropriate technical field. Instead, the right file should go to the right people. But here it is necessary to walk the talk:

• Better capacity planning is indispensable.



• New colleagues with the necessary expertise are to be recruited.



• More technical training must be offered to colleagues who want to change their technical field.

Here is a plain text/GemText/HTML version of the more detailed version, which includes some graphics (for HTML):

Munich, 15.06.2023 sc23065cp

50 years EPC, part I “An Examining Division shall consist of three technically qualified examiners. ...” Article 18(2) EPC (warning: epo.org link)

The right files to the right people?

Does redistributing the search and examination files
among different technical teams enhance patent quality?

Already in 2010 a closer involvement of national patent offices into the patent granting procedures of the EPO was envisaged. This discussion led to a controversial debate on the fundamental legal question of whether, by joining the EPO and ratifying the EPC, the Contracting States of the EPC ceded sovereign rights to the EPO and only to the EPO¹. It was argued that because of the cession of rights each Contracting State may also expect that all essential procedural steps of patent examination be carried out by the EPO. In this context – and this brings us back to the initial question of patent quality and the redistribution of files – European industry associations also warned of a loss of patent quality since it was questioned how and whether small national patent offices could be involved in the examination of patents in deeply specialised areas of technology. It was – and still is – regarded as one of the EPO’s essential guaranties for high patent quality that, due to its high number of patent examiners unrivalled by any national patent office, particularly specialised examiners treat patent applications of a rather narrow technical field.

The Digital File Marketplace

Following the Office’s initiatives “early certainty”, “boosting the production²” and “soft landing” in combination with a conservative recruitment policy, the conclusion came up that the workload on a decreasing number of examiners in certain technical fields could only be managed by introducing a “Digital File Marketplace (DFM)” – i.e. “a DG1-wide, open and transparent marketplace where workload [e.g. patent application files] or examiner capacity can be offered to other examiner teams”. As the work within the Examination Division was regarded as a key to maintaining the EPO quality standards, the DFM initiative thus aimed at Examining Divisions composed of an entrusted examiner from the workload receiving team, a technically qualified chairperson and a second examiner from the workload offering team. At least the two members from the workload offering team are therefore specialised experts from the technical field to which the patent application was originally assigned.

_____ ¹ See for example Dem Europäischen Patentamt droht Entmachtung, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 19.05.2010 ² Also known under “getting there faster”

---

In the years 2020 to 2022 more than 3.500 examination files (i.e. 1,0% of all finished examination files treated in the same period) and more than 4.300 search files (i.e. 0,6% of all finished search files treated in the same period) were transferred between teams of different technical fields under this DFM initiative attached³ with a DFM marker, indicating the quality-ensuring composition of Examining Divisions or possible future Examining Divisions.

However, in the very same period more than 21.600 examination files (i.e. 6,4% of all finished examination files treated in the same period) and more than 106.600 search files (i.e. 15,6% of all finished search files treated in the same period) were transferred between teams of different technical fields without DFM marker. Therefore, on top of the reduction in available examination and search time due to the Office’s conservative recruitment policy, more than 21.600 applications were apparently not examined by an Examining Division composed of members of a team qualified for the technical field of these files. Furthermore, 106.600 applications were apparently not searched by members of the technical teams to which the files had originally been allocated.

The right file to the right people?

It is thus questionable whether VP 1’s promise to the members of the Industry Patent Quality Charter (IPQC) to further enhance the patent quality could be achieved by harmonising the examining procedures by redistributing patent applications among different technical teams. Especially as many thousand files had already been redistributed in the period leading to the IPQC’s concerns. It rather appears that an Examining Division composed of members not qualified for the technical field of an application would rather tend to quickly grant patents of lower quality, as already feared by European industry associations back in 2010.

The Central Staff Committee fully supports the idea that the right file should go to the right people. But here it is necessary to walk the talk. The figures show that far too many files are treated by Examining Divisions outside the appropriate technical field. Better capacity planning is indispensable. New colleagues with the necessary expertise are to be recruited. More technical training must be offered to colleagues who want to change their technical field.

Your Central Staff Committee

_____ ³ Detailed statistics show the number of transferred files that were treated under the Digital File Marketplace (DFM) initiative, and the number of files that were simply transferred

By the looks of it, as per above, EPO staff intends to repeatedly protest the deviation from the Rule of Law as well as key conventions at the EPO. This institution is now run for and by patent litigators and monopolies (their clients), not for science or by scientists (don't be misled by the latest puff piece in the "news" section of the EPO's site; imagine actual criminals awarding you a "Lifetime Achievement laureate" to distract from their crimes by 'science-washing'). ⬆