07.04.18
Yesterday’s UPC Event Was a Reminder That Team Battistelli is Still in Charge of the European Patent Organisation, Fronting for Team UPC
These sorts of UPC lobbying events are almost a monthly occurrence now and their tone keeps being escalated
They think that a vendor capture of legislation is just a joke
Summary: Team Battistelli, which still comprises Margot Fröhlinger and now António Campinos, joins Team UPC in pressuring politicians and courts to introduce an unconstitutional patent trolls’ fantasy, spurring a boon for litigation firms
THE Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) is a great example of law being corrupted by greedy opportunists and legal thugs. When they say “industry” they mean the litigation ‘industry’, e.g. patent trolls. Consider this tweet from yesterday, quoting the EPO‘s liar (yes, Team Battistelli is still in charge): “the long term participation of the UK in the UPC is legally possible if there is political will. The clear view of industry should be listened to by DE, FR and other member states…”
Which industry, Margot Fröhlinger?
“They’re not receptive or open to any critics. UPC is, to these people, just something to be shoved down people’s throat.”World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) belatedly wrote some time yesterday about changes in Team Battistelli, coinciding with the above event. UPC promotion was the first step of António Campinos, which isn’t a promising sigh. It indicates there’s no profound change on the way. Basically the new President has revealed that he is another Battistelli as far as patent agenda goes (never mind social aspects or management style). “Yet another UPC echo chamber conference where they do not invite critics” is how Benjamin Henrion described the above. They always make it like that. They’re not receptive or open to any critics. UPC is, to these people, just something to be shoved down people’s throats. They did, after all, come up with and wrote UPCA. They are self-appointed ‘lawmakers’ whose sole motivation is self-enrichment.
It’s hard to know what exactly happened there (without something like a transcript of the speech from Campinos), but live tweeting from the event shows that “Select Committee’s Jerome Debrulle [said] If the UPC fails it will be a “political and economical failure for the EU.””
“They did, after all, come up with and wrote UPCA. They are self-appointed ‘lawmakers’ whose sole motivation is self-enrichment.”Jerome Debrulle is a notorious Battistelli and abuses facilitator, whose government should (in our humble opinion) sack him for what he did last year. We have heard lots more about his special relationship with the UPC and his role in the appointment of Campinos with Battistelli pulling strings behind the scenes. Debrulle should be considered an extension of Team Battistelli along with the above propagandist (Margot Fröhlinger). They’re inseparable.
Watch how Team UPC responded to constitutional challenges, all of which have thus far been successful. These are the sorts of people who also attended this event. It’s not a debate but more of a battle plan. Alex Robinson, referring to himself/themselves as “#TeamUPC” yesterday, thinks this is funny. He spoke of needing to “resume our deliberations on taking over the world ;-)”
Ha, ha, ha. Not funny. And no, they just try to hijack Europe’s patent system, including the courts, aided by their hero Battistelli. IAM’s revisionism and whitewash about Battistelli is all one needs to see in order to understand that Team UPC is fully behind Team Battistelli. Just watch what happened to IP Kat after CIPA and Bristows had taken leading positions there. They’re egging Team Battistelli on.
“…Team UPC is fully behind Team Battistelli. Just watch what happened to IP Kat after CIPA and Bristows had taken leading positions there. They’re egging Team Battistelli on.”Robinson has in fact just belittled the constitutional challenge to UPC (yet again) and his employer added: “The Hungarian Constitutional Court ruled that the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) is contrary to the Hungarian constitution and therefore cannot be ratified by Hungary…”
Compare that to the actual headline. Bristows’ was even worse, insinuating that Hungary should now change its Constitution to facilitate its Constitution being violated by Team UPC. These people are absolutely nuts. And it’s dangerous. It’s like the Battistelli mindset, wherein breaking the law is acceptable when the supposed ends justify any means. Team UPC is not just arrogant; it rigs the rules, it breaks the law, it corrupts politicians, and it seems to be absolutely OK with corruption and suicides at the EPO as long as they might get their ‘precious’ UPC. Robinson continued: “His personal views: a way will be found to allow UK to continue, because so many people want it to happen. But if that happens, it is likely there will be a legal challenge. And that could take some time to resolve. […] Let’s see what is quicker – Germany killing the UPC or the UK leaving the EU!”
This is nonsense because the sequence of this does not matter and they have several more serious obstacles to overcome, the least of which is Hungary.
“The goal is to cause a litigation Armageddon and overcome limits on patenting (scope).”Team UPC seems to become more radical as a function of how unlikely the UPC becomes. What next? Will they start openly bribing politicians? They already lobby them in the open and proudly associate — even in photo ops — with notorious crooks who belong in a prison.
The UPC is a threat not because of the stench of Battistelli; it’s objectively terrible for Europe, unless one is a prosecutor for one’s living. The goal is to cause a litigation Armageddon and overcome limits on patenting (scope). As someone put it last night in IP Kat comments: “On numerous occasions, EPO decisions have (usually when UK practitioners have argued on the basis of EPO case law) stated that, unlike Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, the instances of the EPO are not bound by precedent case law, but only by the provisions of the EPC. Therefore there appears to be no good reason why the UK courts should feel obliged to follow EPO case law when such case law does not bind the EPO itself.” █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA