The study, carried out in cooperation with ManagementTeam and released last week, analyzes data patent searching and examination work done by the examiners at the three offices between September 2005 and August 2006. It compared the legal background and considers the different patent procedures used in each office but ignored non-examination work and quality-related considerations.
Although the researchers found the substantive law to be almost identical at the three offices, the EPO was found on average to take 50% longer than the UK and German offices to produce its formal search and examination reports (products) and for its written and oral exchanges with applicants (communications).
But in its report, Ernst & Young set out a series of factors that may explain the EPO’s relatively poor showing.
First, the EPO uses a three-person examining team, whereas the other two offices use only one examiner. Secondly, the study did not take into account the written opinions that the EPO issues along with search reports because the other two offices provide them far less frequently. Thirdly, there are linguistic difficulties at the EPO, where not all examiners work in their native language. In addition, the EPO faces problems posed by poor translations of patent applications not originally drafted in one of its official languages.
But the study also revealed that EPO examiners are far more likely to be off work sick than their counterparts in the UK and Germany. The average EPO patent examiner is sick for 13 days each year, compared with nine in Germany and just less than six in the UK.
The report’s authors conclude that the difference in sickness days indicates that some sort of “motivational issue” exists at the EPO, which is likely to affect productivity.
The conclusion echoes that in a report prepared by the EPO’s staff representative for the Office’s Administrative Council earlier this year, which said that morale was at an all time low.
A spokesperson for SUEPO, the union representing patent examiners at the EPO, told MIP Week by email that the study lacked credibility because it had not addressed a number of issues such as quality, software and outsourcing.
The study was also carried out shortly after the introduction of new working procedures at the EPO, such as the launch of Extended European Search Reports and European Search Opinions. “These changes affect in practice the EPO, but not the DPMA [the German office] and the UKIPO,” the spokesperson said. “Whether this transitional period at the EPO can be compared with a stable environment at the DPMA and the UKIPO is questionable.”
The study prepared by Ernst & Young also includes recommendations for raising productivity at the three offices, including improving the way that patent files are allocated.
"The project is a result of the excellent cooperation between the participating offices. It offers a very valuable insight into the real performance drivers in the procedures at each office, and how we can learn from each other's experience", said Wolfram Förster, head of the Controlling Office at the EPO, who co-ordinated the study on behalf of the three offices.
