None are necessary. As if any more need to be filed and assessed...

Summary: Now that the UPC is dead in the water (having drowned in the FCC) the UPC hopefuls who belittle it as merely a "deadlock" look for new angles or novel types of spin to make the UPC seem or feel sort of invulnerable to criticism and constitutional challenges (false statement or spin at best)

THE European Patent Office (EPO) may never see courts that are receptive or lenient towards millions of fake European Patents.

The Trojan horse for software patents in Europe (among other things) is up in flames. Benoît Battistelli cheated and lied his way, rumours say in order to become chief of this thing. António Campinos has already lied about it several times since the FCC's decision, which says a lot about Mr. Campinos. Another liar and wannabe king. His father would have certainly disapproved if he was still alive...

"Team UPC remains vastly irrational and too optimistic about something which is clearly dead and hopeless."Some people are still in denial about the fall of the UPC, a sordid mess, despite ample evidence. Maybe they also believe that Elvis is in hiding somewhere, maybe in a bunker somewhere in Argentina along with Adolf Hitler's secret children. Whatever it is, we're dealing with mostly delusional people here.

Well, earlier this month, a whole month and a half later, Taylor Wessing's Anja Lunze published this piece, soon to be promoted through Lexology for extra visibility/reach. We examined it very quickly (the headline itself underestimates the severity of things) and determined that Lunze (Munich-based litigation 'industry') is wrong in various places. Team UPC remains vastly irrational and too optimistic about something which is clearly dead and hopeless. Here's the final part, singled out for details (there's more spin and errors elsewhere):

IV. Points left open - no possibility of a new constitutional complaint

With regard to the further future of the UPCA, it should be emphasised that the Federal Constitutional Court in para. 166 leaves it open whether the establishment of an unconditional primacy of Union law in Art. 20 UPCA violates Art. 20 I and II in conjunction with Art. 79 III of the Basic Law, because the nullity of the Act of Approval already results from other reasons.

This is a major uncertainty for the future. However, a constitutional complaint cannot be lodged again on this issue. Such a complaint always requires that the complainant himself is directly affected by the act of state sovereignty. As long as the Bundestag observes the formal requirements, in particular the requirement of a two-thirds majority, there is no violation of fundamental rights and thus no direct concern of the individual. Therefore, even after the most recent decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, there is still no possibility for an individual or a company to review the constitutionality of a new consent law in the abstract. Such abstract examination of a law could only be initiated by the Federal or a State Government or a quarter of the members of the Parliament.

There can be additional complaints based on additional grounds, which do exist. We named some of these before. In fact, the court did not yet deal with all the substance of the first complaint (2017), which poses additional barriers to the UPC hopefuls. There are, putting Germany aside, other countries expressing similar concerns with legal outcomes to that effect. That more or less dooms the UPC as a concept. There are no simple workarounds. This is why Team UPC rushed the whole thing, fabricated 'news', lied to politicians and so on. Is Taylor Wessing eager to add itself to the list of disgraced firms that lied to clients for years? Watch this article from the Birdy liar Wouter Pors. It did not age well, did it? It's time to stop the lies. They do a disservice to everyone, even to the liars. ⬆