"Oh-oh! It's the EPO": More Munich mewsings from Merpel
Munich, host to the European Patent Office's main centre of operations, has been abuzz with speculation and intrigue this week, these being features of any organisation that does not enjoy the benefit of transparent government -- and, it should be said, these also being features of many organisations that do enjoy those benefits.
This moggy has it from an unimpeachable source that earlier this week, Tuesday 10 February, there was an informal get-together of European Patent Office's Administrative Council chairman (Denmark's Patent and Trade Mark Office Director Jesper Kongstad) and members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA)). As she understands it, the Great Dane was basically in listening mode for an hour or so, receiving some responses from the EBoA with regard to some proposals that had been mooted for modifying the rules of procedure regarding Article 23 of the European Patent Convention ("Independence of the members of the Boards"). There was an exchange of views on the work of Board 28 and other things.
As for the meeting of the Administrative Council (AC) on Wednesday 11 February, this moggy has little to report. She understands that consideration was given to a paper on the reform of both the governance and the structure of the boards. If Board 28 gives the reform proposals its blessing, the AC would have to formally adopt them when it meets next, on 10 March. The nuts and bolts of their implementation would then be worked out this summer with a view to their coming into force in January 2016. It may be changed in the light of further discussion. It is believed that the EBoA will be given a chance to discuss the Board 28 proposals with Mr Kongstad and the President, though it's not known whether this opportunity for discussion is intended to provide a chance to amend and even influence affect the proposals or whether it is simply to deflect criticism that the EBoA has not been given chance to be heard. It is thought that Mr Kongstad may also discuss the proposals with the Association of Members of the Boards of Appeal, AMBA.
As for the proposals themselves, they remain under wraps, though they are said to "enhance the visibility of the independence and autonomy of governance". No amendment of the epc is foreseen. The 2004 project (to turn the Boards into an autonomous organisation with its own head, responsible directly to the AC ) looks like it will remain a non-starter. Finally, regarding the speculation that has excited, enthused or appalled readers of this weblog, that the EBoA is to be moved to Berlin, Mr Kongstad's response was a diplomatic "no comment" (though a vice presidential personage is said to have let it be known that the President strongly supports this option).
Meanwhile, EPO staff union SUEPO has announced another day of industrial action, Wednesday 25 February. According to SUEPO:
Remaining with SUEPO for a moment, this moggy is aware that the union is concerned, as its recent release mentions, that the EPO is seeking to drive up productivity. There is a view that forced increases in productivity targets for patent examiners will inevitably lead to "bad" patents being granted. This moggy thinks any examiner, when required to deal with a case under pressure of time, would rather refuse a "good" patent than grant a "bad" one (to use the terminology employed by SUEPO). There is a danger in being pressed into refusing good patents: this is that the number of appeals will increase and that a truly independent Board of Appeal will not hesitate to send the case back to the examining division, irrespective of the latter's productivity targets. However, reducing the independence of the Boards of Appeal inevitably makes them more sensitive to any political pressure not to push the output of a hasty and perhaps defective examination process back on the examiners; indeed, the Boards may face pressure themselves to dispose of their own cases with less detailed scrutiny. Accordingly any push by management to bring the Boards into line, if it works, should have a real pay-off in terms of getting everyone, willingly or not, onto the same message of increased productivity and clearing away any awkward oversight of examination standards.
 |
| In listening mode |
 |
| Under wraps -- but with strings attached? |
Meanwhile, EPO staff union SUEPO has announced another day of industrial action, Wednesday 25 February. According to SUEPO:
"The next demonstration will be aimed at the British consulate. Mr Sean Dennehey (UK), member of the British delegation, is a major player in the Administrative Council. He was also recently re-elected chairman of the Patent Law Committee for a three-year term, starting on 30 March 2014. Like Mr Kongstad, Mr Dennehey is member of the “Board 28”, the ultra-secretive think-tank of the Administrative Council. The Board 28 met this week to discuss and probably decide upon the future of DG3. ...This moggy observes that governments are a lot more successful in not being alerted than people are in managing to alert them. She will be watching with interest to see what happens.
We wish to alert the British government to the problems in the EPO and the role played by the British delegation. We hope to be able to meet the British Consul-General, Paul Richard Heardman, to ask for his support".
Remaining with SUEPO for a moment, this moggy is aware that the union is concerned, as its recent release mentions, that the EPO is seeking to drive up productivity. There is a view that forced increases in productivity targets for patent examiners will inevitably lead to "bad" patents being granted. This moggy thinks any examiner, when required to deal with a case under pressure of time, would rather refuse a "good" patent than grant a "bad" one (to use the terminology employed by SUEPO). There is a danger in being pressed into refusing good patents: this is that the number of appeals will increase and that a truly independent Board of Appeal will not hesitate to send the case back to the examining division, irrespective of the latter's productivity targets. However, reducing the independence of the Boards of Appeal inevitably makes them more sensitive to any political pressure not to push the output of a hasty and perhaps defective examination process back on the examiners; indeed, the Boards may face pressure themselves to dispose of their own cases with less detailed scrutiny. Accordingly any push by management to bring the Boards into line, if it works, should have a real pay-off in terms of getting everyone, willingly or not, onto the same message of increased productivity and clearing away any awkward oversight of examination standards.
