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

12.11.17

Bristows is Being Hammered With Negative Comments For Its Unitary Patent (UPC) Lies

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Bristows typically deletes comments it does not like, but too many people would notice if Bristows overdid it

Alan Johnson

Summary: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is practically dead in the UK and Ireland; Bristows, nevertheless, continues with its desperate spin

THE EPO barely mentions the word/term “UPC”. Neither does the media. It’s dead.

Bristows keeps pushing UPC agenda into blogs other than its own, even on a Friday night; we expected criticism to be selectively deleted, as usual (it happened before), but some of it is starting to show up. On Monday morning someone wrote to us: “Kluwer, where have all the comments gone?”

“Did you notice that there are almost no comments (published) on this piece since it was put online on Friday evening although similar posts in the past attracted a lot of feedback, mostly within hours? Why do you think this is?”

Looking at Kluwer Patent Blog this morning, we actually find 3 more critical comments, namely:

RIP

When the UPCA was drafted and signed, the UK’s involvement and the establishment of part of the central division in London were key feature. That the agreement could be open to non-EU members had never been envisaged.
Brexit radically undermines these fundamental elements and, at best, the terms of the agreement need to be changed in a yet undefined way.
So how can it be that the ratification of an agreement that has become obsolete and no longer reflects the will of its authors is still a topic in those countries that have fortunately not yet done so?
And why on earth should the GCC submit such an outdated agreement to the CJEU in the circumstances?

Then someone from France (based on the URL/TLD) posted:

Dear proponents of the UPC and the post Brexit membership of UK,

When I see the problems which have led to an enquiry of of the Justice Sub-Committee of the House of Lords’ EU Committee, see

http://ipkitten.blogspot.fr/2017/12/role-of-cjeu-post-brexit-to-be.html

with respect of UK courts, I would like to hear why there are no problems with the UPC, which first, does not exist yet, and, secondly does not seem concerned by the enquiry, as it is not a UK court.

Please abstain from the standard reply: because it is an international court. If difficulties are foreseen in respect of enforcement for UK courts, it is hard to understand why an international would not be exposed to the same difficulties post Brexit.

The Lords seem to be concerned by legal certainty. Where is the legal certainty for the UPC?

It does not seem that the UPC was mentioned in Phase 1 negotiations, so it is unlikely to be mentioned in Phase 2 negotiations, which should start soon. Quo vadis UPC?

And one last comment (for now):

I am interested in your comment that “It rationalised correctly, however, that the UPC was an international court”. Am I correct to interpret this as meaning that you agree with Gordon & Pascoe’s characterisation of the nature of the UPC (as an “international court”, as opposed to a Benelux-style “court common to the (EU) Member States”)?

If so, could you please explain to me how the UPC can possibly refer preliminary questions to the CJEU? As I understand it, a court is only able to access the procedure under Article 267 TFEU if it is “a court or tribunal of a Member State”. If the UPC is an international court, then this would appear to take it out of the ambit of Art. 267… which would then appear make the UPC non-compliant with EU law.

I may be missing something here, and so any clarity that you can help to bring to this situation would be much appreciated.

But that’s not it. There’s even more from Bristows staff at IP Kat this morning, attracting the following comment:

Worth reading and linking together are the article on Kluwer and the comments posted on that article.

http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/12/08/brexit-deal-means-unitary-patent-system/

IP Kat‘s/Bristows’ SPC advocacy (covered here yesterday) is also being mentioned:

For me, SPC law is more important than the UPC. The interpretation of the SPC as absorbed into UK law must still follow the EU approach until it is re-written by parliament. Likely, UK judges will rely on CJEU judgments, both existing and post-Brexit. Referrals to the UK Supreme Court may be required, but may be unwise as there is not even a part-experienced patent judge on the panel. Referrals to the CJEU, if not possible, would leave UK judges to make up their own minds – not a bad thing, possibly.

Team UPC/Bristows is then being called “zealots”:

It appears clearly the their Lordships are worried about legal certainty after the Brexit, and hence their enquiry. This applies to U.K. courts, especially their relationship with the CJEU and in matter of enforcement.

Not a word about the UPC! As it does not even exist, no wonder.

Could at least one of the UPC zelotes explain where they find any form of legal certainty in the post Brexit participation of the UKin the UPC, especially when it comes to enforcement? Please do not come up with the worn out argument it is an international court, and the Administrative Committee of UPC will fiddle a bit, so that everything will be honky dory!

Apparently no word about the UPC in Phase 1 negotiations, so nothing about the UPC in Phase 2.

As another blogger said, the UPC is barely a blip on the government radar.

Dear zelotes, wake up to reality, it is better for you. It will hurt, that is the only certainty.
My grand father used to say, that if you stick your head in the ground, do not be surprised that you then get your bottom smacked!
Still valid today.

Notice how every single comment is hostile. Readers know they are being lied to.

Regarding the UPC, the FFII’s President has asked: “Do they have a constitution in the UK? At least I heard there was a constitutional court #upc #rule_of_law”

With news about the Irish judge rising to the surface last night and earlier this morning (it looks like they’re letting Judge Corcoran back in; a source of ours cites “[t]he President of the Boards of Appeal as of Monday 11 December in execution of the judgements 3958 and 3960 of the administrative board of the ILO of 6 December 2017.”) it’s also worth quoting this new comment about the UPC situation in Ireland, an English-speaking country which indefinitely postponed the UPC referendum. “Ireland has to have a referendum on this patent court and granting if jurisdiction as it clashes with our constitution,” said the comment. “I’ll be thinking long and hard about what I’ll be voting for, that’s for sure.”

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 19/11/2018: Linux 4.20 RC3, New Fedora ISO, GNU OrgaDoc 1.0

    Links for the day



  2. A Fresh Look at Recent 35 U.S.C. § 101 Cases Reveals Rapid Demise of Software Patents Even in District (Lower) Courts

    Contrary to narratives that are being spread by the patents and litigation 'industry', there's anything but a resurgence of patents on algorithms; in the United States they're almost always rejected by courts at all levels



  3. All the Usual Suspects Are Still Working Hard to Harm the Legitimacy if Not Existence of Patent Quality Control

    With David Ruschke out of his role and other former judges leaving the Office one wonders if the new Office leadership is just scheming to hide a decline in patent quality by simply removing quality assessors



  4. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Must Be Based on Justice, Not Profits

    With obviousness grounds, prior art and tests for how abstract ideas may be, there's no excuse left for patent maximalism; will patent offices listen to courts or defy caselaw (in pursuits of fulfilling greed)?



  5. The European Patent Office is Attracting Patent Trolls

    Enforcement of software patents in Europe by the large patent troll (disguised as a pool) MPEG-LA means that European software developers cannot develop software with full multimedia support (not without sudden disruption to their peace)



  6. Patent Maximalists Are Still Upset at the US Supreme Court (Over Alice) and the US Patent Office Carries on As Usual

    In spite of the courts’ continued rejection of software patents — perfectly in line with what the high courts are saying — abstract ideas are still being covered by newly-granted patents



  7. Links 18/11/2018: Cucumber Linux 2.0 Alpha and Latest Outreachy

    Links for the day



  8. The European Patent Office Comes up With a Plethora of New Buzzwords by Which to Refer to Software Patents

    The permissive attitude towards software patents in Europe is harmful to software developers in Europe; the officials, who never wrote a computer program in their entire life, pretend this is not the case by adopting marketing techniques and surrogate terms



  9. Patent Maximalists in Europe Keep Mentioning China Even Though It Barely Matters to European Patents

    EPO waves a "white flag" in the face of China even though Chinese patents do not matter much to Europe (except when the goal is to encourage low patent quality, attracting humongous patent trolls)



  10. Team UPC Has Been Reduced to Lies, Lies, and More Lies about the Unified Patent Court Agreement

    With the Unified Patent Court Agreement pretty much dead on arrival (an arrival that is never reached, either) the UPC hopefuls -- those looking to profit from lots of frivolous patent litigation in Europe -- resort to bald-faced lying



  11. Links 17/11/2018: Mesa 18.3 RC3, Total War: WARHAMMER II, GNOME 3.31.2

    Links for the day



  12. Links 16/11/2018: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Beta, Mesa 18.2.5, VirtualBox 6.0 Beta 2

    Links for the day



  13. Berkheimer or No Berkheimer, Software Patents Remain Mostly Unenforceable in the United States and the Supreme Court is Fine With That

    35 U.S.C. § 101, which is based on cases like Alice and Mayo, offers the 'perfect storm' against software patents; it doesn't look like any of that will change any time soon (if ever)



  14. Ignoring and Bashing Courts: Is This the Future of Patent Offices in the West?

    Andrei Iancu, who is trying to water down 35 U.S.C. § 101 while Trump ‘waters down’ SCOTUS (which delivered Alice), isn’t alone; António Campinos, the new President of the EPO, is constantly promoting software patents (which European courts reject, citing the EPC) and even Australia’s litigation ‘industry’ is dissenting against Australian courts that stubbornly reject software patents



  15. Patent Maximalists Are Still Trying to Figure Out How to Stop PTAB or Prevent US Patent Quality From Ever Improving

    Improvements are being made to US patents because of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which amends/culls/pro-actively rejects (at application phases) bad patents; but the likes of Andrei Iancu cannot stand that because they're patent maximalists, who personally gain from an over-saturation of patents



  16. Links 15/11/2018: Zentyal 6.0, Deepin 15.8, Thunderbird Project Hiring

    Links for the day



  17. A Question of Debt: António Campinos, Lexology, Law Gazette, and Sam Gyimah

    Ineptitude in the media which dominates if not monopolises UPC coverage means that laws detrimental to everyone but patent lawyers are nowadays being pushed even by ministers (not just those whose clandestine vote is used/bought to steal democracy overnight)



  18. Science Minister Sam Gyimah and the EPO Are Eager to Attack Science by Bringing Patent Trolls to Europe/European Union and the United Kingdom

    Team UPC has managed to indoctrinate or hijack key positions, causing those whose job is to promote science to actually promote patent trolls and litigation (suppressing science rather than advancing it)



  19. USF Revisits EPO Abuses, Highlighting an Urgent Need for Action

    “Staff Representation Disciplinary Cases” — a message circulated at the end of last week — reveals the persistence of union-busting agenda and injustice at the EPO



  20. Links 14/11/2018: KDevelop 5.3, Omarine 5.3, Canonical Not for Sale

    Links for the day



  21. Second Day of EPOPIC: Yet More Promotion of Software Patents in Europe in Defiance of Courts, EPC, Parliament and Common Sense

    Using bogus interpretations of the EPC — ones that courts have repeatedly rejected — the EPO continues to grant bogus/fake/bunk patents on abstract ideas, then justifies that practice (when the audience comes from the litigation ‘industry’)



  22. Allegations That António Campinos 'Bought' His Presidency and is Still Paying for it

    Rumours persist that after Battistelli had rigged the election in favour of his compatriot nefarious things related to that were still visible



  23. WIPO Corruption and Coverup Mirror EPO Tactics

    Suppression of staff representatives and whistleblowers carries on at WIPO and the EPO; people who speak out about abuses are themselves being treated like abusers



  24. Links 13/11/2018: HPC Domination (Top 500 All GNU/Linux) and OpenStack News

    Links for the day



  25. The USPTO and EPO Pretend to Care About Patent Quality by Mingling With the Terms “Patent” and “Quality”

    The whole "patent quality" propaganda from EPO and USPTO management continues unabated; they strive to maintain the fiction that quality rather than money is their prime motivator



  26. Yannis Skulikaris Promotes Software Patents at EPOPIC, Defending the Questionable Practice Under António Campinos

    The reckless advocacy for abstract patents on mere algorithms from a new and less familiar face; the EPO is definitely eager to grant software patents and it explains to stakeholders how to do it



  27. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Working for Patent Trolls and Patent Maximalists

    The patent trolls' propagandists are joining forces and pushing for a patent system that is hostile to science, technology, and innovation in general (so as to enable a bunch of aggressive law firms to tax everybody)



  28. Team UPC, Fronting for Patent Trolls From the US, is Calling Facts “Resistance”

    The tactics of Team UPC have gotten so tastelessly bad and its motivation so shallow (extortion in Europe) that one begins to wonder why these people are willing to tarnish everything that's left of their reputation



  29. The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Will Spread the Berkheimer Lie While Legal Certainty Associated With Patents Remains Low and Few Lawsuits Filed

    New figures regarding patent litigation in the United States (number of lawsuits) show a decrease by about a tenth in just one year; there's still no sign of software patents making any kind of return/rebound in the United States, contrary to lies told by the litigation 'industry' (those who profit from frivolous lawsuits/threats)



  30. Links 12/11/2018: Linux 4.20 RC2, Denuvo DRM Defeated Again

    Links for the day


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