EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

06.13.17

A Massive Proponent of UPC, CIPA, Enters IP Kat, as Readers Call Out Stacked UPC ‘Panels’

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:28 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The blog of Jeremy Phillips seems to have become more like a think tank after his retirement

Stephen Jones of CIPASummary: On matters of patents, IP Kat continues moving to the right (patent maximalism, acceptance of Battistelli’s regime, UPC bubble and so on) and commentary to the contrary is not being accepted

THE previous post spoke of the latest censorship by the 'Kats', who rarely if ever write something truthful or objective about the UPC. It often seems like the blog became an EPO megaphone after the EPO had threatened/sanctioned it. It’s very important that people out there can discern/recognise UPC boosters (sometimes paid for it) as they tend to dominate the discussion. They use their money or their ‘weight’ to set up bogus forums (at times funded by EPO money) and infiltrate the media. James Nurton from Managing IP, for example, having spoken to Battistelli several times and also helped organise pro-UPC events, continues to prop up the illusion/delusion of UPC inevitability. “Patent practitioners will soon be using the UPC case management system,” he wrote.

Bull****.

“Judging by the comments, Jeremy Phillips is aware of this and appears to have no problem with this.”We are sad to see that statements such as these — the wishful thinking of Team UPC — continue to percolate onto sites which proclaim to be “news” sites. Even so-called ‘blogs’ have turned into little beyond marketing. Kluwer Patent Blog has begun publishing some criticisms of the EPO (usually from Thorsten Bausch, who is a brave man), whereas IP Kat gets more extreme over time. Adding to the toxicity from Bristow, IP Kat now takes even people from CIPA (another massive booster of the UPC). It won’t end well. Stephen Jones has just been introduced as “current VP of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA).” These are the people who lobby our politicians hardest for the UPC, often misleading them, pressuring them, and lying to journalists. We could think of expletives to add to this paragraph, but to keep it polite, CIPA is perhaps the worst messenger on this topic — even worse than Bristows!

So we know what to expect. Judging by the comments, Jeremy Phillips is aware of this and appears to have no problem with this. It’s worth noting that Darren Smyth is leaving the blog after exploiting that blog for his own UPC agenda (marketing).

Thankfully, people in the comments are not exactly tolerating the bias. The other day someone wrote that it’s “amazing to see how wishful thinking is acting” in UPC propaganda (this thread was covered here before). Here is the comment in full:

It is amazing to see how wishful thinking is acting. I fully agree with proof of the pudding.

You may read Opinion 1/09 anyway you like, but it does not say that non-EU members can be part of the UPCA. The possibility to refer questions to the CJEU is and stays reserved to member states of the EU. Do you think the CJEU will simply accept referrals to it by any court in a non-member state of the EU?

If this would be possible, we would have heard about it, and EPLA would have been adapted to provide for this possibility.

What other safeguards would be needed, beside at least the ability to refer questions to the CJEU? What about enforcement? Lugano yes, but.

Looking at another thread (in the second part), the UPC ‘panel’ that got stacked by EPO and Bristows et al is recognised for what it really is. It’s not a debate but just lobbying. The coverage from IP Kat refrains from saying it, but the comments basically state the obvious about “Bristows law firm [which is] the sometimes almost radical pro-UPC [with] activities of which are meanwhile notorious…”

Here is the full comment:

How convenient to hold such discussions exclusively amongst pro-UPC people the results of which can afterwards be sold to the general public as constituting some kind of ‘general bottom line understanding’.

It is worth noting the following with regard to both parts of this article:

Tim Frain is sitting on the UPC Expert Panel (www.unified-patent-court.org/news/chairman-invites-new-expert-panel-advise-preparatory-committee) – what do you expect to hear from him?

Michael Froehlich is an EPO employee – again: what do you expect to hear from him?

Alan Johnson is a partner at the Bristows law firm the sometimes almost radical pro-UPC activities of which are meanwhile notorious – so: as before.

Against this background, it does not come as a surprise that this post is conveniently presenting a number of very controversial questions in a manner as if reliable answers to them not only existed, but were even being supported by a majority and, of course, always in the sense of the UPC proponents! Maybe people without expertise in this field will fall victim to such obvious manipulation. All those with a deeper understanding of the situation and of the highly complex legal and political situation can only shake their heads about such clumsy and a little naive attempts of pro-UPC marketing.

Someone then points out: “Perhaps those with opposing views will come out under their cloak of anonymity and set out their opposition to these points with references to the UPCA articles, Opinion 1/09 and constitutional European law for all to discuss and debate. Seems a quick solution to some of the complaints – legitimate and otherwise – raised about the UPC debate.”

The above panel attempted to convince people that the UPC was just about to happen, but as the following comment clarified, the UPC Agreement remains incompatible with Article 50 being invoked and the UK leaving the EU:

Tim – many thanks for your comments. With respect, however, I think that you are missing the main point here.

Perhaps I can best illustrate that point by posing the following question: what is the legal basis for the ability of the UPC to refer questions to the CJEU?

The answer, of course, is that the UPC is a court that forms part of the national legal order of the EU Member States. Being such a (national) court would allow the UPC to make references under the provisions of Article 267 TFEU.

This explains why Article 21 of the UPC Agreement reads as follows:
“As a court common to the Contracting Member States and as part of their judicial system, the Court shall cooperate with the Court of Justice of the European Union to ensure the correct application and uniform interpretation of Union law, as any national court, in accordance with Article 267 TFEU in particular. Decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be binding on the Court”.

Now, I do not think that it is impossible that there might be other ways in which the UPC could be granted authority to refer questions to the CJEU – perhaps even if the Member States of the UPC Agreement include non-EU countries. However, as things currently stand, Article 267 TFEU is the sole basis on which the UPC could refer such questions. Thus, if the UPC is not actually “part of the national legal order” of EU Member States, then that removes the sole basis upon which it can make a reference.

And the next comment said:

When one sees the difficulties in dealing with trademarks, what could it be if UK would quickly ratify the UPC to exit the agreement at the end of Brexit.

All those who claim that UK could stay in the UPC, seem to take they wish for reality.

In summary, nowadays the ‘Kats’ are basically people with vested interests in the UPC, citing or promoting views of other people with vested interests in the UPC while selectively deleting comments they don’t want anyone to see. What does that make IP Kat?

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Links 13/8/2018: Linux 4.18 and GNU Linux-libre 4.18 Arrive

    Links for the day



  2. PTAB is Loathed by Patent Maximalists Because It Can Potentially Invalidate Thousands of Software Patents (More Than Courts Can Handle)

    The US patent system has become more resistant to software patents; courts, however, are still needed to invalidate such patents (a potentially expensive process) because the USPTO continues to grant these provided some fashionable buzzwords/hype waves are utilised (e.g. "facial recognition", "blockchain", "autonomous vehicles")



  3. Gene Quinn and 'Dallas Innovates' as Couriers of Agenda for Patent Trolls Like iPEL

    Failing to hide their real purpose and malicious agenda, sites whose real purpose is to promote a lot of patent litigation produce puff pieces, even for patently unethical trolls such as iPEL



  4. Software Patents, Secured by 'Smart' and 'Intelligent' Tricks, Help Microsoft and Others Bypass Alice/Section 101

    A look at the use of fashionable trends and buzzwords to acquire and pass around dubious software patents, then attempting to guard these from much-needed post-Alice scrutiny



  5. Keep Boston (and Massachusetts in General) From Becoming an Infestation Zone for Patent Litigation

    Boston, renowned for research and innovation, has become somewhat of a litigation hotbed; this jeopardises the state's attractiveness (except perhaps to lawyers)



  6. Links 12/8/2018: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Mesa 18.1.6 Release Notice, New Linux Imminent

    Links for the day



  7. Thomas Massie's “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA) Would Put the US Patent System in the Lions' (or Trolls') Mouth Again

    An anti-§ 101 and anti-PTAB bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) strives to remove quality control; but by handing the system back to patent trolls he and his proponents simply strive to create more business of litigation, at the expense of innovation



  8. EPO-Style Problem-Solution: Tackling Backlog by Granting Lots of Low-Quality (Bogus) European Patents, Causing a Surge in Troll/Frivolous Litigation

    The EPO's lack of interest in genuine patent quality (measuring "quality" in terms of speed, not actual quality) may mean nothing but a litigation epidemic; many of these lawsuits would be abusive, baseless; those harmed the most would be small businesses that cannot afford a legal defense and would rather settle with those who exploit questionable patents, notably patent trolls



  9. Links 11/8/2018: PGP Clean Room 1.0, Ring-KDE 3.0.0, Julia 1.0

    Links for the day



  10. Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

    The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples



  11. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Still Try to Undermine Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), Refusing to Accept Patent Quality

    The patent maximalists in the United States, seeing that the USPTO is moving away from patent maximalism, is desperate for a turnaround; prominent patent maximalists take it all out on PTAB



  12. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement is Paralysed, So Team UPC is Twisting Old News

    Paralysis of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) means that people are completely forgetting about its very existence; those standing to benefit from it (patent litigation firms) are therefore recycling and distorting old news



  13. Patents as Profiteering Opportunities for Law Firms Rather Than Drivers of Innovation for Productive Companies

    A sample of news from yesterday; the patent microcosm is still arguing about who pays attorneys’ fees (not whether these fees are justified) and is constantly complaining about the decline in patent litigation, which means fewer and lower attorneys’ fees (less work for them)



  14. Links 9/8/2018: Mesa 18.2 RC2, Cockpit 175, WPA-2 Hash Cracking

    Links for the day



  15. Patent Maximalists -- Not Reformers -- Are the Biggest Threat to the Viability of the Patent System and Innovation

    Those who strive to infinitely expand patent scope are rendering the patent system obsolete and completely losing sight of the very purpose of the patent system, whose sanity US courts and lawmakers gradually restore (one ruling and one bill at a time)



  16. WeMove.EU Tackles Low Patent Quality at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The breadth of European Patents, which now cover even nature itself, worries public interest groups; Team UPC, however, wants patent scope to expand further and António Campinos has expressed his intention to further increase the number of grants



  17. Links 8/8/2018: KDE Neon for Testing, New LibreOffice Release, Dart 2.0

    Links for the day



  18. Links 7/8/2018: TCP Vulnerability in Linux, Speck Crypto Code Candidate for Removal

    Links for the day



  19. PTAB Needs to Expand and Become More Accessible to More Challengers of Wrongly-Granted Patents

    Challenges to US patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are helping to raise the bar for litigators; those who value the quality of patents should welcome rather than condemn PTAB and PTAB ought to be expanded to facilitate more scrutiny of granted patents



  20. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Precedents Might Make District Courts (Outside Texas) More Sceptical of Patents

    As patent lawsuits scatter around the United States (not as concentrated around Texas anymore) there's a real chance of turnaround in terms of outcomes; we look at some recent cases



  21. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is Cleaning Up the United States' Patent System

    The highest patent court (bar the US Supreme Court, SCOTUS) is rejecting a lot of patents, not only software patents; this is long overdue and is bad news to patent lawyers (not to companies that actually create and sell things)



  22. Racing to the Bottom, the António Campinos-Led EPO Continues to Promote Software Patents, Just Like China

    The EPO is being transformed into 'SIPO Europe', a dangerous gamble which would leave European firms more susceptible to frivolous litigation and generally reduce the value of previously-much-coveted European Patents



  23. Arista Shows How ITC Injustice (Embargo Before Facts Are Even Known) Harms Smaller Businesses, Helps Monopolists

    Arista Networks Inc. (Arista) has just given up, but only after years of legal bullying from Cisco, which imposed embargoes using questionable patents that should never have been granted by the USPTO



  24. Links 6/8/2018: Linux 4.18 RC8, Pinguy OS 18.04.1, Netrunner Rolling 2018.08, Thunderbird 60

    Links for the day



  25. Playing With Words and Buzzwords in a Landscape of Software Patents Rejections

    The efforts to get patents on software granted nowadays increasingly rely on synonyms and vague/nebulous buzzwords, such as "AI"; examiners ought to be aware of this because PTAB and courts would almost definitely reject all of these patents



  26. Jury Trials and Apple's Latest Bitter Affair With Patents

    Almost 150 million dollars to WiLAN, Canada's largest patent troll, owing to another jury trial in California



  27. Agenda and Lies From Watchtroll Make It Into the Bill of Rohrabacher, the “Inventor Protection Act”

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is being demonised using falsehoods or patently false numbers, which are pushed into various news feeds by the anti-PTAB lobby (representing the interests of patent trolls and aggressors as well as their lawyers)



  28. Attributing Negligible Differences to Whatever Suits the Loudest Opponents of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has limited/restricted patent grants based on 35 U.S.C. § 101, adding to a number of factors which contribute to statistics in litigation and appeals; but the anti-PTAB lobby wants us to believe that there's a resurgence for patent maximalism (the very opposite of what's really happening)



  29. The Anti-PTAB Lobby Still Predicting Doom and Gloom, as Usual, Despite PTAB's Year-Over-Year Growth

    A gradual increase in the number of inter partes reviews (IPRs) in spite of fee hikes; the anti-PTAB lobby is still latching onto anything it can in search of scandals, trying to discourage filers



  30. Understanding of Microsoft’s Patent Strategy Requires Scrutiny of the Patent Trolls It's Connected to

    As Microsoft's strategy appears to be arming patent trolls and then selling 'protection' from them we must still keep abreast of the actions of Microsoft-connected trolls and especially their lawsuits (because these are visible)


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts