THE European Patent Office (EPO) does not bring much pride to Europe. It used to, no doubt. I used to be a bit of a fan prior to the software patent debacles (back when the office wasn't run by politicians, either [1, 2]; not to mention family members/other relatives and military people). Today's EPO is rather absurd; a quick review of the career record of people who run it ought to suffice. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) -- with all its flaws -- never experienced such a credibility crisis. I've never come across people promoting spouses there (only in-laws, albeit that too is rather rare).

"Those people are patently ignorant about what it takes to actually run a patent office."It should not shock anyone -- not even the EPO's own examiners -- that low patent quality is covertly the goal (when they speak about "quality" they mean speed, i.e. the opposite of quality). Those people are patently ignorant about what it takes to actually run a patent office. These "superiors" are less qualified than many of their "inferiors" -- examiners who would certainly have done a better job running this office (than these bureaucrats who love wine and gambling).

Just before the weekend we saw this new press release [1, 2] about "Intention to Grant" stem cell patents -- only a week or so after CRISPR patents were thrown out (not by the Office but the Boards, which are only in theory "independent" from the EPO). To quote this press release: "BrainStorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: BCLI), a leading developer of adult stem cell therapeutics for neurodegenerative diseases, today announced that the European Patent Office (EPO) has communicated its intention to grant a European patent titled 'Methods of Generating Mesenchymal Stem Cells which secrete Neurotrophic Factors'. Allowed claims cover the method for manufacturing MSC-NTF cells (NurOwn€®)."

This is that same old slippery slope. In the US, for example, Myriad and Mayo showed that the highest court (SCOTUS) isn't tolerating patents on life or nature.

"Just ensure the patent application has a real person's name and not something like "DABUS"."As for the EPO?

Anything goes nowadays.

Almost anything.

Just ensure the patent application has a real person's name and not something like "DABUS".

As one EPO insider put it in response to our article about the latest incident on Dutch territories: "The decisions they have made so far regarding the construction of the new building, their published reports and studies are not worth the paper it's written on. No joke. [...] EPO top management (with the exception of a handful) is a huge failure and, to put it nicely. They're a bunch of incompetent cowboys. [...] As the saying goes, the decisions where made by monkeys (EPO management) but approved and signed off by Donkeys (Administrative Council of the European Patent Office)."

Look at the people who make up the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (not Office); they're usually just lawyers from national patent offices (NPOs). Only few of them are scientists and they're in bed with the litigation industry in their country and abroad.

"Look at the people who make up the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (not Office); they're usually just lawyers from national patent offices (NPOs)."It is hardly shocking that all we've said above isn't being touched by mainstream media. For one thing, as we've shown before, the EPO bribes the major publishers. It buys silence and puff pieces. We have many concrete examples of this. Expect nothing but puff pieces in Dutch media about the 'wonderful' new building of the EPO, based on "published reports and studies [that] are not worth the paper it's written on," as the above EPO insider put it. Even the EPO's internal gazette is full of puff pieces about it (we covered this years ago). Some fine work of engineering, eh? What does it say about the EPO if it (itself!) cannot put together a simple building with cubicles for staff? Even at a massive budget, which was quickly overspent. In past years we wrote about the missed schedules, the massive losses (sheltered by the private firm, not the EPO), the injuries and many defects. Even Berlin Airport hasn't suffered that many flukes.

But never mind facts, never mind reality. The EPO can afford to buy itself a parallel reality. Last month we wrote a number of articles on this topic. Management of the EPO bribes scholars and then it brags about it. It's like those oil companies that fund 'research' for their bottom line, corrupting the integrity of academia in the process.

Just before the weekend the EPO tweeted: "Martin Wörter of @ETH has categorised technological fields to distinguish between process & product #inventions. You can read his results here: https://bit.ly/38P7DkN His project was funded by our Academic Research"

Who benefits from this so-called 'research'? The EPO of course. This was likely a condition for this bribe grant.

This wouldn't be the first time the EPO corrupts academia, even outside this so-called 'programme' it called "Academic Research Programme" (it sounds better than "bribe"). In past years it also bribed scholars for UPC propaganda and while the EPO actively harms SMEs it bribes some corruptible scholars to manufacture a fictional tale saying the exact opposite. The EPO has just tweeted this: "Italian company Cosmed has built its reputation for laboratory-based medical device products on a sound IP portfolio. You can read how they did it here: http://bit.ly/epoSMEstudies ..."

"Suffice to say, patent offices are not supposed to be in the 'business' of research grants; that's what the ERC and others are tasked to do (with safeguards in place to protect against mischief like the above)."So-called 'SME' 'studies'; many of these SMEs aren't exactly known for creating anything.

Oh, how about PR 'on the cheap' with an academic veneer? Here we go, greenwashing services for the EPO; "Julie Lochard of @UPECactus set out to measure the impact of environmental regulation on innovation in #climatechange mitigation technologies," the EPO has just tweeted. "You can read her results here: https://bit.ly/38P7DkN #greentech Her research was funded by our Academic Research Programme."

It doesn't take a genius to understand that patents in this area merely harm the planet (offering monopolies on mitigation techniques), but bribed scholars will mislead everyone for cash. This is not EPO "generosity" but overt abuse.

In a lot of ways, the EPO's behaviour resembles that of Big Oil-funded scholars whose task is to seed uncertainty and doubt about independent climate research, making the topic seem like a "controversial" "debate" with "political" slant. Suffice to say, patent offices are not supposed to be in the 'business' of research grants; that's what the ERC and others are tasked to do (with safeguards in place to protect against mischief like the above). ⬆