Formalities Officers (FOs) at the EPO Are in Trouble, Reveals Internal Report

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Jun 21, 2025

Old and related:

• Formalities Officers Team Managers at the European Patent Office Consider Stepping Down
• EPO as Tower of Babel (No Formality Officers)
• Fate of Formalities Officers (FOs) at the EPO

The EPO's representation (for staff) has a new paper that's just over a day old.

"Dear Colleagues," wrote the Central Staff Committee. "In this paper, we report on the “FO Community meets DG1 Chief Operating Officer” meeting held on 7 May 2025."

Take a quick look, it's not long:

Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel

The Hague, 19-06-2025
sc25039cp

FO community meets the DG1 Chief Operating Officer

Management focuses on mobility, Staff representation asks for consultation

Dear colleagues,

The meeting held on 7 May 2025 aimed at informing FO colleagues about the current management’s vision on the future of their role. The staff representation reports on the most noteworthy information.

“Look into the job offers for HR…”
From the beginning of the meeting, the administration repeatedly directed attention to job mobility opportunities—specifically towards HR. The selection process was presented as transparent, and that “we will not cherry-pick anyone”. At the same time, it was explicitly stated that should you decide to apply, success was not guaranteed. Mobility was framed as voluntary.

On job security
The administration claimed that formalities officers would not be forced to leave the office, citing retirements and natural turnover as elements of workforce planning. It was further indicated that a return to DG1 after an external experience would remain possible, without clarifying under what conditions or guarantees this would occur.

Future of FO work: flexibility, training, reskilling, and upskilling
It was acknowledged that automation is reducing FO tasks but argued that “The FO job won’t be completely replaced by tools or AI and that there would still be a place for humans in the Office.”

The statement was vague, offering no clear definition of this "place," and this lack of clarity is unlikely to provide reassurance.

The administration stressed again the need for flexibility in the system to move people around and get new skills. Once again, we got to hear the usual buzzwords “training, reskilling, and upskilling”.

The idea of FOs taking over preparatory tasks from examiners was raised, with an indication that it would include training. The proposal appeared not to have been developed in detail at this stage.

Staff representation’s intervention
We reiterated the FO community’s concerns and pointed out that - despite repeated requests - staff representation has not been involved in discussions about the future of the role.

We namely stressed that increasing automation and the reduction in task variety are making the job less attractive and negatively affecting long-term motivation.

With over 400 FOs—many nearing retirement and unlikely to seek a complete career shift—we questioned how management plans to align this reality with the accelerating pace of change. A specific concern was raised: what if AI and digitalisation advance faster than the pace of retirements?

---

The response given was that there are currently no plans to force FOs out. The ongoing simplification of FO tasks was framed as an opportunity to shift focus toward quality and examiner support. While the mixed feelings among FOs were acknowledged, the need for flexibility was reiterated. The administration also conceded that not everything can be foreseen or perfectly managed.

Staff representation’s view
While the meeting offered an opportunity for exchange, the FO community’s fundamental concerns about the future of their role still stand. The strong emphasis and repeated referrals to HR jobs raised concerns within FO staff.

Given the numerous reorganisations DG1 has undergone since 2018 and the frequent shifts in direction by management, the FO colleagues are very cautious about embarking on such a career change especially in the current unstable environment.

What if HR department is outsourced or that its tasks are further automated?

We foresee that motivation and job satisfaction are at risk with this new announcement, particularly for staff who have invested decades in building expertise in a now-devalued function. At this stage of career, the idea of moving into a new domain, possibly with a steep learning curve, feels both unrealistic and destabilizing.

These announcements come on top of the recent reorganisation that saw teams reshuffled again and Team Managers losing their positions as the headcount went from 48 to 14. A reorganisation that lacked transparency, leaving colleagues once again with the responsibility to rebuild team dynamics from scratch—yet with unchanged efficiency and production expectations.

We reiterate our call to genuinely support this group by developing a structured and realistic roadmap and involving the staff representation. It is very concerning and a negative sign for the social dialogue that in this case again, the staff representation learnt on the spot the administration’s strong incentive offered to the FOs to move to HR.

In light of this, we request from the administration clear and timely information concerning the invitation to take up HR positions. Specifically, we require details on how many posts are involved, whether this concerns a large number of job openings or only a limited number of positions.

In addition, further job openings should be envisaged in other units of the Office, particularly those outside DG1 that also deal with patent-related data or with users of the patent system, and which would therefore benefit from the detailed knowledge of experienced FO colleagues.

We would like to receive information on the foreseen timeline, and the conditions under which such transitions would occur.

Lastly, concerning the transfer of preparatory tasks from examiners, the involvement of the staff representation will contribute to a more effective approach.

Meanwhile, FO colleagues will continue to navigate in uncertain waters, likely more focused on their retirement options than reassured by the Office’s unclear vision for their job.

The Central Staff Committee

One key part in the above is, it "is very concerning and a negative sign for the social dialogue that in this case again, the staff representation learnt on the spot the administration’s strong incentive offered to the FOs to move to HR."

Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos have sought to increase profits not only by breaking the law but also by crushing staff and salaries. They moreover intentionally violated the EPC and sought to grant European software patents - i.e. patents which are both illegal and undesirable.

The above attack on staff targets interpreters, which is a role or a set of people commenters online said were very helpful to them. So the service is just getting worse. We already know, based on an HR pattern we saw at IBM and elsewhere, that reallocating roles can be prerequisite for dismissal and those who do so expect many to resign anyway. █