New Paper Shows That EPO "Growth" is Dictated From Above, Not Earned (More Monopolies Granted by Breaking Rules, Laws, Conventions)
Speaking of "targets" or "quotas":
Earlier this year: The EPO, Europe's Largest Patent Office, Admits Outsourcing to Microsoft Slop
Published yesterday, a new EPO union publication explains that under António Campinos - just like under Benoît Battistelli - the 'results' are fake. It's just part of "The EPO Bubble" - attaining fake 'growth' by violating the European Patent Convention (EPC, 1973) or by granting loads of fake patents, not limited to European software patents - i.e. patents which are both illegal and undesirable.
Who's gonna stop it? Not beneficiaries of the "cash cow". They sell Europe 'piece-wise' in the form of monopolies granted in Europe to non-European corporations (and oligarchs). It's painful to watch and to see this, but that's just what's happening. It has been happening for a long time.
Europe stands to get poorer as a result. The above-mentioned "beneficiaries of the "cash cow"" are in effect selling us all out.
This was sent to staff yesterday:
Dear SUEPO members, dear colleagues,Targets for 2026 are currently being handed down to individuals. We have repeatedly requested a bottom-up approach to the target setting exercise and management have assured us that the process would be “fair and transparent”. However, through our regular SUEPO TH member engagement activities we are receiving troubling feedback from the work floor.
Here's the publication they circulate:
INTERNATIONALE GEWERKSCHAFT IM EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTAMT
STAFF UNION OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE
UNION SYNDICALE DE L'OFFICE EUROPEEN DES BREVETSOrtssektion Den Haag
Local section The Hague
Section locale La Haye11 December 2025
su25020hpObjective setting 2026: what can you do about high targets?
Dear SUEPO members, dear colleagues,
According to the EPO budgets for 2025 and 2026, next year’s production objectives have been increased by 1.3% compared to 20251. Targets for 2026 are currently being handed down to individuals.
We have repeatedly requested a bottom-up approach to the target setting exercise2 and management have assured us that the process would be “fair and transparent”3. However, through our regular SUEPO TH member engagement activities we are receiving troubling feedback from the work floor:
- Double-digit percentage increases in production / productivity targets;
- Inaccurate time-capacity calculations, with certain types of leave being counted as working time, even when long planned in advance (e.g. parental or home leave);
- In some directorates, identical production/productivity demands for all staff, regardless of experience, complexity of files, or additional responsibilities.
These practices will leave many colleagues with objectives which are (extremely) difficult to achieve without compromising their health, personal time or the quality of their work. This seems to go against the SP2028 statements: “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). Furthermore, as seen in previous years and due to the current career system4, achieving your target does not guarantee a step or a bonus.
_____
1 More particularly, the 2026 draft budget (CA/50/25) mentions 424 700 SEO products (p.4) for 4 081 (Annex 31), i.e. 104,07 SEO products/examiner while the 2025 budget (CA/D 1/24, p.21 and Annex 34) mentioned 413 341 SEO products for 4 025 examiners, i.e. 102,7 SEO products/examiner.
2 See also the CSC open letters of 08.07.2025 and 12.11.2025, the notes of the meeting of 03.11.2025, the notes of the meeting of 06.06.2025, the notes of the meeting of 12.06.2024, the notes of the meeting of 29.11.2024.
3 See point 6 of the notes of the meeting of 03.11.2025.
4 Circular 364, Part IV, A(3): “there is no automatic link between appraisal reports and the reward exercise”
What can you do about it?
After LSCTH raised these issues at a recent meeting with management5, management stated that: "[s]taff were encouraged to raise any disproportionate cases directly with the line management or escalate them to higher levels if needed. VP1 underlined that such situations should not occur and that the process must remain fair and transparent." Rediscussing high target increases with your line management should therefore be the first step, also collectively (i.e. as a whole team or even directorate).
As a second step and given that your 2026 performance will be evaluated against the objectives set, it is crucial that any concerns also be sent in written form to your line manager and that you document them for future reference. [redacted]
While doing this early is best, you may also complete these steps later in the year. To help us build a comprehensive picture of what is happening across the work floor we would appreciate it if you could forward a copy of your email to [redacted].
Kind regards,
Your SUEPO TH committee
_____
5 See section 6 of the notes of the meeting of 07.11.2025
Notice how it says: "Targets for 2026 are currently being handed down to individuals."
Imagine running an exam and saying, upfront, how many will get As and how many will get Fs.
That would make no sense, would it?
Welcome to EPO. █