Productivity Increase at the EPO: How and Why?
In July 2014, fellow Kat David published news of an initiative from the EPO to "to improve legal certainty on pending patent applications." The aims were:
Several comment-posters noted that this "prioritised" most activities -- all searches, and all examination except first examination reports in cases with a negative search opinion. Looked at another way, however, it can be seen as having the effect of cherry-picking the cases that are easiest to take to a final conclusion, either because examination has been started (so the hard work has been done), or because the search opinion is positive so the application can be taken straight to grant. Once these priorities have been left in place for a while, however, the effect is that only the more difficult cases will remain - beginning examination of the cases that are not clearly allowable from the search opinion.
Merpel has now seen draft performance results for examination for the first half of 2015 compared with the first half of 2014, and this strategy does indeed appear to have had an effect. Search actions are up 13% and final examiner actions (grants, withdrawals, refusals, PCT examinations, oppositions) are up 23%, with grants up a staggering 34%. These figures, particularly the increase in grants compared with everything else, do seem to suggest that the easy wins are being won, leaving a legacy of more complex examination work. Doubtless the EPO management will expect this to be done with no less productivity. In this regard, it is notable that the "days/examiner product" are already down 8%, which is fine if you are are just advancing to grant an already allowable case, but will be harder to sustain when you have to examine a case that is not clearly allowable and the applicant's arguments and amendments have to be considered.
It is not only these procedural tweaks that have led to the increased productivity. At the beginning of this year, the EPO announced a system whereby Examiners would be invited to take on non-examining projects under a system whereby, instead of their examination targets being adjusted downwards, they would instead receive a financial bonus in respect of the extra activities. Also, the invalidity and sick leave rules have been tightened.
Other HR practices have also been adjusted to keep Examiners at their desks and examining. Merpel understands that EPO managers have been instructed to routinely refuse other than in exceptional circumstances requests for unpaid leave and part-time working, or, if they are allowed, to increase upwards the pro-rata production targets for the Examiner. Moreover, the taking of leave in the categories of medical leave, strike absence, unpaid leave, parental leave and family leave will have a negative impact on an Examiner's performance evaluation (for comparison, maternity leave, annual leave, home leave, staff representation, flexi hours, compensation hours, training and business travel do not have a negative outcome on the performance evaluation).
So it is not surprising that examination products are up. It is however still unclear what is the need for this. Merpel has attempted with limited success to discern the financial position of the EPO and has called for more financial transparency. She still cannot see why the senior management of the EPO seems obsessed with increasing the flow of patent grants in the short term, whatever the later cost.
- issuing search reports with written opinions within six months of filing,
- prioritising the completion of examination files over starting examination files, and
- expediting grants once a positive search opinion has been issued.
 |
| More productivity -- but is it truly productive? |
Merpel has now seen draft performance results for examination for the first half of 2015 compared with the first half of 2014, and this strategy does indeed appear to have had an effect. Search actions are up 13% and final examiner actions (grants, withdrawals, refusals, PCT examinations, oppositions) are up 23%, with grants up a staggering 34%. These figures, particularly the increase in grants compared with everything else, do seem to suggest that the easy wins are being won, leaving a legacy of more complex examination work. Doubtless the EPO management will expect this to be done with no less productivity. In this regard, it is notable that the "days/examiner product" are already down 8%, which is fine if you are are just advancing to grant an already allowable case, but will be harder to sustain when you have to examine a case that is not clearly allowable and the applicant's arguments and amendments have to be considered.
It is not only these procedural tweaks that have led to the increased productivity. At the beginning of this year, the EPO announced a system whereby Examiners would be invited to take on non-examining projects under a system whereby, instead of their examination targets being adjusted downwards, they would instead receive a financial bonus in respect of the extra activities. Also, the invalidity and sick leave rules have been tightened.
Other HR practices have also been adjusted to keep Examiners at their desks and examining. Merpel understands that EPO managers have been instructed to routinely refuse other than in exceptional circumstances requests for unpaid leave and part-time working, or, if they are allowed, to increase upwards the pro-rata production targets for the Examiner. Moreover, the taking of leave in the categories of medical leave, strike absence, unpaid leave, parental leave and family leave will have a negative impact on an Examiner's performance evaluation (for comparison, maternity leave, annual leave, home leave, staff representation, flexi hours, compensation hours, training and business travel do not have a negative outcome on the performance evaluation).So it is not surprising that examination products are up. It is however still unclear what is the need for this. Merpel has attempted with limited success to discern the financial position of the EPO and has called for more financial transparency. She still cannot see why the senior management of the EPO seems obsessed with increasing the flow of patent grants in the short term, whatever the later cost.
As ever, Merpel welcomes comments, but begs to remind readers of the following:
Henceforth, in respect of all EPO-related blogposts, no comment will be posted if it is merely ascribed to "Anonymous". Any reader wishing to conceal his or her identity must adopt a pseudonym (which should not be obscene and should not be the name, or the mis-spelling of the name, of a real person). The pseudonym need not be an actual login name, as long as it is stated clearly at the beginning of the comment itself (for example, start your comment with "Descartes says: You forgot one point ..."). This way, it will be easier for people who post later comments to identify and remember the earlier comment-poster and to recall the discussion string. Where, as has already happened on occasion, a string carries over from one blogpost to a later one on the same or a related subject, readers will be encouraged to use the same pseudonym for the sake of continuity.
