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

09.11.17

Ingve Stjerna’s Complaint Casts a Shadow Over the Unconstitutional Unified Patent Court (UPC)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:32 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Unconstitutional not only in Germany

Summary: The Unitary Patent is un-Constitutional, according to a lawyer who used to work for UPC-friendly firms but can now say the truth about this abomination

THE ENGLISH [PDF] (and also French [PDF]) translation of the first/seminal article about the UPC complainant in Germany was published on Monday by SUEPO, the EPO‘s staff union.

This report is quite important. It’s the basis for a potential series of filings for consideration by the courts (we are assessing eligibility to do this). Here is the translation as HTML:

06.09.2017

UPC: Düsseldorf Lawyer Stjerna lodged complaint under Constitutional Law

There has been speculation for a long time regarding who initiated the proceedings at the end of March before the Federal Constitutional Court against the UPC agreement. JUVE has now learned from sources in the political world that the complainant is Düsseldorf lawyer Dr. Ingve Stjerna.

Ingve Stjerna

At the end of August the Federal Constitutional Court called on a number of the people involved as well as third parties to give their views. These included, as well as the Federal
Government, also the Deutscher Anwaltverein (DAV, the German Law Society), and Eplaw, the European Patent Lawyers Association. Both bodies of lawyers played a considerable part in the process of bringing the UPC into being.

When approached by JUVE, Stjerna had this to say: “The concession to the EPC arrangement is unconstitutional, and only the Federal Constitutional Court can put a stop to it. I hope this succeeds, because otherwise it will be the users in particular who suffer. They need a more legally secure system, and they need it urgently.”

It was only in mid-August that the grounds for the complaint were made public for the first time. Stjerna is contending that, with the UPC agreement, the Federal Republic is surrendering more sovereign rights than is compatible with the need for democracy (Art. 38 Para. 1 Clause 1 of the Basic Law (GG). In detail, he is complaining, among other issues, that the Bundestag passed the ratification laws by a simple majority. Stjerna maintains, however, that a two-thirds majority is needed. He also insists that the UPC agreement is not compatible with European law.

The question of the voting procedure in the Bundestag is regarded by UPC backers as of little consequence, because in March the Bundestag political fractions passed the UPC laws
unanimously. Conversely, Karlsruhe could have called on the European High Court with regard to compatibility with Union law. In this case, there is a threat that there will be a
considerable delay to the start of the UPC.

What is still unclear, however, is whether the Federal constitutional judges will allow the complaint at all. The wide range of opinions being gathered is a sign to the experts that the judges in Karlsruhe are looking at Stjerna’s complaint very intensely, and will allow it. As far as anyone knows, the judges are setting a very tight deadline on their reaction, such that an initial decision about approval is still possible this year. If the complaints are rejected, then the UPC could potentially get going next year – provided that Great Britain ratifies the UPC agreement this autumn.

Speculations proved right

Over the past few months there has repeatedly been speculation that the person behind the complaint was Stjerna, not least due to the publications by the UPC-sceptical lawyer from Düsseldorf. As early as July he had been posting detailed documents on his Website, among them minutes of meetings and questions put to the political fractions in Bundestag regarding the way they voted.

And as far back as 2012, in an interview with JUVE, he was criticising the political decision-making process with regard to the EU Patent and the new Patent Court had not been handled
transparently enough for the public on a European level. He had repeatedly complained about the undemocratic behaviour by the legislature, and so developed into the main critic of the
UPC altogether, even though at the time he had been working for the very UPC-friendly law firm of Simmons & Simmons. Before that he was with the patent legal practices of Bird & Bird and Reimann Osterrieth Köhler Haft (now Hoyng ROKH Monegier) in Düsseldorf.

Today Stjerna works as an independent attorney in Düsseldorf. Among colleagues, who recommend him as an experienced expert in the patent field, he also finds fellow-feeling and praise for his critical stand. “He’s putting his finger right on the spot, and he’s saying what a lot of people wouldn’t dare to say, bearing in mind the people they have as clients”, says one Munich patent attorney, for example. With regard to the new Patent Court, the German patent scene is regarded as split. For a long time, not all the attorneys have been fans of the UPC.

Hungary raising the issue too

In the meantime it has also become known that the Hungarian government has also called upon the constitutional court in Budapest for an expert opinion as to whether the UPC laws are compatible with the Hungarian constitution. This could delay the integration of the agreement into national law. This would have no effect on the start of the UPC, however, because in order to be binding it would only need France, Germany, and Great Britain to ratify the agreement. Ten other EU states are needed. In total, 14 states have already concurred with the agreement.

As soon as Germany and Great Britain have ratified the UPC agreement, the court can get going. The UPC should actually already have started in April, and a European-wide Patent Court should have been established, with a uniform protective right, the EU Patent. But Brexit, and then the constitutional complaint in March, have delayed the launch indefinitely.

(Mathieu Klos, Christina Schulze)

Techrights will soon publish more information about this UPC complaint. It’s probably the beginning of a big fight between Team UPC/Team Battistelli and the rest of society, i.e. hundreds of millions of Europeans (only few of them are aware of what’s going on behind their backs and behind closed doors).

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 23/1/2018: Castle Game Engine 6.4, Qt 5.9.4, SQLite 3.22.0

    Links for the day



  2. Confidence in European Patents (EPs) is Eroding and Stakeholders Are Already Suffering

    The rush to grant lots and lots of patents at the EPO is already taking its toll; quality is declining, decisions to grant are being overturned, and the already-overburdened appeal boards are unable to catch up



  3. Even More Uncertain a Future for the Independence of the EPO Boards of Appeal as Judge Corcoran Too Gets Sent to 'Exile'

    The attack on supposedly independent judges at the EPO escalates further; the judge whom the EPO was ordered to reinstate (by ILO) is being constantly pushed around, not just legally bullied



  4. The Response to Accusations of Censorship by Team UPC? Yet More Censorship to Shield UPC From Criticism

    The Empire of Lies upon which the Unified Patent Court (UPC) was conceived is being exposed for its lies; The Empire Strikes Back with yet more censorship



  5. Links 22/1/2018: Linux 4.15 Delayed Again, Libinput 1.9.901

    Links for the day



  6. Team UPC Calls Critics of the UPC Idiots, Deletes Their Comments, and Blocks Them

    A new low for Team UPC, which is unable to cope with reality and has begun literally mocking and deleting comments of people who speak out truths



  7. How the Opposition to CRISPR Patents at the EPO Sent Shockwaves Through the Industry

    Additional reports/coverage on the EPO (European Patent Office) revoking Broad Institute's CRISPR patent show that the issue at hand isn't just one sole patent but the whole class/family of patents



  8. Unified Patents Says That RPX, Which Might Soon be Owned by Patent Trolls, Paid Patent Trolls Hundreds of Millions of Dollars

    Unified Patents, which helps crush software patents, takes note of RPX’s financial statements, which reveal the great extent to which RPX actually helped trolls rather than stop them



  9. IAM Together With Its Partner, IIPCC, is Lobbying the USPTO to Crush PTAB and Restore Patent Chaos

    Having handled over 8,000 petitions (according to Professor Lemley's Lex Machina), PTAB champions patent quality at the USPTO, so front groups of the litigation 'industry' creep in and attempt to lobby the likely next Director of the USPTO (inciting him against PTAB, as usual)



  10. Software Patents Are Still Dropping Like Flies in 2018, Thanks to Alice v CLS Bank (SCOTUS, 2014) and Section 101 (USPTO)

    Section 101 (§ 101) is thriving in the sense that it belatedly throws thousands of patents -- and frivolous lawsuits that depend on them -- down the chute; the patent trolls and their allies in the patent microcosm are very furious and they blame PTAB for actually doing its job (enforcing Section 101 when petitioned to do so)



  11. Patent Troll Finjan Looks Like It's About to Collapse, But Patent Maximalists Exploit It for Software Patents Promotion

    Patent trolls are struggling in their use of software patents; few (if any) of their patents are upheld as valid and those that miraculously remain in tact become the subject of fascination if not obsession among trolls' advocates



  12. The Attacks on PTAB Are Slowing Down and Attempts to Shield Oneself From Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) Are Failing

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reapplies patent eligibility tests/guidelines in order to squash likely invalid patents; The litigation 'industry' is not happy about it, but its opposition to PTAB is also losing steam



  13. Links 21/1/2018: Wine 3.0 Coverage, KaOS 2018.01, Red Hat Among 'Admired Companies'

    Links for the day



  14. Blockchain Patents Are a Catastrophe in the Making as Trolls and Aggressors Accumulate Them

    As patents pertaining to blockchains continue to be granted -- even in defiance of Alice/Section 101 -- it seems likely that patent wars will sooner or later erupt, involving some large banks, IBM, and patent trolls associated with the notorious Erich Spangenberg



  15. Qualcomm/Broadcom/NXP Combination Would Become a Disastrous Patent Thicket Which Benefits Nobody

    Worried by the prospect of mega-mergers and takeovers which would put far too much market power (and monopoly through patents) in one place, governments and corporations speak out



  16. Patent Litigation in East Asia: Huawei, Samsung, HTC, Nintendo and COLOPL

    A quick look at some high-profile cases in which large Asian firms are embroiled; it seems clear that litigation activities have shifted eastwards (where actual production is done)



  17. Patent Litigation in the US is Down Sharply and Patent Trolls' Demise Has Much to Do With It

    Docket Navigator and Lex Machina both show a significant decline in litigation -- a trend which is likely to carry on now that TC Heartland is in tact (not for just half a year but a whole year) and PTAB completes another record year



  18. Cheating the US Patent System is a Lot Harder After TC Heartland

    Some new examples of tricks (and sometimes cheats) attempted by patent claimants and their representatives; it does not go as well as they hoped



  19. RPX Might Soon be Owned by Patent Troll Erich Spangenberg

    RPX, whose top executives are leaving and business is gradually dying, might end up as another 'asset' of patent trolls



  20. Patent Quality (Not Numbers) as an Asset: Oppositions, Appeals and Rejections at the EPO

    Benoît Battistelli wants a rubber-stamping operation (like INPI) rather than a functional patent office, but oppositions at the Office prove to be fruitful and many erroneously-granted patents are -- by extrapolation -- already being revoked (affecting, in retrospect, Battistelli's so-called 'results')



  21. Links 19/1/2018: Linux Journalism Fund, Grsecurity is SLAPPing Again

    Links for the day



  22. The EPO Ignores This Week's Decision Which Demonstrates Patent Scope Gone Awry; Software Patents Brought Up Again

    The worrisome growth of European Patents (EPs) — a 40% jump in one year in spite of decline in the number of patent applications — is a symptom of the poor judgment, induced largely by bad policies that impede examiners’ activities for the sake of so-called ‘production’; this week's decision regarding CRISPR is another wake-up call and software patents too need to be abolished (as a whole), in lieu with the European Patent Convention (EPC)



  23. WesternGeco v ION Geophysical (at the US Supreme Court) Won't Affect Patent Scope

    As WesternGeco v ION Geophysical is the main if not sole ‘major’ patent case that the US Supreme Court will deal with, it seems safe to say that nothing substantial will change for patent scope in the United States this year



  24. Links 18/1/2018: MenuLibre 2.1.4, Git 2.16 Released

    Links for the day



  25. Microsoft, Masking/Hiding Itself Behind Patent Trolls, is Still Engaging in Patent Extortion

    A review of Microsoft's ugly tactics, which involve coercion and extortion (for businesses to move to Azure and/or for OEMs to preload Microsoft software) while Microsoft-connected patent trolls help hide the "enforcement" element in this whole racket



  26. Patent Prosecution Highway: Low-Quality Patents for High-Frequency Patent Aggressors

    The EPO's race to the bottom of patent quality, combined with a "need for speed", is a recipe for disaster (except for litigation firms, patent bullies, and patent trolls)



  27. Press Coverage About the EPO Board Revoking Broad's CRISPR Patent

    Even though there's some decent coverage about yesterday's decision (e.g. from The Scientist), the patent microcosm googlebombs the news with stuff that serves to distract from or distort the outcome



  28. Links 17/1/2018: HHVM 3.24, WordPress 4.9.2

    Links for the day



  29. No Patents on Life (CRISPR), Said EPO Boards of Appeal Just a Few Hours Ago

    Broad spectacularly loses its key case, which may soon mean that any other patents on CRISPR too will be considered invalid



  30. Only Two Weeks on the Job, Judge Patrick Corcoran is Already Being Threatened by EPO Management

    The attack on a technical judge who is accused of relaying information many people had already relayed anyway (it was gossip at the whole Organisation for years) carries on as he is again being pushed around, just as many people predicted


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