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

05.09.18

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Not Happening, But Kluwer Patent Blog Pretends It’s Already in Force

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

As if the only question now is who governs it

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
“…the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true” –Sociologist Robert K. Merton on Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Summary: The truly delusional writings, not to mention intentionally dishonest creed, show that Team UPC is a threat to truth itself, not just to the European economy

THE EPO scandals are no longer being covered — let alone mentioned — in so-called ‘IP’ blogs. It’s seen by them as “not beneficial”; they’d rather just sweep EPO examiners under a rug somewhere.

“Looking at some of the comments that made it through the censorship, it seems clear that even Kluwer Patent Blog contributors (Thorsten Bausch at least) found the article misleading.”“Limiting your European Patent nationally” was the title of this blog post from Kluwer Patent Blog yesterday. It was the first blog post in a long time. It was published along with another propaganda piece about the UPC. It was authored anonymously, but it certainly looks like the author was Bristows cloaked as "Kluwer Patent blogger". As usual, comments are being ‘sanitised’ there, so a real discussion cannot be made visible. One must assume that dissent gets deleted to protect the propaganda. Maximalists are happy about it (this is being promoted via patent maximalists). Team UPC keeps pretending that no barriers exist after that awful IAM 'interview' (widely criticised around the Web). Notice the loaded headline which makes the reader assume that Unitary Patent is in force and what remains to be decided is under whose wing. The headline is merely a quote/quote-mining: “EU should bring Unitary Patent system under its control” (quoting a “former chief economist of the EPO”).

Here’s a little portion:

Still, even if the German complaint is rejected and the Unitary Patent system enters into force at the end of 2018 or in 2019, van Pottelsberghe doesn’t expect too much of an impact on innovation – which is in principle what patents are all about.

One UPC booster said:

Which wd be the end of any UK #UPC participation: „[T]his single layered system should be much more an EU endeavour and not in the hands of a ‘dreadfully independent institution composed of 38 stakeholders of member states’, accdg to van Pottelsberghe.“

A phrase such as “end of any UK UPC participation” is misleading for two reasons; first of all, the UK never participated and secondly the UPC never existed and probably will never exist. We recently wrote a lot about why Britain can never participate in anything like this:

Meanwhile, this new press release came out [1, 2]. This came out in the UK, advertising a “2 Day Conference for Senior Patent Administrators (London, United Kingdom – September 27-28, 2018)” and saying the following: “It will help you understand how recent changes at the EPO, WIPO, USPTO and the Unitary Patent Court will impact your role.”

Will?

Putting aside the fact that the UK cannot participate, the UPC isn’t happening. This merely perpetuates a falsehood. Further down, under day two, it says there’s a 12.45 session on “The Unified Patent Court”.

Maybe they believe that if they carry on pretending that the UPC is just about to start, then it will actually happen.

Looking at some of the comments that made it through the censorship, it seems clear that even Kluwer Patent Blog contributors (Thorsten Bausch at least) found the article misleading.

Thorsten Bausch wrote:

Thank you for collecting this interesting opinion. My only comment is that I found the headline slightly confusing. What I understood Prof. van Pottelsberghe to suggest is not so much that the EU should bring the Unitary Patent system under its control – he argues rather, and rightly in my view, that the EU should bring the EPO (European Patent Office) more under its control. That, he argues, would enable the EPO to serve and be part of the EU’s industrial policy, for the sake of European consumers, universities and entrepreneurs.

I agree with him now, but must admit that there were times in the past when I was of a different opinion and thought it is actually a good idea to have a Patent Office that is outside the EU and not committed to serve its industrial policy or other political agendas of the day. I saw it as a great chance to achieve European unification and harmonisation beyond political borders and even including countries having quite different political systems. Which it has been and still is. Clearly, if the EU brings the EPO more under its control, this may serve to exclude non-EU countries, at least in the long run.

However, the current status of the EPO as an international organisation that enjoys immunity, but is not supervised effectively and lacks any effective integration in a judicial system that safeguards elementary human rights and the rule of law is highly problematic and probably not sustainable in the long term future. Were the EPO to become an organ of the EU, this would definitely change for the better.

In any case, it is time to re-think the entire European Patent Organization, in my view.

An earlier comment said this:

I can agree that the advent of the UP system would “make the patent system in Europe quite complex”. I can also agree that “the European Commission should find a way to bring the EPO more under its control”. However, I believe that Mr van Pottelsberghe has seriously underestimated the complexities on both of these points.

For example, the “international” status of the EPO has so far enabled the management of the organisation to effectively ignore even basic principles under human rights laws (such as the right to a fair trial or to COLLECTIVE bargaining). Under these circumstances, and given the principle of supremacy of EU law (INCLUDING the Charter of Fundamental Rights), how could it be possible for the Commission to “control” the EPO in any way?

On the other hand, the advent of the UP system promises to bring into effect a system in which post-grant “game-playing” by patentees can not only change the forum in which a patent is litigated but can also change the law of infringement that is applied (and hence change the outcome of the litigation). Such a system is not just “complex”, it is absurd. It also dispatches the concept of legal certainty to the dustbin of history.

I have never seen any such complexities even acknowledged (let alone taken into account) in connection with a “study” on the possible benefits of the UP system. So you will have to forgive me if I am more than a little cynical about the chances of that system doing anything other than providing an additional advantage to those patentees having the deepest pockets (who will be best placed to take maximum advantage of the insane levels of complexity and uncertainty that are inherent in the system).

A person who used to comment a lot in IP Kat (barely did lately) said:

Ah, the European patent “system”! A bit like the famous old Punch curate’s egg, eh? “Good in parts”.

Which part is good? Why the EPC and the Established Caselaw of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, of course. This is a roadmap for everything to do with eligibility, patentability and validity of patents, and it provides hugely more legal certainty on all of these matters than anywhere else in the world. It is a benchmark for national Supreme Courts all over the world, something Europe should be very proud of and something industry in Europe should be very grateful for.

How did this come about? Some might suggest that it is precisely because the EPC and the EPO’s established caselaw has been conceived, written and implemented free from political influence and control. rather, the EPC and the EPO simply strive to dispense justice and fairness between i) patent-owners and ii) their competitors constrained by the patents the EPO issues. Reasonable certainty for the public, yet a fair scope of protection for inventors. Good patents enforceable, bad patents struck down.

So I’m not convinced that putting the EPO under more political control is in every respect a good thing.

But I’m with Thorsten and others that it would be a good thing for the basic rights of employees at the EPO.

In the end, these two issues are, for me, very important, but I’m doubtful how much they matter, for Professor Bruno van Pottelsberghe.

The above, from MaxDrei, shows that Kluwer Patent Blog fails to convince even its own readers of what it is trying to say about UPC. Maybe the target audience is some gullible politicians.

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

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

What Else is New


  1. The Attacks on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Have Lost Momentum and the Patent Microcosm Begrudgingly Gives Up

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), reaffirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and now the Supreme Court as well, carries on preventing frivolous lawsuits; options for stopping PTAB have nearly been exhausted and it shows



  2. Software Patenting and Successful Litigation a Very Difficult Task Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

    Using loads of misleading terms or buzzwords such as "AI" the patent microcosm continues its software patents pursuits; but that's mostly failing, especially when courts come to assess pertinent claims made in the patents



  3. António Campinos Will Push Toward a France-Based Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    Frenchmen at EPO will try hard to bring momentum if not force to the Unified Patent Court; facts, however, aren't on their side (unlike Team UPC, which was always on Team Battistelli's side)



  4. In Apple v Samsung Patents That Should Never Have Been Granted May Result in a Billion Dollars in 'Damages'

    A roundup of news about Apple and its patent cases (especially Apple v Samsung), including Intel's role trying to intervene in Qualcomm v Apple



  5. Links 20/5/2018: KDevelop 5.2.2 and 5.2.3, FreeBSD 11.2 Beta 2

    Links for the day



  6. Aurélien Pétiaud's ILO Case (EPO Appeal) an Early Sign That ILO Protects Abusers and Power, Not Workers

    A famous EPO ‘disciplinary’ case is recalled; it’s another one of those EPO-leaning rulings from AT-ILO, which not only praises Battistelli amid very serious abuses but also lies on his behalf, leaving workers with no real access to justice but a mere illusion thereof



  7. LOT Network is a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

    Another reminder that the "LOT" is a whole lot more than it claims to be and in effect a reinforcer of the status quo



  8. 'Nokification' in Hong Kong and China (PRC)

    Chinese firms that are struggling resort to patent litigation, in effect repeating the same misguided trajectories which became so notorious in Western nations because they act as a form of taxation, discouraging actual innovation



  9. CIPU is Amplifying Misleading Propaganda From the Chamber of Commerce

    Another lobbying event is set up to alarm lawmakers and officials, telling them that the US dropped from first to twelfth using some dodgy yardstick which favours patent extremists



  10. Patent Law Firms That Profit From Software Patent Applications and Lawsuits Still 'Pull a Berkheimer' to Attract Business in Vain

    The Alice-inspired (Supreme Court) 35 U.S.C. § 101 remains unchanged, but the patent microcosm endlessly mentions a months-old decision from a lower court (than the Supreme Court) to 'sell' the impression that everything is changing and software patents have just found their 'teeth' again



  11. A Year After TC Heartland the Patent Microcosm is Trying to 'Dilute' This Supreme Court's Decision or Work Around It

    IAM, Patent Docs, Managing IP and Patently-O want more litigation (especially somewhere like the Eastern District of Texas), so in an effort to twist TC Heartland they latch onto ZTE and BigCommerce cases



  12. Microsoft Attacks the Vulnerable Using Software Patents in Order to Maintain Fear and Give the Perception of Microsoft 'Safety'

    The latest patent lawsuits from Microsoft and its patent trolls (which it financially backs); these are aimed at feeble and vulnerable rivals of Microsoft



  13. Links 19/5/2018: Mesa 18.0.4 and Vim 8.1

    Links for the day



  14. Système Battistelli (ENArque) at the EPO is Inspired by Système Lamy in Saint-Germain-en Laye

    Has the political culture of Battistelli's hometown in France contaminated the governance of the EPO?



  15. In Australia the Productivity Commission Decides/Guides Patent Law

    IP Australia, the patent office of Australia, considers abolishing "innovation patents" but has not done so yet (pending consultation)



  16. Fishy Things Noticed Ahead of the Passage of a Lot of EPO Budget (Applicants' Money) to Battistelli's Other (and Simultaneous) Employer

    Observations and odd facts regarding the affairs of the council in St Germain; it certainly looks like Battistelli as deputy mayor and the mayor (Arnaud Péricard) are attempting to hide something



  17. Links 18/5/2018: AsteroidOS 1.0 Released, More Snyk/Black Duck FUD

    Links for the day



  18. Today's EPO Financially Rewards Abuses and Violations of the Law

    Battistelli shredded the European Patent Convention (EPC) to pieces and he is being rewarded for it, perpetuating a pattern of abuses (and much worse) being rewarded by the European Patent Organisation



  19. So-Called 'System Battistelli' is Destroying the EPO, Warn Insiders

    Low-quality patent grants by the EPO are a road to nowhere but a litigious climate in Europe and an unattractive EPO



  20. Rise in Patent Trolls' Activity in Germany Noted Amid Declining Patent Quality at the EPO

    The UPC would turn Europe into some sort of litigation ‘super-state’ — one in which national patent laws are overridden by some central, immune-from-the-law bureaucracy like the EPO; but thankfully the UPC continues its slow collapse



  21. EPO's Battistelli Taking Days Off Work for Political 'Duties' (Parties) in His French Theatre Where He'll Bring Buckets of EPO Budget (EPO Stakeholders' Money)

    More tales from Saint-Germain-en-Laye...



  22. Links 16/5/2018: Cockpit 168, GCompris 0.91, DHCP Bug

    Links for the day



  23. The EPO's 'Inventor Award' Scam: Part III

    An addendum to the "inventor of the year" affair, namely the case of Remmal



  24. Apple and Microsoft Are Still Suing Companies -- Using Patents of Course -- Which 'Dare' Compete (by Leveraging GNU/Linux)

    The vanity of proprietary software giants — as the latest news serves to reveal — targeting companies with patent lawsuits, both directly and indirectly



  25. The Anti-PTAB (Patent Quality), Anti-§ 101 Lobby is Losing Its Mind and It Has Become Amusing to Observe

    The rants about the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the courts and even the law itself have reached laughable levels; this reveals that the real agenda of patent maximalists is endless litigation and their methods boil down to those of an angry mob, not legal professionals



  26. EPO Has Become Overzealous About Software Patents, Probably More So Than Almost Anywhere Else

    The promotion of an extreme patent regime in Europe continues unabated; whether it succeeds or not depends on what EPO examiners and citizens of Europe can do



  27. Links 15/5/2018: Black Duck's Latest FUD and the EFF's EFFail FUD Debunked Further

    Links for the day



  28. Xiaomi, Samsung, TCL and Others Demonstrate That in a World With an Abundance of Stupid Patents Like Design Patents Nobody is Safe

    The "Cult of Patents" (typically a cabal of law firms looking to have everything on the planet patented) has created a battlefield in the mobile world; every company, once it gets big enough, faces a lot of patent lawsuits and dying companies resort to using whatever is in their "portfolio" to destroy everyone else inside the courtroom (or demand 'protection' money to avert lawsuits)



  29. A Google-Centric and Google-Led Patent Pool Won't Protect GNU/Linux But Merely 'Normalise' Software Patents

    Patent pools, which are basically the wrong solution to a very clear problem, continue to expand and promote themselves; the real solution, however, is elimination of abstract patents, notably software patents



  30. The Patent Microcosm is Still Looking for Ways to Bypass CAFC/PTAB Invalidation of Many US Patents

    In pursuit of patent maximalism (i.e. a status quo wherein US patents — no matter their age — are presumed valid and beyond scrutiny) pundits resort to new angles or attack vectors, ranging from the bottom (IPRs) to the top (Supreme Court)


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