The Patent Litigation 'Industry' Controls the European Patent Office (Vendor Capture) and Everyone Suffers, Even the European Union
Teasers can say stuff in a nutshell or in a few seconds. But what's the source or the substance? Well, the António Campinos "Mafia" (same Mafia that was started by Benoît Battistelli along with Campinos at EUIPO) seems incapable or respecting the law. Patent offices exist not to maximise the number of monopolies they hand out, but who cares, right? The EPO openly admits that its sole goal is money and it began calling applicants "customers", "clients" etc. No wonder they grant European software patents - i.e. patents which are both illegal and undesirable - and even patents on chewing gum. If the EPO doesn't sort itself out, it'll need to be altogether abolished (which is unlikely to happen when the political discourse is captured by large corporations).
Today we relay an EPO publications dated just 4 days ago (this past Tuesday).
Objective setting 2025
What you can do at the time of objective / target setting
The 2025 draft budget[1] announced a planned production of 413 000 SEO (Search Examination Opposition) products for 4 025 planned examiner posts. This is a 7% increase from the 2024 plan. It does not come as much of a surprise seeing the now 10-year-old trend of target increases, which coincides with the lifetime of the new career system.
Still, during a recent meeting of the LSCTH with VP1, the question was raised as to why such a steep increase was requested from DG1 staff when the financial study[2] foresees an increase in productivity of 2.1% per annum. His reply was that the financial study is the touchstone of the yearly planning, that the 2,1% increase will not necessarily be implemented linearly, and that the increased targets recover from the dip[3] in productivity of recent years – see also orange line on the graph above.
Why is this a problem?
Apart from the period of 2020-2022, DG1 staff seems to have been meeting the challenge of these increased targets – see graph above – and is catching up with the maximum production per examiner of 2019.
However, SP2028[4] has one goal: sustainability. The financial sustainability of the EPO seems to be on the right track: the “gap” announced by the 2019 financial study has already been filled, the independent actuaries estimate that the pension liabilities are adequately covered, and the EPO – a public service organisation not supposed to make benefits - has regularly been producing surpluses of nearly €400m[5].
But we doubt very much that the productivity increases of the order of 30% in 10 years are sustainable.
We also fear for our colleagues’ health[6] and the quality of the final products[7], and invite higher management to put in practise the statements of SP2028: “putting the wellbeing of our people first” (p.17) and “The EPO aims for a complete and accurate search covering all aspects of the invention and a thorough written opinion.”, (p.42).
Some of you have informed us that your teams will be receiving double digit increases in targets for 2025. Others, that individual time capacity is completely disregarded, and all colleagues will receive the same targets irrespective of how much time they will have available to reach them. Or that the files allocated to team members on long term (sick) leave will be redistributed to the rest of the team.
This is once again at odds with the SP2028: “It is about providing a framework for a flexible and healthy work-life balance, putting the wellbeing of our people first and nurturing a community that, through diversity and inclusion, brings fresh perspectives and innovative thinking to the table” (p.17).
We have informed VP1 of such practices, who seemed to say they should not occur. We reiterate the message here.
What you can do about it
On unreasonable target increases:
The intranet announcement “Performance cycle 2025”[8] states: “Staff and managers are invited to engage in collaborative discussions as the basis for well-written goals that serve as a reliable guide for the coming year”. We therefore encourage you to re-negotiate your targets and if that is not possible at least to communicate your doubts on the objectives setting with your line management, possibly collectively (i.e. as a whole team or even directorate), and possibly using the template in Annex below as a guide.
It is important that you be conservative and realistic and avoid committing to unattainable objectives for which you alone will be deemed to be responsible and will have to bear the consequences, in 2025 and beyond.
On health:
Work should not make you sick: if your work is having negative effects on your health (exhaustion, stress, sleeping problems, headaches, trouble disconnecting…), we advise to take sick leave, consult your doctor and report it to your line manager and to OHS.
On quality:
We advise to ask for written instructions of how to perform your tasks such as to reach the targets – see also template below. This is to avoid that the responsibility for the quality of your work and the consequences thereof be placed on your shoulders.
Discussing objectives is reasonable, but committing to a target imposed on you is not. We therefore recommend informing your direct line manager in writing – possibly using the template below. Your email should then be appended to your 2025 performance appraisal in the successfactors tool. We would appreciate if you could then forward your email to redacted@suepo.org or redacted@epo.org.
Don’t hesitate to contact us or your local staff committee The Hague.
Related publications:
Reporting exercise 2023 - appraisal report, 24.01.2024, LSCTH
Rewards exercise 2024, 07.2024, LSCTH
Incompetence procedure, 14.10.2024, LSCTH
Capacity push for 2024: More work for less staff, 16.02.2024, CSC
Kind regards,
Your SUEPO TH committee – M18B10 and De Bruyn Kopsstraat, 15, Rijswijk
[...]
[1] See CA/50/24, p.6 and p.100
[3] The productivity dip of 2020-2022 seems to be due to covid, wave of retirements, "low-hanging fruits” already picked, DG1 staff used as testers for the Minimum Viable Product tools, IT system disruptions, etc.
[5] See slide 7 of the January 2024 LSCTH GA presentation on objective setting and SUEPO’s comment on the President’s announcement.
[6] During the COHSEC of 22.02.2024, OHS physicians voiced that also highly productive staff – mainly examiners and including some team managers - work overtime, come to their limits and start to suffer from work related stress causing them to contact OHS with health issues. They mentioned that the 12% increase in stress related symptoms between 2022 and 2023 might be only the tip of the iceberg. See also agenda points by members nominated by the CSC, p.3-4, and Key facts 2023, table 4.
[7] See also Industry Patent Quality Charter (IPQC), which is publicly critical about the substantive quality of EPO patents.
[8] See „Performance cycle 2025“, EPO Intranet, 20 November 2024.
ANNEX: template email to manager, please use only the parts which apply to you, delete and / or adapt the rest.
Dear xxxx,
On [FILL IN DATE] my objectives were set at [FILL IN]. As in the past, I commit to working to the best of my abilities in 2025. However, the following points prevent me from presently committing to the objectives set for 2025:
The objectives set correspond to an increase of production/productivity of + [FILL IN] % compared to 2024. OR The objectives set correspond to the additional supplementary tasks: [LIST NEW TASKS YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO ACCOMPLISH].
This is much higher than the 2,1% annual increase mentioned by the financial study 2023. I kindly request that my target increase be reviewed to the 2,1% productivity increase advocated by the financial study.
The SP2028 mentions: “putting the wellbeing of our people first” (p.17) and “The EPO aims for a complete and accurate search covering all aspects of the invention and a thorough written opinion.”, (p.42). I do not see how I can reach the new targets without compromising my health or the quality of the final product. I therefore kindly request written instructions on how to perform my tasks so that the responsibility for the quality of my work and the consequences thereof will not be placed on my shoulders.
My capacity does not seem to have been calculated correctly. My parental leave/ home leave / unpaid leave/ part-time were not deducted from the total working days.
The many hours expected to be spent in training, (team) meetings, system disturbances, etc… which in my case amount to approximately [FILL IN AN ESTIMATON OF THE NUMBER OF DAYS THIS WOULD TAKE YOU] days have also not been taken into consideration;
The working tools have not evolved in a way which could help me increase productivity since 2024 and nothing has changed in the way I am supposed to perform my work since 2024, when my target was [FILL IN YOUR TARGET FOR 2024]
The ratio Search / Actions without point / Grants is influenced by management decisions and/or change of work priority during the year, all of which are beyond my control.
The files in Search/Examination allocated to me could come from technical fields outside my Area of Competence, as it happened already in the past OR as already announced by team manager/ director/ COO. In this case it could take me more time to deliver EPC compliant products.
I can neither know nor predict my personal circumstances in 2025. As mentioned above, you can of course continue to count on me to work to the best of my abilities in 2025, as I always have.
[For examiners] My intention to work together with the team to achieve good results may find its natural limits in my duty to deliver quality products under the EPC. If management expects me to go beyond this limit by delivering products which do not necessarily meet the requirements of the EPC, I expect written instructions to do so, so that the responsibility for the quality of these products and the consequences thereof will not be placed at my door.
[For other functions] My intention to work together with the team to achieve good results may find its natural limits in my duty to deliver quality work which fulfils the requirements of my job description. If management expects me to go beyond this limit by delivering work which does not necessarily meet the requirements of my job description, I expect written instructions to do so, so that the responsibility for the quality of my work and the consequences thereof will not be placed at my door.
Best regards
They quote the Office regarding “putting the wellbeing of our people first”; well, words are cheap. In practice, not only does the EPO destroy the minds of EPO workers; it equips aggressive corporate giants (typically based outside Europe but hiring European law firms) and patent trolls with lousy (but expensive to invalidate) patents they in turn use to destroy the wallbeing of Europeans.
The EPO is a disgrace. If the EU cares about its reputation and long-term viability, then it must intervene ASAP. Its fate is tied to EPO's, not only through high-level corruption but also fake 'courts' which represent a rapid death to EU justice.
Guess who's laughing the last last here (profiting from this chaos). █