EPO: The saga continues

It is fair to say that all is not well at the European Patent Office (EPO).

Ever since March last year, when WIPR first reported on rumblings of discontent between the office’s president Benoît Battistelli and certain sections of the workforce, it has seemed as if the next drama has never been far away.

And despite a relative lull in developments earlier this year, during which the office announced that Battistelli would be sitting down with the disenchanted workers in an attempt to heal relations, the controversy has reared its head again.

Staff disputes

As WIPR has previously reported, Battistelli’s power was called into question after he placed a ‘house ban’ on a member of the office’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in December last year. The EBA is supposed to retain autonomy and as a result be immune from presidential sanctions.

Battistelli’s decision was backed in December by the EPO’s supervisory body the Administrative Council (AC), which then suspended the member. The member, who has not been publicly named, was accused of disseminating defamatory material about the EPO.

In October the saga took a new twist after Battistelli reportedly urged the AC to dismiss the member, despite the EBA not having recommended such action.

Under article 23 of the European Patent Convention (EPC), a member of the EBA cannot be dismissed without the body lodging an official request with the AC. The article is in place to guarantee the independence of the EBA from the AC and EPO president.

In a communiqué released by the AC on October 15, which followed the conclusion of its 145th meeting, the organisation confirmed this position.

So far, the EBA has not made such a request and in fact refused to propose that the member in question be sacked.

Union matters

Another organisation whose members have fallen foul of accusations of misconduct is the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO).

Elizabeth Hardon, vice-chair of the union, asked AC chair Jesper Kongstad to allow an independent body to assess her claim that she has been harassed by the office’s management.

Her claims came in response to allegations that she “orchestrated and promoted” a harassment campaign against a senior member of the EPO based in The Hague office.

In October, SUEPO held a demo in Munich, one of several to have taken place over the last few months, in support of Hardon.

To show just how deep the disharmony between management and certain sections of the workforce has become, a leaflet promoting the demonstration said that the EPO had been “transformed into a totalitarian state” and a place where “the rights of staff and of those who defend the rights of staff are being crushed to the benefit of a few”.

Although some might claim SUEPO is making trouble, it has persistently assured WIPR that it is simply seeking a dialogue with the EPO.

One organisation that has attempted to obtain clarity from the EPO is Transparency International.

In July last year the anti-corruption organisation wrote to Kongstad to “offer support and experience in promoting a culture of integrity and good governance”.

WIPR contacted Transparency International and it confirmed it had been in contact with the EPO. An EPO spokesman said it had responded to the letter and “thanked the organisation” for its offer.

“The EPO told the organisation of measures it was taking to enhance transparency on workings and structures” the spokesman said.

“We have published a number of important [public] documents, such as the social report 2014 and our internal rules, but the letter to Transparency International was not intended as public,” he added.

In its October 15 communiqué, the AC also said it had decided to “initiate a review of the social situation” at the EPO.

The review, the AC said, would continue an exercise proposed in May this year where the AC and Battistelli would officially recognise SUEPO as a union and elaborate on a “negotiation strategy”.

"While the social problems have been well documented, during the last few weeks another serious allegation—this time of favouritism—has been levied against the office."

SUEPO, however remains unconvinced.

In a letter addressed to Kongstad and Battistelli sent on October 24, it said that the initial negotiation process was interrupted because, “at precisely the same time as the talks were starting”, the office initiated an investigation against staff representatives and/or union executives.

The EPO told us that SUEPO’s claim related to a situation which arose after the first office-wide election of representatives to its central staff committee in June last year.

“Certain members of the staff representation did not support these changes, and opted to block the reforms by obstructing committees and bodies by not participating in them.

“After time, a number of staff representatives resigned from their mandate. The EPO was informed that some of these representatives may have been subjected to behaviour from certain SUEPO leaders, preventing some of the staff representatives from freely exercising their independent mandates, and affecting their professional and private lives to the point of even impacting on their health.

“In compliance with its duty of care towards all its staff members, the EPO undertook an investigation which looked into the grounds behind the resignations. That process revealed clearly that some of these representatives had been exposed to pressure and at least one person had been intimidated and severely harassed.

“The EPO has the duty to stop and prevent any and all forms of harassment, independent of the status of the alleged perpetrator.”

Both parties appear to be in a stand-off, with no clear sign of the situation abating.

Concerns about favouritism

The numerous strikes that took place towards the end of last year, culminating in an incremental five-day strike during which, on one occasion, more than 20% of staff walked out, goes to show how worrying continued unrest could prove.

While the social problems have been well documented, during the last few weeks another serious allegation—this time of favouritism—has been levied against the office.

According to leaked memos, seen by WIPR, EPO officials were told that they should hold regular discussions with some of the biggest filers at the office.

Potential targets included in the memo, which the EPO has confirmed is authentic, are Samsung, Siemens, Canon and Microsoft—the companies ranked first, second, 22nd and 28th for the number of applications filed at the office in 2013.

The memos stated that the scheme is intended to attract big companies to apply for patents at the EPO rather than rival IP offices, by offering an improved service.

At the end of the trial run, which is taking place between April 2015 and April 2016, management at the EPO will assess whether to expand the number of applicants in the programme and introduce it as permanent policy.

A spokesperson for the EPO said the scheme is not about showing “favouritism” to big companies, but rather enabling a “better dialogue with applicants”.

What started as murmurings of discontent at the start of last year have turned into a serious dispute involving staff, management, and the office’s inner workings.