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

09.15.17

The UPC Fantasy is Going Nowhere as Complaints and Paperwork Pile Up

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Battistelli prematurely shot them at the back

Battistellius

Summary: Many submissions and complaints about the Unitary Patent have time to arrive before the end of October as a decision on the matter seems as distant as 2018

What Techrights was about to reveal last week (but did not, for bureaucratic reasons) is now public information. The UPC faces many barriers in Germany. What started with a single complaint is now dozens of texts, which are definitely going to take a long time to process. Don’t expect any judgment on the matter before next year.

As usual, there’s a vast difference between reality and what Team UPC is saying. Watch this tweet from Kluwer’s Christine Robben‏, who ensures her employer’s UPC agenda will move along smoothly (it won’t). Team UPC and its affiliates wish us to believe that the UPC will come very soon (for them to ruin the real industry, for profit, using a lot of litigation). Here is “UPCtracker” again (another UPC booster) quoting from the puff piece: “Should the [constitutional] complaint be dismissed, I think the system is that robust that this delay will not hinder its establishment.”

Nonsense. There are many more barriers to it. “If another complain[t] is tabled in another country different from UK/DE/FR,” Benjamin Henrion, “would that also slow it down?”

Obviously!

Henrion has already made a complaint in his own country, Belgium. And I know for a fact that here in the UK we have enough connections in the software industry to produce a powerful complaint (shall the UPC agenda make any progress, which is unlikely).

The FFII too is about to intervene. Here is a message sent not too long ago by Henrion:

Consultation of third parties by the Court regarding the Unitary Patent complaint

Dear Mdme Lang,

I am writing to you following information that was published yesterday regarding the ongoing analysis by the Constitution Court of the pending complaint on the Unitary Patent ratification:

This article mentions the Court is consulting 3 associations for advices:

“JUVE reports that recipients of the complaint include the Federal Government, the German Bar Association (Deutscher Anwaltverein, DAV) and EPLAW (European Patent Lawyers Association).”

Do you know if this consultation is also opened to other third parties?

Our association FFII eV has looked at filing a similar complain, but we have lost track of the deadlines to do so.

In Belgium, I have personally filed a similar complaint, but this was rejected because of a delay misunderstanding.

I have understood that some fundamental questions, notably the language one and automated non-legally binding transations to german, are not addressed by this complaint, so we would like to see the court addressing this question, among others.

If you could clarify what would be the procedure to file observations, we would be very interested to do so.

There’s lots more stuff like this on the way, yet Kluwer produces propaganda pieces titled as selective quotes (as usual) to give a false impression of inevitability. Kluwer now quotes a Belgian judge, Sam Granata, as saying “Future judges of the Unified Patent Court will be very motivated to make the court work…”

This is just Team UPC chatting with Team UPC to tell us how wonderful UPC would be. It’s all just an echo chamber. It’s nonsense.

There’s no “future judges”; there’s not even a UPC and hiring has been halted. Forget about these “future judges” — they’re hypothetical!

To quote from the Kluwer piece:

In the first period of functioning of the Unified Patent Court, the judge-rapporteur – who has important powers in the new system – should as much as possible revert issues to the panel of judges as a whole. This is beneficial for the system and can prevent forum shopping, according to the Belgian judge Sam Granata*. He has been involved for years in the creation of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and is co-author of the book ‘The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court’, which was published earlier this month by Wolters Kluwer. In an interview with Kluwer IP Law, he also discusses the consequences of the Brexit and the German Constitutional complaint.

So Granata “has been involved for years in the creation of the Unified Patent Court”… how objective!

They ask him about his own creation.

Moving on a bit, Juve’s Mathieu Klos wrote a couple of days ago: “These institutions also received a request for comment by German Constitutional Court: Bundesrat, all state governments, BRAK [] Total number of parties to comment on CCC is 22. Further requests are likely: @EPOorg? Quick decision in Karlsruhe pretty unlikely…”

It can take a long time. There’s even more on the way. The EPO should be disregarded by the courts as it’s corrupt. Watch how, on the same day, the EPO yet again promoted software patents, in defiance of the European authorities and the EPC. To make matters worse, the EPO linked to Watchtroll, a site of patent radicals. This is madness!

On the same day the EPO also boasted about Battistelli sending ‘independent’ judges to exile — as punishment/retaliation — so that he can reduce patent quality (software patents come to mind).

“Find out the currently planned date when the Boards of Appeal will start operations at the new location,” the EPO said. Haar. How poetic a move! Why doesn’t Battistelli just declare all the judges medically/mentally unfit and then tosses away all their past rulings?

The EPO appeal boards have generally been one of our favourite elements in the EPO (like PTAB in the US) because they help ensure patent quality. This is why Battistelli wants to destroy them. They help highlight a decline in patent quality, thereby refuting his lies spectacularly. A couple of days ago the following article was published:

Synthon says EPO appeal board has revoked Copaxone API patent

[...]

The Dutch drug firm made the claim today, stating “the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) of the European Patent Office revoked the last of Teva’s three glatiramer so-called HBr patents which claimed an allegedly improved process for the synthesis of glatiramer acetate.”

[...]

The EPO was unable to confirm the revocation decision ahead of publication.

Teva did not respond to a request for comment.

That’s just patent quality control in action.

“The EPO’s Board of Appeal recently revoked a patent,” said another new article, this one from Boult Wade Tennant’s Jennifer O’Farrell. To quote:

The EPO’s Board of Appeal recently revoked a patent covering Bristol-Myers Squibb’s blockbuster oncology drug dasatinib (marketed as Sprycel®). This decision (T488/16) provides valuable guidance into avoiding the pitfalls, and exploiting third party vulnerabilities, associated with the issue of plausibility. Plausibility is central to a number of statutory requirements to patentability at the EPO including inventive step, sufficiency and industrial applicability. For example, if the technical effect of an invention is not rendered plausible by the patent application, the technical effect may not be considered in the assessment of inventive step. Further, post-filed data may only be used to support a technical effect which was made plausible in the application as filed.

The present decision relates to Bristol-Myers Squibb’s now revoked patent EP1169038. The granted patent comprised a single independent claim defined by a Markush formula which covered an extremely wide range of compounds allegedly useful as protein tyrosine kinase (PTK) inhibitors. The Opposition Division had concluded that, at the filing date of the application, the claimed compounds had not been plausibly demonstrated to be PTK inhibitors suitable for the treatment of cancer, which was the technical effect the patentee relied upon for inventive step. The Opposition Division therefore ruled that post-published evidence could not be used to support inventive step and the patent was deemed to lack an inventive step.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the EPO is a lawless place and no court should listen to it on anything, certainly not on UPC. The EPO has become a lobbying and lying machine, employing the tactics of WIPO to chill and silence truth-telling. To understand why so many EPO workers kill themselves (many also suffer mental breakdowns) one just needs to study the effect of the Stasi in East Germany.

And speaking of Germany, Dr. Birgit Clark‏ (a German living in the UK) repeated a Bristows talking point a few days ago. An anonymous EPO insider responded to her by quoting me as saying: “The UPC is NOT happening, stop promoting things that don’t exist, EPO.”

Henrion, in the mean time, said: “Deadline for submitting statements regarding the constitutional complaint against ratification of the UPCA is 31 Oct”

We may soon draft something to that effect. There’s still over a month left. Does anyone still seriously think a judgment can be handed down this year? No way!

Thomas Adam (UPCtracker) also said: “Ambitiously enough for commenters: DE complaint against UPC Agrmt: deadline for submitting views is end of October”

They were both linking to Kluwer’s pro-UPC blog (also found via SUEPO). Here is what it wrote:

A spokesman of the Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, declared in answer to questions of Kluwer IP Law that a request for comment on the complaint was sent to both chambers of German parliament (the Bundestag and Bundesrat); to the Federal Government (the Federal Chancellery, the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and the Federal Ministry of the Interior); to all governments of the Bundesländer and to the Federal Bar Association, the German Lawyers’ Association (DAV, Deutscher Anwaltverein) and the European Patent Lawyers’ Association.

The spokesman added that ‘during the further course of the proceedings it is possible that the Federal Constitutional Court may ask additional agencies to submit statements’. This could refer to for instance the EPO, the European Commission or the UPC Preparatory Committee, that have so far not received a request for comment.

So it’s going to take a very long time. The UPC will remain in limbo for a long time to come, definitely until the end of winter (if not forever).

Looking at IP Kat for any additional input, we merely found out that comments on the UPC are not showing up again. “IPKat moderators gone to sleep again? Comments taking a long time to appear. Is this an attempt to impede the debate.”

That’s what this comment said.

The SUEPO’s Web site was drawing attention to the comments in there.

Here is another:

Not being an EU Institution in itself does not make something exempt for EU laws, as national institutions are not EU institutions but are subject to national law which must comply with EU law.

What prevents all standard EU or national law from applying directly is presumably the relevant protocols on immunities

These are here:

http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ma5.html

https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/ppi_final_ii_en_clean.pdf

Not sure how they compare- not my area of expertise and Ive not seen any commentary on either of them. I’ve not seen suggestion that the UPC’s protocol itself is legally or morally problematic.

So you live in an echo chamber.

It didn’t take long for someone to reply to that:

I’ve not seen suggestion that the UPC’s protocol itself is legally or morally problematic.

Neither has there ever been any suggestion that the EPO’s protocol itself is “legally or morally problematic”.

It even includes a provision for co-operation with national authorities “to ensure the observance of police regulations and regulations concerning public health, labour inspection or other similar national legislation, and to prevent any abuse of the privileges, immunities and facilities provided for in this Protocol”. (Article 20)

What could possibly go wrong there ?

And next: the UK-IPO’s situation.

There’s also an interesting explanatory memorandum available here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-no12017-protocol-on-privileges-and-immunities-of-the-unified-patent-court

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584443/EM_EU_1.2017.pdf

“The question remains thus why the UPC was not submitted for opinion to the CJEU,” said the following comment.

Point 90 in C 146/13 (the rebuttal of the Spanish complaint) is merely a summary of the 6th point brought forward by Spain, and cannot be considered part of the decision of the court!

When quoting the decision, please do it correctly and not in a biased way.

The position of the CJEU is to be found in Points 101 and 102 of the judgement:

101 However, it should be borne in mind that, in an action brought under Article 263 TFEU, the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of an international agreement concluded by Member States.

102 Nor do the Courts of the European Union have jurisdiction in such an action to rule on the lawfulness of a measure adopted by a national authority (see, to that effect, judgment in Liivimaa Lihaveis, C‑562/12, EU:C:2014:2229, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).

103 It follows that the first two parts of the sixth plea in law must be rejected as being inadmissible.

The legal means used by Spain are thus not considered admissible, that means, that actually on this point , no decision as to the substance has been taken by the CJEU.

This is quite different from the allegations submitted.

Point 127 of the Gordon-Pascoe paper is an opinion, not a fact.

The question remains thus why the UPC was not submitted for opinion to the CJEU.

The best comment, however, is this one. Here is the ‘money quote’: “”industry in UK”! Nobody else. No wonder that the legal industry pushes to stay in the UPC!”

It also said: “Where has the British industry, I mean the real one, not the financial or the legal one, gone?”

The comment in full:

The explanatory notice signed by Mr Jo Johnson is quite revealing, and gives away some interesting figures:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584443/EM_EU_1.2017.pdf

Fee income for UK ? £ 166 millions
Legal business for UK firms £ 200 millions

Savings through UPC for UK firms £ 2 millions no duplication of litigation

Savings through UPC for UK firms £ 17 millions on renewal fees

Who will be the big beneficiaries of the UPC, should UK be allowed to stay in it after Brexit: the legal “industry in UK”! Nobody else. No wonder that the legal industry pushes to stay in the UPC!

It is doubtful that £ 17 millions will be saved in renewal fees, as the number of patent owners from UK stem from the 3% of applications at the EPO coming from UK, and not all of them need protection in all member states.

Where the £ 2 millions in savings for avoiding litigation duplication for UK firms come from, remains a mystery.

It is surprising, but yet UK firms represent only 3% of the filings at the EPO (DE 15%, FR 7%, CH 5%, NL 4%, IT 3%, SE 2%). Those are official figures from the EPO.

Where has the British industry, I mean the real one, not the financial or the legal one, gone?

So what we have here is essentially a coup by the litigation ‘industry’. We said that a very long time ago (almost a decade ago). Sites like IAM don’t care about the real industry; they’re just sucking up to (and sucking money out of) law firms to publish promotional puff pieces like this one (about Switzerland). They spent years promoting the UPC, ignoring all along the voices of people who actually create things and instead giving the megaphone to Battistelli.

Shame on these parasites.

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 18/1/2018: MenuLibre 2.1.4, Git 2.16 Released

    Links for the day



  2. 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



  3. 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)



  4. 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



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

    Links for the day



  6. 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



  7. 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



  8. EPO Board of Appeal Has an Opportunity to Stop Controversial Patents on Life

    Patent maximalism at the EPO can be pushed aback slightly if the European appeal board decides to curtail CRISPR patents in a matter of days



  9. Links 16/1/2018: More on Barcelona, OSI at 20

    Links for the day



  10. 2018 Will be an Even Worse Year for Software Patents Because the US Supreme Court Shields Alice

    The latest picks (reviewed cases) of the Supreme Court of the United States signal another year with little or no hope for the software patents lobby; PTAB too is expected to endure after a record-breaking year, in which it invalidated a lot of software patents that had been erroneously granted



  11. Patent Trolls (Euphemised as “Public IP Companies”) Are Dying in the United States, But the Trouble Isn't Over

    The demise of various types of patent trolls, including publicly-traded trolls, is good news; but we take stock of the latest developments in order to better assess the remaining threat



  12. EPO Management and Team UPC Carry on Lying About Unified Patent Court, Sinking to New Lows in the Process

    At a loss for words over the loss of the Unitary Patent, Team UPC and Team Battistelli now blatantly lie and even get together with professional liars such as Watchtroll



  13. China Tightens Its Knot of Restrictive Rules and Patents

    Overzealous patent aggressors and patent trolls in China, in addition to an explosion in low-quality patents, may simply discourage companies from doing production/manufacturing there



  14. Microsoft's Patent Racket Has Just Been Broadened to Threaten GNU/Linux Users Who Don't Pay Microsoft 'Rents'

    Microsoft revisits its aggressive patent strategy which it failed to properly implement 12 years ago with Novell; it wants to 'collect' a patent tax on GNU/Linux and it uses patent trolls to make that easier



  15. EPO Scandals Played a Considerable Role in Sinking the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    Today's press coverage about the UPC reinforces the idea that the EPO saga, culminating in despicable attacks on Patrick Corcoran (a judge), may doom the UPC once and for all (unless one believes Team UPC)



  16. J Nicholas Gross Thinks Professors Stop Being Professors If They're Not Patent Extremists Like Him

    The below-the-belt tactics of patent trolls and their allies show no signs of abatement and their tone reveals growing irritation and frustration (inability to sue and extort companies as easily as they used to)



  17. The US Supreme Court Has Just Denied Another Chance to Deal With a Case Similar to Alice (Potentially Impacting § 101)

    There is no sign that software patents will be rendered worthwhile any time in the near future, but proponents of software patents don't give up



  18. Litigation Roundup: Nintendo, TiVo, Apple, Samsung, Huawei, Philips, UMC

    The latest high-profile legal battles, spanning a growing number of nations and increasingly representing a political shift as well



  19. Roundup of Patent News From Canada, South America and Australia

    A few bits and pieces of news from around the world, serving to highlight patent trends in parts of the world where the patent offices haven't much international clout/impact



  20. Links 15/1/2018: Linux 4.15 RC8, Wine 3.0 RC6

    Links for the day



  21. PTAB is Being Demeaned, But Only by the Very Entities One Ought to Expect (Because They Hate Patent Justice/Quality)

    The latest rants/scorn against PTAB -- leaning on cases such as Wi-Fi One v Broadcom or entities like Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Apple etc. -- are all coming from firms and people who profit from low-quality patents



  22. If Ericsson and Its Patent Trolls (Like Avanci and Unwired Planet) Cannot Make It, the Patent Microcosm Will Perish

    The demise of patent-asserting/patent assertion business models (trolling or enforcement by proxy) may see front groups/media supportive of it diminishing as well; this appears to be happening already



  23. European Patent Office Causes Physical Harm to Employees, Then Fires Them

    Another one (among many) EPO documents about the alarming physical wellbeing of EPO employees and the management’s attitude towards the issue



  24. Battistelli Was Always (Right From the Start and Since Candidacy) All About Money

    “I have always admired creative people, inventors, those who, through their passion and their work, bring about scientific progress or artistic evolution. I was not blessed with such talent myself,” explained the EPO‘s President when pursuing his current job (for which he was barely qualified and probably not eligible because of his political work)



  25. “Under the Intergovernmental EPC System It is Difficult to Speak of a Functional Separation of Powers”

    An illustration of the glaring deficiency that now prevails and cannot be tolerated as long as the goal is to ensure democratic functionality; absence of the role of Separation of Powers (or Rule of Law) at the EPO is evident now that Battistelli not only controls the Council (using EPO budget) but also blatantly attacks the independence of the Boards of Appeal



  26. The Patent Microcosm Thinks It's Wonderful That IP3 is Selling Stupid Patents, Ignores Far More Important News

    IP3, which we've always considered to be nothing but a parasite, does what it does best and those who love stupid patents consider it to be some sort of victory



  27. Automotives, Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things and Industry 4.0 Among the Buzz Terms Used to Bypass Alice and the EPC Nowadays

    In order to make prior art search a lot harder and in order to make software patents look legitimate (even in various courtrooms) the patent microcosm and greedy patent offices embrace buzzwords



  28. Blockchain Becomes the Target Not Only of Financial Institutions With Software Patents But Also Trolls

    Blockchain software, which is growing in importance and has become ubiquitous in various domains other than finance, is perceived as an opportunity for disruption and also patent litigation; CNBC continues to publish puff pieces for Erich Spangenberg (amid stockpiling of such patents)



  29. EPC Foresaw the Administrative Council Overseeing the Patent Office, Jesper Kongstad Made It “Working Together”

    An old open letter from the EPO shows the famous moment when Jesper Kongstad and Battistelli came up with a plan to empower both, rendering the Administrative Council almost subservient to the Office (complete inversion of the desired topology)



  30. 2010: Blaming the Messenger (SUEPO) for Staff Unhappiness at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Tactics of SUEPO (EPO union) blaming go further back than Battistelli and can be found in the previous administration as well


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