EPO's Central Staff Committee (CSC) Scrutinises the Man Who Illegally Grants (and Forces Others to Illegally Participate in Granting) Software Patents in Europe
His name is Georg Weber and we covered this 3 years ago. European software patents - i.e. patents which are both illegal and undesirable - are granted because corrupt officials who reported to Benoît Battistelli and now report to António Campinos have detached the EPO from the Rule of Law in the name of "making money".
There's some communication circulating today in the EPO. To quote the elected (unlike the management, where bribes buy seats) Central Staff Committee:
Dear Colleagues,The Central Staff Committee (CSC) has contacted two DG1 Directors on issues concerning their Directorates.
Among the addressed topics are: re-allocation of files, transparency on file distribution, internal "quality" group, part-time work, parental leave.
Read more in this letter to Dir. 1218 and this letter to Dir. 1001.
Those are "open letters" and the EPO isn't some private corporation, so let's examine what's being conveyed:
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
GermanyCentral Staff Committee
Comité central du personnel
Zentraler Personalausschuss
centralSTCOM@epo.org
Reference: sc25036cl
Date: 10/06/2025
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
To:
Mr Georg Weber
(DG1 Director 1218)By email:
To: gweber@epo.org
Cc: socialdialogue@epo.orgOPEN LETTER
Dear Georg, dear director of 1218,
Over the past months, we have received observations from colleagues, which we would like to share with you in line with our mandate to "provide a channel for the expression of opinion by the staff" (Article 34(2) ServRegs). We believe that fostering clarity and transparency in the topics below will contribute to a smoother running of the services.
Importantly, we also hope that this message will help counter speculation and rumours. In the absence of clear communication, uncertainties can spread and affect morale. By raising these topics openly, our intention is to contribute to a more informed and constructive exchange.
1. Re-allocation of files
It is worth recalling that, during a meeting with the LSC Munich and on other occasions last year, VP1 assured staff that reallocations of files would no longer take place. Moreover, the current working environment includes active participation by entire divisions in searches, summonses, and refusals. Most examiners in the directorate have many years of experience at the EPO, and the Office prides itself on only employing highly qualified engineers.
Nevertheless, we have received reports that re-allocation of files continues to occur within your directorate, affecting both search and examination files. These reallocations appear to follow a top-down approach, with limited - if any - consultation or information-sharing with the responsible divisions. Justifications, if at all provided, are generally given in terms of “quality” or “timeliness”;
however, no concrete explanations are provided, and no structured feedback or quality loop seems to be in place.
We would like to add that our experts examined some of the files and did not identify, prima facie, any reason for reallocation. One common characteristic, however, was that the divisions considered negative search opinions and refusals. According to our information, no files including positive opinions or proposals for grant have ever been re-allocated.
In light of the above, we would be grateful for clarification on the following points:
1.1 How many re-allocations of files have taken place in recent months (except for cases of sickness or longer periods of leave) and for what reasons?
1.2 What specific “quality” / “timeliness” issues are leading to re-allocations of files?
1.3 Why has no feedback loop been implemented to enable learning and improvement?
1.4 Would it be possible to inform the entire division in advance of any re-distribution of Search or Examination files, including detailed reasons for such re-distribution?
2. Transparency on File Distribution
We have received several reports from colleagues indicating that file distribution within your directorate appears to have been centralised. Concerns have been raised regarding a lack of information and communication, as well as instances of erroneous file re-distribution of Search files. For example, there have been instances where search files were re-distributed even though the original search examiner was actively working on them. Attempts to resolve issues have proven difficult, partly because it is unclear who is responsible for file distribution, and partly because the responsible colleagues have not been easily reachable. This situation seems to be creating a bottleneck.
We are convinced that more transparency and clearer communication could help prevent further complications. In this context, we would appreciate clarification on the following points:
2.1 Who is currently in charge of file distribution? Who can be contacted in case of questions?
2.2 How does files distribution and re-distribution work?
3. Internal “Quality” Group
We have received information indicating that an internal “quality” group has been established within your directorate. It appears that the opinion of this “quality” group carries such weight that the decision of the examining division are, at times, overruled and replaced by those of the group.
However, the structure of the group, its members, and the basis on which they were appointed have not been officially communicated. The criteria for their nomination remain unclear. A review of
the EPO organisational chart revealed no reference to such internal “quality” groups. Furthermore, the functioning of this group seems to deviate from ISO 9001 standards: there is no visible feedback loop, and no reports appear to be produced. Further, the Office already has a dedicated quality department Directorate Quality Audit.
In light of the above, we would be grateful for clarification on the following points:
3.1 What is the rationale for maintaining a separate “quality” group in your directorate and what are its tasks?
3.2 What concrete learnings has the “quality” group generated? Have any workshops or topic- specific training sessions been organised as a result?
3.3 Who are the current members of the “quality” group and how have they been selected?
4. Allocation of 2nd Member and Chair Roles
We believe that best practice in file distribution - also observed in many directorates - is to assign 1st, 2nd, and chair roles evenly among experienced examiners (i.e. each examiner acting as 1st, 2nd, and chair on approximately one-third of their files). This promotes balanced workloads, encourages harmonization, and helps prevent silo mentalities.
However, we have been informed that this balanced approach is not being followed in some teams in your directorate. Instead, 2nd member and chair roles appear to be concentrated among a limited group of examiners.
We would therefore appreciate clarification on the following points:
4.1 Is it the case that not all experienced examiners are assigned 2nd and chair roles in a balanced way?
4.2 If so, what is the rationale behind this practice and how are 2nd members and chairs selected?
5. Clarification on Additional Prior Art During Examination Phase
Some examiners from your directorate are under the impression that it is not permitted to add further prior art during the examination phase. We believe this must be a misunderstanding, as the EPO Guidelines for Examination (C-IV, 7.3) provide clear guidance on when additional searches may or should be carried out.
To avoid confusion and ensure consistency, we would appreciate your confirmation that no internal rule or directive exists within your directorate that would deviate from the provisions set out in the EPO Guidelines.
6. Dissenting opinions
We have received reports suggesting that dissenting opinions on IGRAs may be discouraged in your directorate. In at least one instance, it appears that an IGRA including a dissenting opinion was halted, the division changed, and the dissenting opinion removed.
We believe that, dissenting opinions in EPO examination procedures enhance the quality and transparency of decision-making by encouraging critical thinking, highlighting alternative interpretations, and ensuring that all relevant arguments are considered. They contribute to institutional learning, support legal robustness, and foster a culture of respect and professional integrity within examining divisions.
In this context, we would appreciate clarification on the following points:
6.1 Is it true that dissenting opinion are discouraged and if yes, why is that the case?
6.2 Could you provide us with statistics on how many dissenting opinions have been sent in the last years in your directorate?
7. Reward allocation and technical fields
We have received reports from colleagues in your directorate, which raise concerns regarding the transparency and fairness of the reward allocation process. Given the number of examiners and the variety of technical fields covered within your directorate, we would like to seek clarification on the following points.
It has been reported that a single Excel file—containing both past and current performance data— is used to rank examiners for the allocation of bonuses and steps in the directorate. Furthermore, colleagues have observed inconsistencies in reward allocation across different teams. In some teams, more than 60% of eligible examiners reportedly receive a pensionable reward, whereas in others, fewer than 50%. These discrepancies appear to correlate with the main technical field handled by the team.
We would appreciate your response to the following questions:
7.1 Is it correct that pensionable rewards are not uniformly allocated across teams? If so, could you explain the reasons for these differences in allocation? Furthermore, would it be possible to provide us with a graph showing the percentage of pensionable rewards granted per eligible staff member, broken down by team (in anonymized form)?
7.2 Are there technical fields within your directorate for which the average working time per file is considered to be higher than in others? If this is the case, how is examiner performance compared across technical fields with differing work time requirements?
8. Quality and Productivity
We have received reports regarding individual outliers in terms of productivity, with some colleagues reportedly producing at a significantly higher rate than the average for their grade. These reports are accompanied by concerns about a potential decline in quality, particularly in the area of search.
8.1 Could you confirm whether such productivity outliers exist? Do you share these concerns, and are any countermeasures being considered or planned?
To conclude:
We hope that the above points provide a clear and constructive summary of the concerns raised by colleagues over the past months. As staff representation, our aim is not only to convey these observations in line with our mandate under Article 34(2) ServRegs, but also to support open dialogue and mutual understanding. We are convinced that transparency, timely communication, and shared learning are key to fostering trust, stability, and continuous improvement in the working environment. We look forward to your clarifications on the issues raised and to continuing a respectful and solution-oriented exchange in the interest of all colleagues in your directorate.
Sincerely yours,
Derek Kelly
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee
The second letter deals with other matters. To keep things "digestible" we'll cover it separately at a later point.
Notice that the examiners clearly complain about compliance and quality collapsing. Put in simple terms, EPO compels examiners to break the law in the name of obeying illegal "rules" or "orders". █