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

07.13.18

Constitutionality and CJEU as Barriers, the UPC Agreement (UPCA) is Already Moot in the United Kingdom

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

But Team UPC will leap and grab any morsel of hope it can find

Deamworld corporate

Summary: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) isn’t going anywhere and the UK merely “explores” what to do about it; for Team UPC, however, this means that the UK “confirms intention to remain in Unitary Patent system after Brexit” (clearly a case of deliberate misinformation)

POOR Team UPC. Nothing goes their way lately. Their ‘hero’ Battistelli has left the EPO, leaving in charge somewhat of an uncertainty/question mark. Constitutionality challenges (more than one) render the UPC pretty much dead (Team UPC has truly gone bankers over it). This is how media owned by patent law firms (Out-Law.com) covers it this week:

On 29 June, Hungary’s Constitutional Court published a ruling in which it held that the terms of the UPC Agreement are incompatible with Hungary’s constitutional framework.

The Hungarian court took into account the fact that the UPC Agreement is not formal EU legislation but an international treaty formed through the ‘enhanced cooperation’ mechanism provided for under the Lisbon Treaty. It permits nine or more EU countries to use the EU’s processes and structures to make agreements that bind only those countries. It is through the enhanced cooperation mechanism that plans to develop a new unitary patent and UPC regime have been developed.

The Hungarian court said it would be unconstitutional to allow jurisdiction for resolving private legal disputes to transfer from Hungary’s courts to an international institution – the UPC – that is not established within the boundaries of the EU’s founding treaties, according to a summary provided by Hungary’s Intellectual Property Office.

At least 13 EU countries, including the three with the most European patents in effect in 2012 – Germany, France and the UK, must pass national legislation to ratify the UPC Agreement that the countries behind the new system finalised in 2013.

Hungary’s Constitutional Court’s decision can only further embolden Germany’s FCC to do the same. Irrespective of that, there may be more complaints on the way. It’s likely that pretty much every nation that signed/ratified UPCA violated its very own constitution (they never bothered checking). But let’s leave all that aside (for now at least), recalling the very recent statement from the British government that it would depart from CJEU, a core part of UPCA. Do they know what they’re doing? Evidently not. It’s like the typical “Brexit shambles”. There is no Unified Patent Court (UPC), there’s no Brexit, and there’s absolutely no certainty about anything. If the UPC is not constitutional in a number of member states, that further contributes to uncertainty, not to mention what happens in Spain and in Ireland.

Those who follow Team UPC closely enough might have already noticed some “tweets” about a new paper titled “The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union”.

“Hungary’s Constitutional Court’s decision can only further embolden Germany’s FCC to do the same.”“UK’s white paper on future relationship with the EU includes a reference to maintaining membership of the future EU-wide unitary patent system, but no mention at all on how current EU trademarks and designs will be implemented in UK after Brexit,” wrote Robert Harrison about this page.

The text they highlight is very clearly in conflict with other statements, including very recent ones about CJEU. But don’t let “bad” facts get in the way of “good” propaganda, right? This is, after all, Team UPC we’re talking about. Facts matter not.

Max Walters wrote (with a selective screenshot):

UK’s #Brexit white paper confirms intention to stay IN the Unified Patent Court post exit. #patents #UPC

Really? Does the word “confirms” belong here? “They carefully do not mention the CJEU relation here,” Benjamin Henrion immediately told him. They’re basically just contradicting even themselves.

“The text they highlight is very clearly in conflict with other statements, including very recent ones about CJEU.”Some people have spotted that too. “However Luke,” one of them said, “big issue with CJEU red line. Wouldn’t be at all surprised for UK to be part of UPC but lose court. Would be huge loss to UK IP…”

UPC is not a “gain” for the UK; it’s actually a big loss. It has already wasted time and money; they’re assessing something which will never materialise. The person also said: “Yes agreed on the fudge & the position of patents, but the big issue will be when it’s tested in CJEU. Think we may also find Brexiters suddenly ‘finding’ patents when things turn nasty…as they will do. Moot point of course if no deal…”

“UPC is not a “gain” for the UK; it’s actually a big loss. It has already wasted time and money; they’re assessing something which will never materialise.”Managing IP, which participated a great deal in UPC propaganda over the years, said: “The UK government’s new white paper outlines what it wants from intellectual property after it leaves the EU – but some IP professionals feel it doesn’t say enough” (Patrick Wingrove has at least bothered mentioning the critics, noting that the government contradicts itself on this issue).

Here’s what a ‘front group’ of Managing IP wrote:

Observation below. #WhitePaper dealt with geographical indications (EU doesn’t mess around with this) and UPC/unitary patent but nothing on trade marks/designs (incl. Union judicial and administrative procedures, e.g. EUIPO). Also see EU’s progress report https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_statement.pdf … https://twitter.com/rjharrison000/status/1017390820176035840 …

The obvious issues didn’t bother staunch members of Team UPC, who proudly wear a “Team UPC” badge in their tweets (they actually use this term). One of them promoted his own article, titled misleadingly “UK confirms intention to remain in Unitary Patent system after Brexit” (here’s that word again, “confirms”).

Nothing was confirmed. Going back to Out-Law.com, its headline says that “major hurdles remain” and here’s why:

The proposals set out in the paper are worthy of “close consideration” by negotiators, but raise “a series of challenges which will need to be overcome if the deal is to have a chance of being concluded and ratified within the short period of time remaining”, according to Brexit and EU law expert Guy Lougher of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com.

“Both sides of the negotiations know that the timeline for negotiations is exceptionally tight,” he said. “There remains three months until the all-important European Council meeting in October which is officially the end of the EU’s negotiating timeline. Major progress needs to be made by then if a deal is to be done and ratified by March 2019.”

“If the challenges can be overcome, a deal may be possible. However, given the scale of the hurdles, businesses should consider that a ‘no-deal’ scenario remains a distinct possibility and should prepare accordingly,” he said.

UPC is not possible (in the UK or anywhere else) for many reasons, among which UPC being unconstitutional and Brexit incompatible.

Different wordings (not “confirms”) were used by other publishers, e.g. “will explore” and “to explore”. There are several headlines to that effect, e.g. “UK will explore staying in the UPC post-Brexit” and “UK to explore Unified Patent Court options in Brexit negotiations [1, 2].

“Even Kluwer didn’t say “confirms”; people who use this word seem rather self-deluding at this point.”“Kluwer Patent blogger” (typically Bristows) said that the “UK intends to stay in the Unitary Patent system post-Brexit” (their headline).

Even Kluwer didn’t say “confirms”; people who use this word seem rather self-deluding at this point.

As for the Bristows-dominated IP Kat, it was covered there not by Bristows but by Eibhlin Vardy, who quoted the relevant passages (highlights are ours):

150. There is a long history of European cooperation on patents, which can be costly to enforce in multiple jurisdictions. Most recently, this includes the agreement on a Unified Patent Court to provide businesses with a streamlined process for enforcing patents through a single court, rather than through multiple courts.

151. The UK has ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement and intends to explore staying in the Court and unitary patent system after the UK leaves the EU. The Unified Patent Court has a unique structure as an international court that is a dispute forum for the EU’s unitary patent and for European patents, both of which will be administered by the European Patent Office. The UK will therefore work with other contracting states to make sure the Unified Patent Court Agreement can continue on a firm legal basis.

152. Arrangements on future cooperation on IP would provide important protections for right holders, giving them a confident and secure basis from which to operate in and between the UK and the EU.

So they actually use the word “explore”; there’s no confirmation there at all. They rightly take note of the EPO’s role, obviously overlooking all the scandals (including judicial scandals) that take place there.

“They rightly take note of the EPO’s role, obviously overlooking all the scandals (including judicial scandals) that take place there.”All in all, the “tl;dr” version of this “UK government White Paper” (on UPC at least): we don’t know if we can participate in UPC, but we’re checking what we be done. Anything beyond that would be pure spin or an ‘artistic’ interpretation.

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. Patents Roundup: Patent Litigation is Down and Seems to Have Shifted Away From Software Patents

    A roundup of recent patent cases of interest and what can be deduced from them, especially but not exclusively in the United States



  2. Half a Year Later the Patent Microcosm is Still 'Pulling a Berkheimer' in Vain

    Earth-shattering changes are being insinuated by people who are in the business of ‘selling’ services around patents, never mind if 35 U.S.C. § 101 remains unchanged and Federal Circuit caselaw suggests likewise



  3. The World Has Moved on and Beyond Software Patents, But Buzzwords and Hype Provide Workarounds

    A look at the status quo of software patents and some of the past week's reports, which still disguise such patents as "financial"



  4. Links 23/7/2018: Linux 4.18 RC6, Plans for Next KDE

    Links for the day



  5. 'Efficiency' in Action: António Campinos is Sending Jobs Abroad, Then Gagging Critics

    Campinos criticised for the decision to outsource EUIPO IT maintenance services to India as he starts blocking blog comments to muzzle his critics



  6. Cherry-Picking Dissenting Opinions on Patent Cases the Last/Latest Resort for Patent Maximalists

    Patent maximalists have run out of substantial things to celebrate, seeing that PTAB and CAFC aren't too interested in looking more deeply at abstract patents, such as software patents



  7. Can Trade Secrets Litigation Replace (in Part) Patent Litigation?

    Seeing DTSA as an opportunity to combat their competition, more firms now choose to file trade secret cases whereas patent cases continue their sharp decline



  8. Links 22/7/2018: Neptune 5.4, NetBSD 8.0

    Links for the day



  9. The EPO (European Patent Office) Under António Campinos is Just Another Battistelli EPO; Still UPC and Software Patents Lobbying

    Campinos has done pretty much nothing but a single blog post since taking Office; it makes one wonder what he's doing all day and whether he ever intends to tackle all the abuses that compelled the Council to replace Battistelli



  10. Cisco v Arista Networks is a Stain on the Reputation of the US International Trade Commission (ITC) and It's Beginning to Recognise This

    Cisco is leveraging software patents which PTAB deemed to be invalid against a much smaller firm (revenue ~30 times smaller), demanding an embargo and bypassing the ordinary routes of justice by turning to the ITC



  11. Openet Has Been Intimidated by Amdocs Using Another Patent Infringement Lawsuit

    Amdocs is still engaging in legal intimidation and litigious bullying against its much smaller rivals/competitors; Openet is the latest reminder of it, having paid an undisclosed amount of money to end the dispute



  12. Federal Circuit Judges Moore, Dyk and Reyna Tell Allergan That It is Not Above the Law

    Allergan and a Native American tribe have lost their ridiculous case; after swapping tens of millions of dollars in pursuit of immunity for patents they've lost again (in what's likely their last resort/appeal); expect the patent microcosm to attempt to distract from it (like they did Oil States)



  13. Links 20/7/2018: MusicBrainz is Back, Microsoft Pushing .NET Through Canonical

    Links for the day



  14. Some US Patents' Quality is So Low That There's a Garden Clearance/Fire Sale

    Rather than shoot worthless patents into orbit where they belong the Allied Security Trust (AST), collector of dubious patents, will try to sell them to gullible opportunists and patent trolls (even if the said patents would likely perish in courts)



  15. When Amplifying the Message of 'Global Innovation Index 2018' IP Watch Sounds Like WIPO and IP Watchdog (Watchtroll)

    In addition to senatorial efforts and misleading debates about patents, we now contend with something called “Global Innovation Index 2018," whose purpose appears to be similar to the debunked Chamber of Commerce's rankings (quantifying everything in terms of patents)



  16. Erosion of Patent Justice in Europe With Kangaroo Courts and Low-Quality European Patents

    The problematic combination of plaintiff-friendly courts (favouring the accuser, just like in Eastern Texas) and low-quality patents that should never have been granted



  17. Mafia Tactics in Team UPC and Battistelli's Circle

    Mafia-like behaviour at the EPO and the team responsible for the Unified Patent Court (UPC); appointments of loyal friends and family members have become common (nepotism and exchange of favours), as have threats made towards critics, authorities, and the press



  18. Australia Says No to Software Patents

    Rokt is now fighting the Australian patent office over its decision to reject software patents; Shelston IP, an Australian patent law firm (originally from Melbourne), already meddles a great deal in such policies/decisions, hoping to overturn them



  19. Links 19/7/2018: Krita 4.1.1, Qt Creator 4.7.0, and Microsoft-Led Lobby Against Android in EU

    Links for the day



  20. IAM is Pushing SEPs/FRAND Agenda for Patent Trolls and Monopolists That Fund IAM

    The front group of patent trolls, IAM, sets up an echo chamber-type event, preceded by all the usual pro-FRAND propaganda



  21. “Trade Secrets” Litigation Rising in the Wake of TC Heartland, Alice, Oil States and Other Patent-Minimising Decisions

    Litigation strategies are evolving in the wake of top-level decisions that rule out software patents, restrict venue shifting, and facilitate invalidation of patents even outside the courtroom



  22. The EPO -- Like the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent System -- is an Untenable Mess

    The António Campinos-led EPO, nearly three weeks under his leadership, still fails to commit to justice (court rulings not obeyed), undo union-busting efforts and assure independence of judges; this, among other factors, is why the Office/Organisation and the UPC it wants to manage appear more or less doomed



  23. Links 18/7/2018: System76's Manufacturing Facility, Microsoft-Led Lobby for Antitrust Against Android

    Links for the day



  24. What Patent Lawyers Aren't Saying: Most Patent Litigation Has Become Too Risky to be Worth It

    The lawyers' key to the castle is lost or misplaced; they can't quite find/obtain leverage in courts, but they don't want their clients to know that



  25. Software Patents Royalty (Tax) Campaign by IBM, a Serial Patent Bully, and the EPO's Participation in All This

    The agenda of US-based patent maximalists, including patent trolls and notorious bullies from the United States, is still being served by the 'European' Patent Office, which has already outsourced some of its work (e.g. translations, PR, surveillance) to the US



  26. The European Council Needs to Check Battistelli's Back Room Deals/Back Door/Backchannel With Respect to Christian Archambeau

    Worries persist that Archambeau is about to become an unworthy beneficiary (nepotism) after a Battistelli setup that put Campinos in power, supported by the Belgian delegation which is connected to Archambeau, a national/citizen of Belgium



  27. PTAB and § 101 (Section 101) Have Locked the Patent Parasites Out of the Patent System

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) have contributed a great deal to patent quality and have reduced the number of frivolous patent lawsuits; this means that firms which profit from patent applications and litigation hate it with a passion and still lobby to weaken if not scuttle PTAB



  28. Patents on Computer Software and Plants in the United States Indicative of Systemic Error

    The never-ending expansion of patent scope has meant that patent law firms generally got their way at the patent office; can the courts react fast enough (before confidence in patents and/or public support for patents is altogether shattered)?



  29. Yesterday's Misleading News From Team UPC and Its Aspiring Management of the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) enthusiasts — i.e. those looking to financially gain from it — continue to wrestle with logic, manipulate words and misrepresent the law; yesterday we saw many law firms trying to make it sound as though the UPC is coming to the UK even though this isn’t possible and UPC as a whole is likely already dead



  30. Time for the European Commission to Investigate EPO Corruption Because It May be Partly or Indirectly Connected to EU-IPO, an EU Agency

    The passage of the top role at the EU-IPO from António Campinos to Christian Archambeau would damage confidence in the moral integrity of the European Council; back room deals are alleged to have occurred, implicating corrupt Battistelli


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