The EPO's Central Staff Committee Explains the EPO Became So Corrupt That It Strives to Almost Automatically Grant Every Patent (Monopoly) Request
Each time this is done deliberately by the management should be considered a serious white-collar crime, but at the EPO they flaunt diplomatic immunity as they destroy Europe for "profit" (we know whose)
EPO management is nothing short of a network of white-collar criminals. This makes Europe - and by extension the EU - look hardly better than the Kremlin. Something must be done to address this ASAP or Europe will become another Russian Federation (or Defecation on Human Rights, Rule of Law et cetera), where corruption is so prevalent and crime so widespread that people just take it for granted and are lured to participate. Heck, even the EU's patent "courts" exist against the laws and against constitutions. What sort of system is this???
But don't take this from us...
Listen to the elected staff representation of the EPO, which recently complained about European software patents - i.e. patents which are both illegal and undesirable. Benoît Battistelli called them buzzwords like "4IR" and António Campinos adopted the more 'fashionable' term, 'hey hi' (AI). All these patents are illegal and now we see the scope expanding some more and to more areas. Is there any actual patent examination in the EPO's future. The EPC mandates it, but when was it last debated by member states (in a diplomatic conference)? Was it silently abolished? If so, then the EPO should be instantaneously abolished too.
EPO management is now bribing large companies that talk about this issue. EPO management is basically committing some crimes to hide some prior crimes. Where does this end? When will the EU put an end to it instead of participate in this festival of corruption?
Earlier today the Central Staff Committee (CSC) sent the following communication to a lot of EPO staff: "Dear Colleagues,
"The EPO has still not provided to staff an explanation to the arbitrary reallocation of patent applications from IPQC members and the cancellation of oral proceedings. A significant proportion of the files were transferred to Directorate 1218 known for having imposed a drastic change of practice on examiners resulting in an estimated decrease of 80% to 90% in refusals in just 2 years."
"This paper brings an overview of this change.
"Sincerely yours..."
The publication (paper) is a PDF, so we're converting it to HTML, GemText, and plain text:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel
Munich, 26.09.2024
sc24058cp”Harmonising” towards 0% refusals?
The EPO has still not provided to staff an explanation to the arbitrary reallocation of patent applications from IPQC members and the cancellation of oral proceedings. A significant proportion of the files were transferred to Directorate 1218 known for having imposed a drastic change of practice on examiners resulting in an estimated decrease of 80% to 90% in refusals in just 2 years. This paper brings an overview of this change.
“Harmonising”?
Back in 2021, Directorate 1218 followed a distinct practice for processing software patents1 and in particular for the assessment of technical vs non-technical features. According to management, this approach differed from the practice in Directorates 1222 (Munich) and 1213 (The Hague). As a result, very similar applications were apparently examined in significantly different ways. Also the grant rates showed discrepancies:
Grant rate 20212
D1222 (MU) + D1213 (TH): 12%
D1218 (MU): 87%In 2022, upper management determined that it was time to “harmonise” the practice across the directorates. Despite the fact that the practice of D1222 and D1213 had been largely confirmed by the Boards of Appeal, upper management decided that the practice of D1218 should be adopted by everyone.
Enforcing the change (“steer of Dir1218”) …
The enforcement of the change was strictly top-down. No discussion took place with the examiners. The directorates were unilaterally re-organised as follows:
Examiners of the directorates D1222 and D1213 who were hesitant to adopt the practice of D1218 were assigned a “coach”, and their files were checked by a Special Unit.
Management attempted to persuade reluctant examiners with financial arguments by advising them with statements such as: “granting is better for your pension”. The reasoning
_____________
1 Computer-implemented inventions (CII) like business methods, simulations, AI and machine learning
was that when a patent is granted, the Office and the EPO Member States share the renewal fees paid by the applicant, whereas a refusal puts an end to the payment of these fees.
Examiners who adopted the new practice - which often meant switching from refusing to granting patents - were rewarded. The appraisal report included specific goals such as: “Harmonise practice in 1218” and “Positive, proactive attitude in Divisions to applicants, in line with steer of Dir1218”.
… by interfering in the Examining Divisions
The Special Unit of D1218 systematically monitored summons to oral proceedings and refusals. It often asked the entrusted Examining Divisions to reconsider their summons or refusals. When an Examining Division declined to follow this advice, the Special Unit frequently reassigned the case to another Examining Division, even without informing the former Examining Division at all. If there was still a refusal, in the event of an appeal being filed by an applicant, frequently the file was reallocated to a different special Examining Division for the interlocutory revision which then promptly rectified.
Aiming at 0% refusals?
The graph2 below illustrates the impact of the enforced “harmonisation”, following the merger in 2022, showing a stark decline in the number of refusals.
A decrease in the number of refusals obviously leads to a reduction in the number of possibilities for the applicants to appeal. The Management Report of the Boards of Appeal for 20233 notes that “ex parte cases have shown a decline of 37.7% (from 682 to 425) which had not been forecasted”.
Conclusion
The EPO has still not brought an explanation to the arbitrary reallocation of patent applications from IPQC members and the cancellation of oral proceedings. DG1 Operations has so far very confidentially cascaded down the information that the new Examining Divisions were “Repair Teams”.
Overall, the fact that a significant part of the patent applications were reallocated to D1218 rather points at a desire to further expand to other areas of DG1 the practice of a decreasing number of refusals.
The Central Staff Committee
_____________
2 Estimation based on data on the Landing Page (for 2023: number of refusals Dec 2022 to Nov 2023)
3 BOAC/3/24, page 4, second last paragraph
It's worth noting that the first footnote (above) mentions software patents but refers to them as "CII".
The Central Staff Committee calls this a "[d]rastic change of practice resulted in stark decrease in refusals" (it's not merely a change; it's a violation of the rules, it's a breach of the law).
Who's going to hold the EPO accountable for this??? Why was it permitted to go on for so long? █