Exclusive: EPO under fire from staff reps amid IPQC criticisms

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Exclusive: EPO under fire from staff reps amid IPQC criticisms

EPO

The EPO has offered another meeting with the Industry Patent Quality Charter, while a committee representing EPO staff endorsed the group’s criticisms

An EPO staff committee has backed a group of in-house counsel’s claims that quality standards at the office are in decline, Managing IP can confirm.

Meanwhile, it is understood the EPO has offered a follow-up meeting with the counsel, who are members of the Industry Patent Quality Charter (IPQC).

The IPQC and EPO met initially on February 3 to discuss the group’s claims that the EPO no longer prioritises full search and examination over speedy patent grants.

A date for a second meeting has not been set at the time of publication.

The in-house group, which includes counsel from companies such as Siemens, Bayer, Nokia, Volvo and Ericsson, then sent a letter on February 8 to request joint working groups to monitor specific quality issues.

The central staff committee (CSC), which represents EPO staff in consultative meetings with management, has since published an internal bulletin backing the IPQC’s criticisms.

In the document, published on February 24 and seen by Managing IP, the CSC said the EPO management has focused on productivity gains over substantive quality for the past decade.

Staff are under pressure to grant as many patents as possible, with substantive quality of search and examination procedures “being secondary to productivity and timeliness”, the bulletin said.

EPO staff members have repeatedly raised concerns over the quality of search and examination but have been rebuffed by management.

“Management should take the [IPQC] criticism very seriously,” the document stated.

“Hopefully the IPQC initiative will trigger an adequate reaction that goes beyond denial, window dressing and continuing to hope that progress in IT tools will solve the problems.”

EPO staff would be “perfectly capable” of carrying out search and examination of the highest quality if given enough time, the document added.

The CSC further urged the EPO to hire more staff and replace all examiners after they have retired.

Members of the CSC have filed complaints against the EPO at the International Labour Organization (ILO) in recent years.

In November 2022, the ILO dismissed a complaint from CSC members over the EPO's refusal to allow the committee to publish a document criticising EPO HR policies on the office intranet.

The EPO declined to comment on this article.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals its latest rankings for patent work, including which firms are moving up
Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Gift this article