02.15.18
Gemini version available ♊︎The Latest Lies About Unitary Patent (UPC) and the EPO
Summary: Lobbying defies facts; we are once again seeing some easily-debunked talking points from those who stand to benefit from the UPC and mass litigation
TEAM BATTISTELLI will be watching the UK today. The EPO‘s management doesn’t care about the EPO. It just wants the UPC. There’s a discussion among some patent attorneys right now about whether the EPO tries to make the UPC more attractive than the EPO/EPC. What would that say about Battistelli? Some EPO insiders believe, based on internal rumours, that he wishes to continue his reign of terror under the umbrella of “UPC” (or whatever they try to call it next).
Last night at around midnight (yes, midnight!) the anonymous “Kluwer Patent Blogger” (probably just Bristows LLP hiding its identity while it publicly lies or distorts facts about UPC) posted some more fake news about the UPC’s fake job advertisements, which in our view aren’t just unethical but should be dealt with as serious offenses (people invited to job interviews for jobs that will never exist). Bristows folks, i.e. the firm and also its staff, continue to show what a disgrace they are. They also spread some other fake news earlier this week. They just can’t help themselves.
Bristows is pretty radical even by Team UPC standards (however low these standards may already be). UPCtracker has just recalled: “From Boris Johnson‘s Valentine’s Day speech : „And as the PM has said repeatedly, we must take back control of our laws. It would obviously be absurd, as Theresa May said in her Lancaster House and Florence speeches [...] (1/2)” (there’s more there)
Thorsten Bausch continued: “…such as the UPCA?”
Yes, obviously.
Even Alexander Esslinger, whose blog we mentioned yesterday, said: “I do not expect that the #UPC (if it enters into force) will significantly reduce the workload of the EPO BoA. 1. If an EP patent application is rejected, the UPC is of no help. 2.Oppositions are much cheaper than invalidity lawsuits under the UPC.”
Again, obviously.
It’s worth noting that none of the above (even the person who calls UPC opponents "idiots" and "trolls") honestly believes that the UPC will happen. That delusion if not lunacy is mostly Bristows’. It’s worth noting that Bristows’ person inside IP Kat stopped her UPC lobbying a few months ago. IP Kat‘s CIPA insider, however, is making photo ops with Battistelli while promoting the UPC (deception or collusion?), issuing PR to conflate/confuse UPC with EPO/EPC (which was never about the EU and predates it).
Sofia Willquist from Awapatent is the latest to piggyback this PR with this statement that she published yesterday to say:
At a meeting between the EPO and the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) in late January, it was confirmed that European patent attorneys who are based in the UK will be able to continue to represent applicants before the EPO. This means that ‘Brexit’ will not have any impact whatsoever on the membership of the UK in the European Patent Organisation, thus maintaining the number of member states at 38.
Mind what they’re trying to accomplish here. In our view, they are attempting to make politicians believe that because Britain remains in the EPO after Brexit (never mind if EPO recruitment of Brits is down by 80%) that must therefore mean that Britain is ready for the UPC. It’s a lie and it’s shrewdly constructed. It’s a lawyers’ tricks. The UPC is mentioned by name in the PR.
Meanwhile, based on this new blog post, Lisa Ouellette and Michael Risch are supplying EPO talking points (FDI); they are missing the point or several key facts and eventually sound like that so-called ‘study’ the EPO commissioned in Britain and the UK (effectively corrupting academia for lobbying purposes). From Ouellette today:
The Impact of International Patent Systems: Evidence from Accession to the European Patent Convention, which Michael Risch posted about yesterday, caught my eye as well. As Michael explained, economists Bronwyn Hall and Christian Helmers examined the impact on patent filings and foreign direct investment (FDI) for fourteen countries that joined the European Patent Convention (EPC) between 2000 and 2008. (The countries are Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Turkey.)
The premise is a false one and is hinged on a bogus correlation; it’s similar to the “patents equals innovation” canard. The number of patent filings depends on many factors including cost, patent scope and so-called ‘IP5′ dynamics. The numbers generally go up over time. There’s also a tax evasion element to it*. To suggest that investments go up owing to patents is ludicrous and dishonest.
By the way, how about those investments in European Patents (EPs) which recently turned out to be money down the drain? Like CRISPR patents…
Yesterday we saw this article titled “Cellectis to license recently-granted CRISPR patents” and it spoke of the EPO:
French cell therapy company Cellectis has announced plans to make two CRISPR patents, which were recently granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office, available for licensing.
[...]
Last year, Cellectis was granted European patent number EP3004337 by the European Patent Office (EPO) for a similar invention.
This patent would likely be voided if challenged right now. We already wrote about half a dozen posts on the subject last month. █
_________
* In Italy, based on this week’s news, they too are in effect legalising tax evasion for massive corporations under the guise of “patents” (or “patent box regime”). To quote:
Italy’s patent box regime, which entered into force January 1, provides an exemption from the corporate income tax and regional tax on productive activities of 50 percent of the income derived from the exploitation or direct use of qualifying intellectual property.
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA