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

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

What Else is New


  1. Links 25/9/2018: Mesa 18.1.9, New Fedora Beta, and Oracle Solaris 11.4 SRU1

    Links for the day



  2. Technology Groups and Innovators Bemoan Attempts to Override the Courts to Promote Patent Maximalists' Agenda by USPTO Director Andrei Iancu

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is not listening to the views of actual innovators; it seems to be serving just the patent and litigation 'industry' (i.e. those who profit from illegitimate patents and baseless lawsuits)



  3. Patent Trolls Roundup: Microsoft's Patent Troll Collapses, Samsung Fuels Patent Troll Sisvel, and Patent Troll VirnetX Wants Apple's Cash

    Microsoft's largest patent troll continues to experience a mass exodus (in addition to all the layoffs), Sisvel receives armament from Samsung, and VirnetX carries on pretending -- to shareholders at least -- that it will get a lot of money out of Apple (albeit an appeal will likely prevent that altogether)



  4. António Campinos Goes to UPC-Hostile Country, UPC Continues to Languish and Team UPC Carries on Pushing for Software Patents in Europe (Courts Also)

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) fantasy has fizzled, but those striving to interject software patents agenda into Europe from the back door (e.g. labeling these "AI" or ignoring the stance of actual courts) aren't giving up just yet



  5. The Man Whose Actions Could Potentially Land Team Battistelli in Jail

    As new evidence and more material surfaces about Benalla, Battistelli tries hard to hide himself from French media, knowing that he might be criminally culpable



  6. Links 24/9/2018: Linux 4.19 RC5 From Greg Kroah-Hartman, OpenShot 2.4.3 Released

    Links for the day



  7. Reader's Article: Affaire Benalla Strongly Connected to EPO/OEB/EPA and Former President Benoît Battistelli

    A Macron scandal has led French media to finally (and years too late) exploring some of the much more explosive scandals at the EPO, revealing some interesting new details in the process



  8. Language Patent Lawyers Are Using to Warp the Debate and Decrease Public Understanding of Patents

    The patent microcosm, trying to get the public all baffled/confused about the patent system, continues (mis)using words to convey things in misleading ways



  9. USPTO FEES ACT Makes the US Patent Office a Money-Making Machine That Systematically Disregards Patent Quality

    The lingering issues with patent assessment at the US patent office, which unlike US courts isn't quite so impartial an actor (it benefits more from granting than from rejecting)



  10. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli's Epic Abuses)

    Thoughts on the possibility that Battistelli will belatedly be held accountable for his abuses, knowing that a senator representing French Citizens residing Abroad comes from the EPO



  11. A Lot of US Patents Are Entirely Bogus, But Apple Was Willing to Pay for Them

    Apple's resistance to Qualcomm's patent aggression was preceded by very heavy ("thermonuclear" by Steve Jobs' description/words) patent wars against Android and even legitimisation of clearly bogus software patents from Amazon



  12. 'Owning' Nature, Thanks to Patent Insanity and People Who Profit From That

    Questionable patents on things that always existed and are merely being explained or reassembled; those sorts of patents typically serve to merely discredit the patent system and courts too increasingly reject such patents (e.g. SCOTUS on Mayo Collaborative Services and Myriad Genetics, Inc.)



  13. Patents Stranger Than Fiction and 'Protection' From Fictional Things

    Fictional things are being treated like "inventions" and insurance companies now look to exploit fear of fictional things (man-made concepts), such as ownership of mere ideas or words



  14. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO

    Benoît Battistelli's highly aggressive approach has attracted the attention of French media; Battistelli has reportedly refused to comment on that matter, knowing that he lacks a defense (same thing happened after he had hauled millions of EPO euros to his other employer)



  15. Patent Law Firms Have Become More Like Marketing Departments With an Aptitude for Buzzwords

    What we're observing, without much reluctance anymore, is that a lot of patent lawyers still push abstract software patents, desperately looking for new trendy terms or adjectives by which to make these seem non-abstract



  16. Interlude: The Need to Counter Misinformation From the Patent and Litigation 'Industry'

    24,500 posts reached; so we pause and reflect, seeing that many sites/blogs of patent maximalists gradually ebb away



  17. Advocacy of the Unitary Patent System Has Become Almost Identical to the 'Leave' (Brexit) Campaign

    The charades of Team UPC carry on in Kluwer Patent Blog — a blog which for a very long time served no purpose other than Unified Patent Court (UPC) advocacy



  18. Open Invention Network is Rendered Obsolete in the Wake of Alice and It's Not Even Useful in Combating Microsoft's Patent Trolls

    Changes at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and in US courts' outcomes may have already meant that patent trolls rather than software patents in general are a growing threat, including those that Microsoft is backing, funding and arming to put legal pressure on GNU/Linux (and compel people/companies to host GNU/Linux instances on Azure for patent 'protection' from these trolls)



  19. Bogus Patents Which Oughtn't Have Been Granted Make Products Deliberately Worse, Reducing Innovation and Worsening Customers' Experience

    How shallow patents — or patent applications that no patent office should be accepting — turn out to be at the core of multi-billion-dollar cases/lawsuits, with potentially a billion people impacted (their products made worse to work around such questionable patents)



  20. EPO is Like a Patent Litigation (Without Actual Trial) Office, Not a Patent Examination Office

    Examination of patent applications isn't taken seriously by an office whose entire existence was supposed to be about examination; bureaucracy at the top of this office has apparently decided that the sole goal is to create more demand (i.e. lawsuits) for the litigation 'industry'



  21. Philippe Cadre From the French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) Wants to Join António Campinos

    Yet another example of INPI's creeping influence if not 'entryism' at the EPO and this time too patent quality isn't a priority



  22. Links 22/9/2018: Mesa 18.2.1, CLIP OS, GPL Settlement in Artifex/First National Title Insurance Company

    Links for the day



  23. Links 21/9/2018: Cockpit 178, Purism 'Dongle'

    Links for the day



  24. Criticism of Unitary Patent (UPC) Agreement Doomed the UPC and Patent Trolls' Plan -- Along With the Litigation Lobby -- for Unified 'Extortion Vector'

    The Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC) was the trolls' weapon against potentially millions of European businesses; but those businesses have woken up to the fact that it was against their interests and European member states such as Spain and Poland now oppose it while Germany halts ratification



  25. It Wasn't Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The EPO scandals deepen in light of a very major scandal which has occupied the French media for a couple of months



  26. Links 20/9/2018: 2018 Linux Audio Miniconference and Blackboard's Openwashing

    Links for the day



  27. Links 19/9/2018: Chromebooks Get More DEBs, LLVM 7.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  28. Links 18/9/2018: Qt 5.12 Alpha , MAAS 2.5.0 Beta, PostgreSQL CoC

    Links for the day



  29. Today's European Patent Office (EPO) Works for Large, Foreign Pharmaceutical Companies in Pursuit of Patents on Nature, Life, and Essential/Basic Drugs

    The never-ending insanity which is patents on DNA/genome/genetics and all sorts of basic things that are put together like a recipe in a restaurant; patents are no longer covering actual machinery that accomplishes unique tasks in complicated ways, typically assembled from scratch by humans; some supposed 'inventions' are merely born into existence by the natural splitting of organisms or conception (e.g. pregnancy)



  30. The EPO Has Quit Pretending That It Cares About Patent Quality, All It Cares About is Quantity of Lawsuits

    A new interview with Roberta Romano-Götsch, as well as the EPO's promotion of software patents alongside CIPA (Team UPC), is an indication that the EPO has ceased caring about quality and hardly even pretends to care anymore


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