Heralding an era of endless, frivolous patent litigation in Europe?

Destroying the Office and making the staff pay for it!

Summary: An attack on truth itself -- the disintegration of the European Patent Office (EPO) -- carries on, after staff found the courage to tell delegates what had happened due to Battistelli's policies and incredible oppression that prevails and expands

10 days ago we mentioned an attack on staff for saying the truth about decline in patent quality at the EPO -- a serious issue that would damage if not destroy Europe's industry, more so (and more quickly) if the UPC ever became a reality, enabling a lot more financially-prohibitive litigation -- often using bogus patents -- against vulnerable companies all around Europe (unable to afford a defense, i.e. challenge to the patents). Companies already know they would hobble under a UPC-like regime and they complain about this.

The rant from Minnoye and Casado Cerviño was documented here before. The cause for their rant was originally delivered in German and the Central Staff Committee thankfully translated that into English. “Attack on quality delivered by EPO staff” is what they call it (playing along with the misleading narrative of "attack"), explaining that "Vice-Presidents of DG 1 and DG 2 stated on 17 March 2017 in the Intranet: “Staff Representation criticizes EPO quality during Administrative Council”.

Here is the transcript of the intervention:

Sehr geehrte Delegierte,

der Weg zum einheitlichen Patentschutz ist sicher von größter Bedeutung für das Amt und das Personal. Daher ergreift der Personalausschuss in Absprache mit dem Ratspräsidenten auch regelmäßig das Wort, um Sie über die neuesten Entwicklungen im Personal diesbezüglich zu informieren. Es ist ja die statuarische Aufgabe des Personalausschusses, die Interessen des Personals zu vertreten und für den erforderlichen Kontakt zu der zuständigen Stelle, hier dem Verwaltungsrat, zu sorgen.

Mehr und mehr Kolleginnen und Kollegen sprechen den Personalausschuss mit ihren Sorgen an, dass der Weg zum einheitlichen Patentschutz in Gefahr ist. Drei häufig genannte Probleme möchte ich herausgreifen und Sie um Ihre geschätzte Aufmerksamkeit bitten.

1. In der täglichen Arbeit des Patentprüfers ist nicht mehr genügend Zeit, um den Stand der Technik zu einer Patentanmeldung hinreichend zu ermitteln. Daher werden mehr und mehr Patente erteilt, die nie hätten erteilt werden dürfen. Wenn die renommierte juristische Fachzeitschrift JUVE Rechtsmarkt davon berichtet, dass 54 % der Industrievertreter nicht mehr mit der Qualität unserer Patenterteilungsverfahren zufrieden sind, dann sollten wir uns Sorgen machen. Die implementierten Qualitätsmechanismen sind ungeeignet, um die Qualität der Recherchen und erteilten Patente zu gewährleisten. Dies berichten unsere Kolleginnen und Kollegen.

2. Die in Recherche, Sachprüfung und Formalprüfung eingesetzte Software weist zahlreiche Mängel auf, sie ist unergonomisch und teilweise unbrauchbar. Dies berichten unsere Kolleginnen und Kollegen.

3. Die Prüfungsabteilungen fühlen sich immer mehr der Einflussnahme durch die Verwaltung ausgesetzt. Aus objektiver Sicht ist immer öfter die Besorgnis der Befangenheit der Patentprüfer begründet. Dies berichten unsere Kolleginnen und Kollegen.

Dies sind keine guten Nachrichten, es ist aber die Pflicht des Personalausschusses, den Verwaltungsrat darüber zu informieren, welche Sorgen das Personal äußert. Ich kann Ihnen lediglich versichern, dass der Personalausschuss immer bereit sein wird, durch konstruktive Vorschläge dabei zu helfen, die Probleme zu beseitigen.

Meine Damen und Herren, ich danke Ihnen für Ihre geschätzte Aufmerksamkeit!

English translation:

Dear Delegates

The path towards Unitary Patent protection is for sure of the utmost importance both for the Office and for its staff. Therefore, the Staff Committee regularly takes the floor – in agreement with the Chairman of the Council – in order to inform you about the latest staff developments in this regard. According to our Codex, the Staff Committee shall represent the interests of staff and maintain appropriate contact with the competent administrative authorities, which here is the Administrative Council.

More and more colleagues have addressed the Staff Committee about the perceived risks that concern them as we head towards the Unitary Patent. There are three specific issues repeatedly mentioned that I would like to bring to your attention:

1. Patent examiners no longer have enough time in their daily work for an adequate search and analysis of the “state-of-the-art” for a patent application. This implies that more and more patents are being granted than should ever have been. When the renowned, independent judicial journal JUVE Rechtsmarkt reports that 54% of industry representatives are no longer satisfied with the quality of our patent grant procedures, then we should all be very concerned. The internally implemented quality controls are insufficient for guaranteeing to maintain the current quality of search reports and granted patents. This is what our colleagues tell us.

2. The software tools used in search, examination and formalities show numerous deficiencies: many are not ergonomic and some of them are simply unusable. This is what our colleagues tell us.

3. The Examining Divisions feel more and more to be under the influence of the administration. From an external, objective viewpoint, it seems more and more justified to question the impartiality of the patent examiners. This is what our colleagues tell us.

Although this is not good news, it remains the duty of the Staff Committee to inform the Administrative Council about any such concerns expressed to them by the staff. Nevertheless, I can ensure you that the Staff Committee shall always be ready to help with constructive proposals for resolving any of these identified problems.

Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you very much for your kind attention!

Regarding claims that "path towards Unitary Patent protection is for sure of the utmost importance both for the Office and for its staff," we don't quite agree. In fact, UPC would make many people redundant. The EPO has not been honest about it. It's basically honest about nothing these days, including the prospects (of lack thereof) of the UPC. Regarding ergonomics, it will be the subject of future articles of ours.

We are gratified to see that EPO staff is finally speaking out about a subject that has irked us for years, seeing in particular how software was being patented in defiance of directives, the EPC, common sense, and economic sense. Software developers absolutely do not want patents in their vicinity. It only inhibits progress. ⬆