 |
With quality, it can be the little things that
make all the difference -- like the gap between
"in" and "action" in the text above ... |
Over the past few months, IPKat team members David and Darren have posted comments concerning the
Handbook of Quality Procedures of the European Patent Office (see for example
here and
here) -- and the Handbook has been closely reviewed by Gwilym Roberts (
here). One of the features of this exciting and important publication is the fact that it sets out the EPO complaints procedure, which uses Directorate Quality Management Support (DQMS). This, being so, a number of Kats and feline friends have recently been discussing whether the EPO complaints procedure actually works.
It is not a criticism of the EPO to suggest that an effective complaints procedure is necessary. No organisation works effectively 100% of the time. The IPKat does not think it controversial to suggest that, particularly in a large organisation such as the EPO, a formal and effective procedure is required to ensure consistent quality and handling, processing and examination of applications.
 |
Even the best of us
have to live with
complaint procedures |
Anecdotally, the ears and whiskers of certain IPKat team members have led them to hear of situations where, regrettably, it appears that EPO complaint procedure is less effective than had been hoped. These experiences suggest that, if the issue is in any way substantive, for example the failure of an examiner to engage genuinely with arguments put forward by a party, then the complaints procedure does not really assist. Other complaints concern the lack of any facility to contact the examiner (telephone not answered; no voicemail; voicemail messages not returned
[perhaps they're all on Twitter here, wonders Merpel]), and lack of clarity as to how to reach a more senior examiner or supervisor. However, since the sample size for these anecdotes is rather low, the IPKat would like to conduct a poll. He also wonders whether there are situations (perhaps, for example, where there have been procedural rather than substantive problems) where the complaints procedure has been effective.
 |
Office cats have long
complained about the
absence of quality mice ...* |
The poll questions are on the sidebar
[readers who never see the sidebar because they just read the email alerts can find the sidebar by clicking here]. However, readers are strongly encouraged to share any specific experience of the EPO complaints procedure, positive as well as negative, in the comments to this post. Comments on any other manner in which an issue has been successfully addressed, other than the complaints procedure, are also welcomed (the IPKat does not mean the ultimate means, namely a formal appeal of an appealable decision).
The poll closes on
Sunday night, 24 June.It goes without saying that the IPKat will share the results with all his readers in order to offer guidance on the most effective approach to dealing with difficult situations, examination or procedural.
* Ennio and Stella belong to Anne Pigeon (Manager, Policy Development, Canadian Intellectual Property Office).
