(Undated) Statement of EPO Staff Union (SUEPO)

[Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>]

(Originally at www.usoeb.org/Suepo/kontrol.htm; now
available via Google cache.  I don't see a date on this.  --
Seth)

> http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:www.usoeb.org/Suepo/kontrol.htm


PRESS RELEASE - PRESS RELEASE - PRESS RELEASE - PRESS
RELEASE 

A Public Service Organisation out of control?

As has been widely reported in the last few days, the
European Patent Office appears to consider itself not to be
bound by European Directives. In the specific case mentioned
there was an alleged contravention of the Directive on
Biotechnology in relation to European Patent EP-B1 0 695
351. 

The European Patent Office is not part of the European Union 

Although originally intended to be the authority charged
with the grant of patent rights for the European Community,
the EPO was created outside the framework of the European
Union. As a result, the European Patent Office is in many
respects an "autonomous state", which is not bound by any of
the directives of the EU unless it so chooses. The "Head of
State" is the President, Ingo Kober. He is responsible
solely to the Administrative Council, a body made up of
representatives from the 19 contracting states who are party
to the European Patent Convention. This body is not
democratically elected and is accountable only to the
respective national governments. As a body created by a
separate international treaty this body is not directly
bound to any national or international law other than the
European Patent Convention, the EPC. 

Further loosening of democratic control is contemplated 

This Administrative Council is currently contemplating
far-reaching changes to the Eurpoean Patent Convention.
These changes will effectively mean that in future the
Administrative Council can decide autonomously on the future
direction of the law governing the award of patent rights in
Europe, and the very law by which it is governed itself. No
agreement by the European Parliament or any other publicly
accountable European organisation will be needed and, as in
all deliberations of the Administrative Council, many of
which are held in secret session, there will be no
participation of society at large. This opens the door to
uncontrolled wide-ranging changes to the European Patent
System. Recent events suggest that these changes may be
against the interest of European citizens. 

The Administrative Council already fails to defend the
interests of the European public 

The Administrative Council has put the Office under pressure
to grant patents as fast as possible, without, however,
creating the conditions that would make it possible to
recruit the necessary staff. This means that the existing
staff, already working to their full capacity, are being put
under pressure to examine cases faster and faster. With less
time being allowed to consider the complicated technical and
legal questions which arise in patent examination, it is to
be feared that the standards applied will drop. Statements
in the press attributed to an EPO spokesman acknowledge that
increasing production pressure can indeed lead to errors.
See for example:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_653000/653067.stm

> www.tagesthemen.de/archiv/2000/02/22/sendung/tt-2230/meldung/gene.html

This could in turn lead to a larger number of patents of
dubious validity ("junk patents"), thus impeding fair and
open competition in the European Market, and hence
threatening the employment market in Europe. This is however
simply the tip of the iceberg. Lack of legal security for
staff threatens standards The EPO is not bound by many of
the laws or regulations that most of the citizens of Europe
take for granted, such as the European Convention on Human
Rights. 

Some examples: 

The Employment Law offers the staff extremely limited
protection. Staff can be dismissed almost at will by the
President and have no claims to unemployment pay or other
social security payments: 

Basic legal rights are ignored. The President is the
ultimate ruler of the EPO. He is judge, jury and
executioner. His decisions on matters within the office are
final. Any decision made by the President can be enacted
immediately. There is no "stay of execution" pending the
outcome of appeal hearings. Sanctions are arbitrary and
harsh. This makes the staff extremely vulnerable to pressure
from the management in order to meet demands, e.g. by
increasing output to a level beyond which it is possible to
assure sufficient attention to detail. 

European safety and health standards are not applied on EPO
premises. 

Even criminal law is disregarded: In 1995 the then President
of the EPO physically attacked and injured a staff member,
the Administrative Council of the EPO subsequently refusing
to lift the immunity of the President. 

Conclusion 

The Administrative Council has shown a tendancy to treat the
office as a commercial entity rather than as the public
service organisation it is. This results in the continuing
demands for ever more granted patents, while refusing to
increase the resources of the European Patent Office
accordingly. SUEPO, the Staff Union of the EPO soundly
condemns this development due to the risks it poses to the
quality of patent rights granted in Europe. It is high time
that steps are taken to change the structure of the
Organisation making it accountable for its actions to the
citizens of Europe and their elected representatives.d their
elected representatives.