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

09.15.18

The Max Planck Institute’s Determination on UPC’s (Unitary Patent) Demise is Only “Controversial” in the Eyes of Rabid Members of Team UPC

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Controversial” like allegations that Battistelli is corrupt

Bristows EPO

Summary: Bristows keeps lying like Battistelli; that it calls a new paper “controversial” without providing any evidence of a controversy says a lot about Bristows LLP, both as a firm and the individuals who make up the firm (they would not be honest with their clients, either)

TECHRIGHTS has long argued that the EPO was lying about UPC along with Team UPC — basically the very same elements that crafted UPCA and would stand to benefit from such an ‘agreement’ (behind the public’s back). Thankfully, the UPC is now in its death throes. It seems extremely improbable to us that it can ever recover, though it might re-emerge with a different name and new marketing strategy (as happened before).

Just before the weekend the Max Planck Institute made some headlines (not enough, however, in our humble assessment). Team UPC would rather nobody saw it. It would rather pretend such a paper does not exist. But some people did take note of it and we managed to get a copy.

“If it was pro-UPC or had a favourable — even if purely fictional — view of the UPC, the patent microcosm would probably have prodded some publishers to write a bunch of puff pieces, complete with those infamous old lies which they keep repeating every week.”Soon afterwards even some pro-UPC sites (of patent maximalists) took note of it. Managing IP, for instance, having previously set up pro-UPC events (with the EPO also involved), has just said: “UK in UPC after Brexit is “incompatible with EU principles” – Max Planck Institute [link] … An association of German research institutes concludes in a paper that the UK being in UPC post Brexit would create a “fictitious unity” that is incompatible with EU law…”

This links to a post we mentioned before the weekend. No other Web site appears to have covered it, at least not in English. If it was pro-UPC or had a favourable — even if purely fictional — view of the UPC, the patent microcosm would probably have prodded some publishers to write a bunch of puff pieces, complete with those infamous old lies which they keep repeating every week.

Funnily enough, last night we spotted the headline “Max Planck Institute publishes controversial opinion on continued UK involvement in the UPC” (it’s not controversial at all).

We could immediately guess that it came from Bristows LLP or the likes of it. According to Bristows LLP, no such issue exists because Bristows LLP staff are a bunch of self-serving liars and they don’t mind the world seeing that they’re liars. Gregory Bacon wrote this piece; it was the first blog post in this blog for a very, very long time (awkward silence that actually says a lot!)…

“A very long paper with ample evidence is being contested by… basically nothing.”The decision or determination from the said paper is not controversial; we saw not a single person publicly disputing it. Nobody. It’s just not convenient to Team UPC, who decide to label it “controversial” and come up with their usual lies (which we covered here aplenty in the past).

Bacon has provided no evidence whatsoever that Matthias Lamping and Hanns Ullrich were wrong and therefore the title, calling it “controversial”, isn’t supported by any substance in the body. A very long paper with ample evidence is being contested by… basically nothing.

Here is the abstract of the paper, which is actually dated more than a fortnight back. We’ve highlighter some bits for ‘lazy’(ier) readers:

Among the many problems Brexit raises in the field of European intellectual property those relating to the system of unitary patent protection stand out for their complex and controversial nature. The reason is that this system rests on two legally different but interconnected pillars: EU Reg. 1257/2012 on the implementation of enhanced cooperation by the creation of unitary patent protection on the one hand, and, on the other, the Agreement between the Member States of the EU on the establishment of a Unified Patent Court (UPC) that will have exclusive jurisdiction over invalidation and infringement actions concerning the European patent with unitary effect and/or the classic European (bundle) patent. However, the link between unitary protection of European patents and the UPC Agreement is not only one of jurisdiction, but also one of substantive law. Thus, as regards the rules on infringement of the unitary patent, Reg. 1257/2012 refers to those contained in the UPC Agreement in respect of the European (bundle) patent.

Many in the patent law community hope to overcome the disruptive effects the withdrawal of the UK from the EU will produce on both the territorial scope of unitary patent protection and on the UPC as a court common to EU Member States. However, unitary patent protection cannot be dissociated from the general legal order of the EU’s Internal Market and extended to the UK once it has left the Union. Any such extension is incompatible with the autonomous character of EU law and its institutions, will result in a legally split unity for separate and separately regulated markets, and conflict with both the UK’s and the EU’s public interests in defining and implementing a patent policy of their own. Since the core objective of the UPC Agreement is to establish for the adjudication of unitary patent protection a common court of EU Member States that, as such, forms part of the judicial system of the EU, continued participation in the UPC Agreement of the UK post Brexit will not be possible. It would be incompatible with the EU’s foundational principle, which is integration by virtue of the operation of an autonomous legal order based on a complete system of legal protection by national courts acting as ordinary courts of the Union and in cooperation with the Court of Justice of the EU.

We cannot say we’re surprised that Bristows et al attempt to twist this paper, picking the word “controversial” from the first sentence of the abstract and then framing the entire paper (almost 200 pages long, i.e. months in the making) “controversial”. Shame on Bristows and its hatred of scientific, legal discourse. It’s just like Battistelli.

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. Science Minister Sam Gyimah and the EPO Are Eager to Attack Science by Bringing Patent Trolls to Europe/European Union and the United Kingdom

    Team UPC has managed to indoctrinate or hijack key positions, causing those whose job is to promote science to actually promote patent trolls and litigation (suppressing science rather than advancing it)



  2. USF Revisits EPO Abuses, Highlighting an Urgent Need for Action

    “Staff Representation Disciplinary Cases” — a message circulated at the end of last week — reveals the persistence of union-busting agenda and injustice at the EPO



  3. Links 14/11/2018: KDevelop 5.3, Omarine 5.3, Canonical Not for Sale

    Links for the day



  4. Second Day of EPOPIC: Yet More Promotion of Software Patents in Europe in Defiance of Courts, EPC, Parliament and Common Sense

    Using bogus interpretations of the EPC — ones that courts have repeatedly rejected — the EPO continues to grant bogus/fake/bunk patents on abstract ideas, then justifies that practice (when the audience comes from the litigation ‘industry’)



  5. Allegations That António Campinos 'Bought' His Presidency and is Still Paying for it

    Rumours persist that after Battistelli had rigged the election in favour of his compatriot nefarious things related to that were still visible



  6. WIPO Corruption and Coverup Mirror EPO Tactics

    Suppression of staff representatives and whistleblowers carries on at WIPO and the EPO; people who speak out about abuses are themselves being treated like abusers



  7. Links 13/11/2018: HPC Domination (Top 500 All GNU/Linux) and OpenStack News

    Links for the day



  8. The USPTO and EPO Pretend to Care About Patent Quality by Mingling With the Terms “Patent” and “Quality”

    The whole "patent quality" propaganda from EPO and USPTO management continues unabated; they strive to maintain the fiction that quality rather than money is their prime motivator



  9. Yannis Skulikaris Promotes Software Patents at EPOPIC, Defending the Questionable Practice Under António Campinos

    The reckless advocacy for abstract patents on mere algorithms from a new and less familiar face; the EPO is definitely eager to grant software patents and it explains to stakeholders how to do it



  10. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Working for Patent Trolls and Patent Maximalists

    The patent trolls' propagandists are joining forces and pushing for a patent system that is hostile to science, technology, and innovation in general (so as to enable a bunch of aggressive law firms to tax everybody)



  11. Team UPC, Fronting for Patent Trolls From the US, is Calling Facts “Resistance”

    The tactics of Team UPC have gotten so tastelessly bad and its motivation so shallow (extortion in Europe) that one begins to wonder why these people are willing to tarnish everything that's left of their reputation



  12. The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Will Spread the Berkheimer Lie While Legal Certainty Associated With Patents Remains Low and Few Lawsuits Filed

    New figures regarding patent litigation in the United States (number of lawsuits) show a decrease by about a tenth in just one year; there's still no sign of software patents making any kind of return/rebound in the United States, contrary to lies told by the litigation 'industry' (those who profit from frivolous lawsuits/threats)



  13. Links 12/11/2018: Linux 4.20 RC2, Denuvo DRM Defeated Again

    Links for the day



  14. Automation of Searches Will Not Solve the Legitimacy Problem Caused by Patents Lust

    The false belief that better searches and so-called 'AI' can miraculously assess patents will simply drive/motivate bad decisions and already steers bad management towards patent maximalism (presumption of examination/validation where none actually exists)



  15. The Federal Circuit and PTAB Are Not Slowing Down; Patent Maximalists Claim It's 'Harassment' to Question a Patent's Validity

    There’s no sign of stopping when it comes to harassment of judges and courts; those who make a living from patent threats and litigation do anything conceivable to stop the ‘bloodbath’ of US patents which were never supposed to have been granted in the first place



  16. Patent Maximalists Will Latch Onto Return Mail v US Postal Service in an Effort to Weaken or Limit Post-Grant Reviews of US Patents

    An upcoming case, dealing with what governments can and cannot do with/to patents (specifically the US government and US patents), interests the litigation 'industry' because it loathes reviews of low-quality and/or controversial patents (these reviews discourage litigation or stop lawsuits early on in the cycle)



  17. Guest Post: EPO Spins Censorship of Staff Representation

    Another concrete example of Campinos' cynical story-telling



  18. Andrei Iancu and Laura Peter Are Two Proponents of Patent Trolls at the Top of the USPTO

    Patent offices do not seem to care about the law, about the courts, about judges and so on; all they care about is money (and litigation costs) and that’s a very major problem



  19. The Patent 'Industry' Wants Incitations and Feuds, Not Innovation and Collaboration

    The litigation giants and their drones keep insisting that they're interested in helping scientists; but sooner or later the real (productive) industry learns to kick them to the curb and work together instead of suing



  20. EPO 'Outsourcing' Rumours

    The EPO advertises jobs in Prague and Lisbon; this leads to speculations less than a year after António Campinos sent EU-IPO jobs to India (for cost reduction)



  21. Links 11/11/2018: Bison 3.2.1 and FreeBSD 12.0 Beta 4

    Links for the day



  22. Pro-Litigation Front Groups Like CIPA and Team UPC Control the EPO, Which Shamelessly Grants Software Patents

    With buzzwords and hype like "insurtech", "fintech", "blockchains" and "AI" the EPO (and to some degree the USPTO as well) looks to allow a very wide range of software patents; the sole goal is to grant millions of low-quality patents, creating unnecessary litigation in Europe



  23. Latest Loophole: To Get Software Patents From the EPO One Can Just Claim That They're 'on a Car'

    The EPO has a new 'study' (accompanied by an extensive media/PR campaign) that paints software as "SDV" if it runs on a car, celebrating growth of such software patents



  24. The Huge Cost of Wrongly-Granted European Patents, Recklessly Granted by the European Patent Office (EPO)

    It took 4 years for many thousands of people to have just one patent of Monsanto/Bayer revoked; what does that say about the impact of erroneous patent awards?



  25. Links 10/11/2018: Mesa 18.3 RC2, ‘Linux on DeX’ Beta and Windows Breaking Itself Again

    Links for the day



  26. Unified Patents Takes Aim at Velos Media SEPs, Passed From Patent Aggressor Qualcomm

    The latest endeavour from Unified Patents takes aim at notorious standard-essential patents (SEPs), which are not compatible with Free/Open Source software and are typically invalid as per 35 U.S.C. § 101 as well



  27. Stacked Panels of Front Groups Against PTAB and in Favour of Patents on Life/Nature

    So-called 'panels' where the opposition is occluded or excluded try to sell the impression that greatness comes from patent maximalism (overpatenting) rather than restriction based on merit and rational scope



  28. With Patent Trolls Like Finjan and Blackbird Tech out There, Microsoft in OIN Does Not Mean Safety

    With many patent trolls out there (Microsoft’s Intellectual Ventures alone has thousands of them) it’s not at all clear how Microsoft can honestly claim to have reached a “truce”; OIN deals with issues which last manifested/publicly revealed themselves a decade ago (Microsoft suing directly, not by proxy)



  29. Links 9/11/2018: Qt 5.12.0 Beta 4, Ubuntu On Samsung Galaxy Devices, Rust 1.30.1

    Links for the day



  30. Microsoft is Supporting Patent Trolls, Still. New Leadership at USPTO Gives Room for Concern.

    New statements from Microsoft's management (Andersen) serve to show that Microsoft hasn't really changed; it's just trying to sell "Azure IP Advantage", hoping that enough patent trolls with their dubious software patents will blackmail GNU/Linux users into adopting Azure for 'protection'


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