05.17.18
Rise in Patent Trolls’ Activity in Germany Noted Amid Declining Patent Quality at the EPO
And even without/before something like the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is introduced to augment their scope of damage
Summary: 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
BATTISTELLI has failed miserably as head of the European Patent Office (EPO), which he ran a lot longer than usual and then left in the hands of a fellow Frenchman, whose appointment he lobbied for. Here we are in 2018 and there’s no Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the European Patent Convention (EPC) is severely violated. The EPO is a pariah institution unable to attract any talent and Britain seems to be moving away from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), rendering the UPC moot. As for Germany, seeing violations of the EPC (big part of the constitutional complaint), it can’t go on; do not expect it to ratify anything. It will just hope that people forget about the whole thing while it rots away. They won’t want to admit culpability, including 'banana republic' German politics at 2 AM in the morning (we covered this utterly embarrassing episode several times before and Bristows deliberately mischaracterised it time after time).
“They won’t want to admit culpability, including ‘banana republic’ German politics at 2 AM in the morning (we covered this utterly embarrassing episode several times before and Bristows deliberately mischaracterised it time after time).”Bristows’s latest UPC propaganda (for the first time in weeks) came out thrice in one day. That was yesterday. Nothing from Germany, which is where the main question/barrier lies, just some fluff about the Preparatory Committee, the Hungarian political/court system, and also the Bulgarian one. Those countries don’t really matter to the fate of the UPC; it’s France, Germany and the UK that matter because their signature is imperative. Britain cannot participate and Germany may take a number of years to decide on the constitutional complaint, so don’t expect any developments in this space any time soon. Battistelli is leaving next month. Even IAM, which his PR firm paid for UPC promotion, no longer seems to believe that UPC will ever materialise. Hours ago it wrote from an IAM-run event covering UPC among other things (patents in cars): “UPC – if it happens – will make little difference at first. Why would you use it, when you can go to a German court and get an injunction in less than 12 months? Hogan Lovells partner Benjamin Schroer…”
“It would be overwhelmingly negative for people of Europe and firms of Europe — a fact that Team Battistelli and Team UPC passionately deny or lie about.”UPC would be good for litigation firms and some foreign (non-EU) firms. It would be overwhelmingly negative for people of Europe and firms of Europe — a fact that Team Battistelli and Team UPC passionately deny or lie about. The UPC would be fantastic to patent trolls and the demise of patent quality at the EPO already contributes to this.
A few hours ago IAM tweeted that “Germany is becoming more and more attractive to NPEs [patent trolls]. Maybe Ray should be more worried than he is! – Wilmer Hale partner Justin Watts,” tying this to another tweet quoting Volvo (Sweden): “Up to now 100% of our NPE exposure has been in the US. NPEs in Europe do not keep me awake at night – Millien, Volvo […] Don’t underestimate China, says Volvo’s Millien. I talk to chief IP counxel there who put many chief IP counsel in Europe and US to shame…”
Remember that IAM still denies that trolls even exist, not only that they're a problem. Germany is becoming more and more attractive to patent trolls, says Wilmer Hale, who reaffirmed what IP2Innovate keeps saying, backed by hard numbers.
I responded to IAM with: “But how can this be? IAM wrote long 'articles' (propaganda) denying what IP2Innovate had shown about patent trolls in Europe (did IAM lie?)” (IAM knows who its sponsors are).
“UPC’s intended effect is to override national patent laws and courts, basically enforcing even software patents in nations that strictly forbid these.”Remember that IAM will soon have Battistelli as a keynote speaker. He will be promoting software patents under the guise of “4IR” — a relatively new buzzword/term the EPO invented and promoted by paying the media (corrupting journalism basically). Hours ago it tweeted: “We looked at #4IR from the perspective of patented inventions. Here are the results: http://bit.ly/4IR_findings #wef4ir #ioT #AI #fourthindustrialrevolution”
IAM quoted from its event: “Currently about 10% of a car is composed of software. In the future that will be 30%, says Volvo’s Millien. The risk is that this will lead to patent litigation…”
“This is seductive to law firms.”Only if Battistelli, IAM and others like them succeed in bringing software patents to Europe. They have been working towards that for years. UPC’s intended effect is to override national patent laws and courts, basically enforcing even software patents in nations that strictly forbid these. This is seductive to law firms.
Found via Team UPC and Prospect a few hours ago is this new article, mostly behind paywall about the “farce” which is the “European patent court”. To quote:
This is the business end of Brexit, when all the contradictory promises and impossible dreams come face-to-face with legal reality. Usually we only notice this when it’s about trade, but the same is happening all over society, from security to rules around food recipes. This is the tawdry story of what the government did—and didn’t do—with patents, and why it is now stuck with a series of mutually incompatible promises which are about to collide headlong into one another.
It starts with Theresa May saying one thing and then proceeding to do exactly the opposite. In October 2016, she told the Conservative Party conference that Britain would leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Then, the next month, the government confirmed that in fact it would do the opposite. The first statement was made in the full glare of media attention at a key event in the political calendar. The second was made away from journalists, in a quiet announcement on a departmental website noticed by just a handful of lawyers and nerds.
The rest is behind a paywall, but Team UPC treats that as further evidence that UPC cannot really happen, especially not in the UK. One pro-UPC person wrote: “Will contradiction Brexit -RemainUPC be resolved by merely limiting the announced retreat from reach of CJEU to “direct” CJEU jurisdiction (whatever that may mean)?”
There’s no such thing. To even suggest such a thing is to insinuate that the laws (and even constitutions) can just be violated for the “greater good” which is facilitating the business model of Team UPC, namely litigation boon. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA