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

04.29.18

Even Vocal Proponents of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Admit That There Are ‘Holes’ in the Announcement From Sam Gyimah

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Be sure to look ‘under the hood’

Classic Car - Convertible

Summary: A couple of days after Team Battistelli and Team UPC pretended that everything was back on track for the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) people are still talking about many issues associated with the announcement, calling it “a good PR coup”

HAVING already published 3 articles about ‘ratification’ of UPC in the UK [1, 2, 3], we must revisit the subject in light of new information. UPC booster Darren Smyth, who prematurely belittled our analysis of the situation, now highlights issues with the ‘ratification’ (also see the reply to him).

This can make the minister “look like a mug” as we say here:

I have noticed that the UK ratification of the UPC Agreement has a reservation that Article 4 (giving Court legal personality) shall not apply in the provisional period:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/treaties-agreements/ratification/?id=2013001&partyid=GB&doclanguage=en …
It seems to have been a reservation made when the Protocol on Provisional Application was signed by UK, but I don’t remember any comment at the time and I had not noticed this before.
Any idea what is the reason for this reservation? It seems to be difficult to set up a Court in London if it does not have legal personality there…

He later added the same comment here (where there’s heavy censorship by Team UPC/Bristows, so we’re assuming many comments may have been deleted).

The reply is more important:

That last comment from Darren Smyth puts me in mind of what we used to do when we were children, and needed to promise to do something, when we had no intention of keeping that promise.

The trick was to keep your fingers crossed, behind your back, when you made your promise.

What else but the good old “fingers crossed ” trick is this UK “reservation” I wonder.

And much later came another reply:

A very interesting comment from Darren Smith.

It brings other questions to mind:

- even if the reservation is only provisional, how can the liability of the Court, as provided in Art 5 UPCA be guaranteed?

- the same applies to the Liability for damage caused by infringements of Union law as provided in Art 22? I read “The Contracting Member States are jointly and severally liable for damage….

By Member states only member states of the EU are meant!

My conclusion: The announcement is a good PR coup, but we could not see the fingers crossed in the back of Mr Sam Gyimah!

If it was merely a “PR coup”, then we know who was fastest to exploit it: Team Battistelli and Team UPC, notably Bristows, which wrote no less than 4 ‘articles’ about it!

“Num[ber] 10 [British government] is leveraging “efficient” EU membership,” Josep Maria Pujals, a lawyer from Terrassa (Spain), joked in relation to this UPC ‘ratification’ which Brexit immediately thwarts (those two things are evidently not compatible).

Heuking Patent Law Team also said that “UPC is a project of Enhanced Cooperation of EU member states which want to go one step further in the European integration than other member states. It will inevitably result in fundamental frictions when a leaving member state participates in an Enhanced Cooperation.”

Going back to the aforementioned comments thread, UPC is being compared to the Titanic:

…the stern of the Titanic is rising, the band is playing, and Mr Gyimah MP provides a statement like: “Ratification of the UPCA will keep the UK at the forefront of influencing the international system.”

I do not have a lot of confidence in many German politicians, but why would any sane negotiator run and act after reading a statement like: “The unique nature of the proposed court means that the UK’s future relationship with the Unified Patent Court will be subject to negotiation with European partners as we leave the EU.”

This clearly translates as: No ratification in Germany equals one messy bargaining chip less.

Then the Isle of Man was brought up:

What puzzles me is how the Isle of Man is included. They wanted to be in if possible, and the statutory instrument clearly speaks about including the Isle of Man in the ratification (7.5-7.7 in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/162/pdfs/uksiem_20170162_en.pdf).

However, no information on inclusion of or extention to the Isle is included on the depositary website… and the UPC agreement is silent on extensions, which makes the status of the Isle very unclear.

Any thoughts?

All in all, taking stock of all these comments, it clearly looks like Britain wasn’t entirely sincere about this ratification. Gyimah just sought to score some points on a 'special' (to the 'IP' maximalists) day.

“Concerned about the practicalities” wrote this:

Enforcement ultimately means this: can an injunction be enforced if the party against whom it was made does not comply? Or can a costs award (or damages award) be enforced against assets in a jurisdiction?

Under the English system if a party does not comply with a court order, the ultimate enforcement lies in contempt proceedings (for injunctions) and orders over property (for monetary awards – as you cannot be put in prison for not paying your debts under the English system). Contempt proceedings can allow a court to award fines or imprisonment (maximum two years). These end enforcement mechanisms are what ultimately means court orders are followed. The UPC system does not set up any equivalent system, nor could it. So recognition of judgments is essential as without that the underlying English legal system won’t be able to enforce.

Brexit is then brought up among other comments (in a ‘sanitised’ thread that discourages/deletes UPC-hostile comments):

Question: if the UK somehow (magically) manages to stay in the UPC post-Brexit, what are we to make of Articles 5(3) and 7(1) of Regulation 1257/2012?

“The acts against which the patent provides protection referred to in paragraph 1 and the applicable limitations shall be those defined by the law applied to European patents with unitary effect in the PARTICIPATING MEMBER STATE whose national law is applicable to the European patent with unitary effect as an object of property in accordance with Article 7.”

“A European patent with unitary effect as an object of property shall be treated in its entirety and in all the participating Member States as a national patent of THE PARTICIPATING MEMBER STATE in which that patent has unitary effect and in which, according to the European Patent Register:
(a) the applicant had his residence or principal place of business on the date of filing of the application for the European patent; or
(b) where point (a) does not apply, the applicant had a place of business on the date of filing of the application for the European patent.”

Of course, after Brexit, the UK will no longer be an EU (Participating) Member State – and so will become irrelevant for the purposes of Articles 5(3) and 7(1). Thus, it seems that the UPC will NEVER apply UK national law to “unitary” patents.

This could be bad news for those wishing to conduct clinical trials in the UK, as it will make it impossible to argue that the UK’s (extremely broad) “Bolar” exemption represents a defence against infringement of a “unitary” patent … even if the alleged infringement takes place in the UK and the patent proprietor has their (principal) place of business in the UK.

So, all of the legal effort expended to make the UK a go-to destination for conducting clinical trials will have essentially been rendered pointless. Not quite the “taking back control” of our laws that the Brexiteers had in mind, I’m sure!

British media did not cover this as much as we expected. Maybe it will next week; maybe it won’t. But we certainly hope that fact-checking will accompany any such endeavours.

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. IRC Proceedings: Friday, January 24, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, January 24, 2020



  2. Links 24/1/2020: GNU/Linux in Russia and More New Openings

    Links for the day



  3. When EPO Press Coverage Boils Down to Lobbying, Press Releases, EPO Lies, and Bribery

    Any attempts to properly assess and explain what happens in Europe's patent landscape are being drowned out by EPO-bribed and law firms-connected media; to make matters worse, the EPO's bribes have expanded to academia, so even scholarly work in this domain is corrupted by money of special interest groups



  4. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, January 23, 2020

    IRC logs for Thursday, January 23, 2020



  5. Links 23/1/2020: Qubes OS 4.0.3, EasyOS 2.2.5, GhostBSD 20.01

    Links for the day



  6. Passion of the Microsoft

    A rough timeline of Microsoft’s interactions with Linux and the Linux Foundation since 2015



  7. The Patent Microcosm is Really Panicking as European Patents on Life and Other Spurious Junk (Invalid Patents) Are Successfully Rejected

    European Patents (EPs) may be revoked en masse if what we're seeing is the gradual emergence of 'European Mayo' (and maybe soon 'European Alice')



  8. Distractions From Microsoft's Gigantic Tax Evasion and Contribution to Denial of Climate Science

    Microsoft (connected to oil companies) wants us to think of it as a "green" company; not only does it contribute to climate denial but it also evades tax, which is a serious crime that costs tens of billions of dollars (the public pays this money instead)



  9. Confirmation: System1/Startpage Offered Pay to People Who Pushed for (Re)Listing in Privacy Directories

    The debate is now settled; those arguing in favour of listing Startpage as privacy-respecting are in fact secretly 'compensated' by Startpage (in other words, they're Startpage 'shills')



  10. Vandana Shiva: “Bill Gates is Continuing the Work of Monsanto”

    A recent interview on what Bill Gates is really up to in that sham ‘charity’ of his



  11. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, January 22, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, January 22, 2020



  12. Extending Linux With DRM, Azure and exFAT

    An insufficiently 'conservative' Linux ceases to be freedom-respecting



  13. Linux Foundation (LF) Now Dominated by Lots of Microsoft People and LF Chiefs Join Microsoft in Smearing GPL/Copyleft

    We continue to see additional evidence which serves towards reinforcing our view that the so-called 'Linux' Foundation is actually hostile towards many things that are associated with Linux (unlike those looking to exploit/hijack Linux for proprietary ends)



  14. Links 22/1/2020: Wayland 1.18 Alpha, ODF 1.3 Approved

    Links for the day



  15. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 21, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 21, 2020



  16. Poor Excuses for Granting Poor (and Often Illegal/Invalid) Patents

    A quick look at some of the latest examples of software patents advocacy (not by actual software professionals, obviously) and why it's deeply misguided (or guided solely by greedy law firms)



  17. A Simple Plan For a Universal Free Software Community

    "For software to be free as in freedom, we need more people to care personally about software freedom."



  18. Links 21/1/2020: Wine 5.0 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Beta

    Links for the day



  19. Startpage/System1 Almost Definitely Pay for People to Lie About Their Surveillance

    A longterm investigation suggests that there are forces in the debate that aren't objective and are being super evasive and dodgy; this typically happens only when somebody has much to hide



  20. The Internet is an Appalling Medium for News and It Has Only Gotten Worse

    Something ought to change in the way people gather and assess news; at the moment — as proper journalism runs out of steam (and budget) — things only deteriorate and quality suffers; this rapidly exacerbates as people come to rely on — and then relay — hearsay, not fact-checked bodies of work



  21. Media Reactions to the EPO Coming to Grips With Fake Patents That It Granted (Spoiler: the Media is Controlled by Lawyers of Monopolists and EPO Partners)

    Appalling quality of reporting and truly awful bias in the media, primarily owing to the fact that it is dominated/manned not by actual reporters but the firms looking to patent life itself; they use their lawyers and operatives who are literally funded by these lawyers (wearing "journalist" badges to mislead)



  22. Links 21/1/2020: EarlyOOM Fedora Decision and AMD Zen 3 Microcode

    Links for the day



  23. IRC Proceedings: Monday, January 20, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, January 20, 2020



  24. Links 20/1/2020: MNT Reform, Linux 5.5 RC7, KMyMoney 5.0.8

    Links for the day



  25. Mansion of Pedophilia – Addendum: Accessing and Assessing Court Documents

    How anyone out there can do the job the media failed to do (after an apparently unprecedented arrest at the home of Bill Gates)



  26. Mansion of Pedophilia – Addendum: Progress on Police Request

    9 updates from the police department of Seattle but still nothing material/concrete, only promises and major delays



  27. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, January 19, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, January 19, 2020



  28. Mansion of Pedophilia – Part VIII: More Than 4 Months of Waiting for Police Department to Send Over the Files They Claim to Have an Issue Opening

    The police department (PD) of Seattle is unable to open its own files about arrest for pedophilia at Bill Gates' home; it has been unable to open these files for several months, it claims...



  29. Starting a GNU Replacement for GitHub, Possibly Based on GitLab

    "It might be easier if we start from the GitLab software," Stallman said



  30. European Commission Pushes for Even Greater Patent Maximalism Instead of Rationality, Patent Zealots' Site Cherry-Picks China as Whipping Boy

    Fear of China is being leveraged to promote an agenda of patent maximalists; the general idea they promote is that granting millions of low-quality patents is the only way to compete, even if in reality that merely handicaps the whole market


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

Recent Posts