"Media coverage about the UPC has always been a sham and that’s a shame. Nothing has changed."Anyone who is honest to oneself would accept that UPC is a dead end. But following the release of a statement/document from the British government (there was a portion in a larger advisory publication about the UPC) we saw about a couple dozen articles about it, almost exclusively from patent law firms with stakes in the outcome. We wrote almost a half dozen rebuttals since that time and it stopped last week or several days ago (maybe 5 days ago). It's curious that after almost a week of silence on this matter Managing IP brought it up again (the day before yesterday). Why does Managing IP only speak to the patent microcosm ("in-house and private practice lawyers")? It's behind a paywall, but we can imagine that Patrick Wingrove spoke to Team UPC in the UK (where he's located) rather than technical companies with much at stake, e.g. fear of being sued by patent trolls. They speak of a recent paper that came out only to be smeared and belittled by Team UPC. As Wingrove put it:
A new paper has concluded that the UK cannot stay in the UPC after Brexit. Managing IP speaks to the author and in-house and private practice lawyers to unpack the important points of the research
Imagine this scenario. Next month, the German Constitutional Court considers the complaint against ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement and throws it out.
Kat friends Matthias Lamping and Hanns Ullrich of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, have recently published two articles on the impact of Brexit on the unitary patent system and the unified patent judiciary: "The European Union’s Patent System after Brexit: Disunited, but Unified?" and "The Unified Patent Court, and How Brexit Breaks It". A potentially sobering read. See here for IPKat commentary on the recent guidance note from the UK government on a impact of a no-deal brexit on the UPC.