THE European Patent Office (EPO) has not mentioned the UPC since March (when the Benoît Battistelli-chosen President António Campinos made some ridiculous statement about the FCC's historic decision). Is Battistelli still alive? And out of prison? The people whom he used to break laws are in prison, but miraculously enough this thug is in a law school (the very top of it; a law school run by a criminal!), presumably waiting for UPC, which this school still promotes.
"Don't fall for optimistic lying by Team UPC."In any event, the UPC is dead and future attempts at it seem dead in the water, too. Don't fall for optimistic lying by Team UPC. "Parliamentary question on Unitary Patent Court and Germany," Benjamin Henrion noted today, soon quoting his older press release that said: "the Member States no longer have the right, acting individually or even collectively, to undertake obligations with third countries which affect those rules or alter their scope."
Patrick Breyer's question to the Commission said this:
Parliamentary questions
Question for written answer
to the Commission Rule 138 Patrick Breyer
Subject: The future of the Unified Patent Court (UPC)
The Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPCA) has been ratified by 15 Member States and the United Kingdom, but will not come into force until it has been ratified by Germany. According to EU case law (Court of Justice of the European Union Case 22/70), Member States must not enter into agreements with third countries that affect EU rules or alter their scope. The UK is now considered a ‘third country’ under Article 216 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. While the EU may jointly assume obligations with the UK with respect to patent litigation, Member States no longer have a right to do so.
1. Can the Commission confirm that Germany no longer has the right to ratify the UPCA?
2. Is the Commission going to advise the German Government not to ratify the UPCA as it stands?
3. If Germany ratified the UPCA in its existing form, would the Commission launch an infringement procedure against it?
"Note how Bristows continues to mock the UPC complaint/complainant, reaffirming that same old Bristows bitterness over the collapse of the UPC."Team UPC is well aware of it, but it just doesn't mention that. There's a new spin pattern. It's related to future or follow-up complaints.
But as noted only hours ago by Gregory Bacon of Bristows, there are more complaints on the way, shall they become necessary (at the moment the UPC is mostly drowned, likely for good). Note how Bristows continues to mock the UPC complaint/complainant, reaffirming that same old Bristows bitterness over the collapse of the UPC. No wonder staff fled the firm, seeing what a sham it is. We once heard that these people had spread rumours about the complaint being tied to Russia or something (classic Red Scare). They also tried to associate it with the far right in Germany (AfD). Here's the part about "a further constitutional complaint [which] may be filed":
It has been reported that the complainant has indicated that a further constitutional complaint may be filed, saying: “The court did not even rule on the substantive complaints and even hinted at further constitutional deficits of the agreement. It remains to be seen what conclusions the federal government will draw from this decision. If, despite these problems, the German government continues to adhere to the Convention, a new constitutional review by the Constitutional Court will have to be considered, possibly of a complaint from a company.”
The potential grounds for a further complaint are not immediately clear. Even if some of the inadmissible arguments were able to be overcome by the complainant being a company rather than an individual (as the complainant’s remarks suggest), the Senate’s comments (above) on the UPC Agreement’s compliance with the Basic Law do not indicate any obvious problem in that respect. However, the Senate did state (paragraphs 141 and 166) that it did not decide (as it was not necessary) whether the UPC Agreement’s provisions that establish the primacy of EU law violate the Basic Law.
If a new complaint was filed before the UPC system started, this could of course, even if unsuccessful, delay the start.
"This whole thing is a cautionary tale about how precarious democracy is in Europe."Are you still living in fantasy land?
The article repeats the lie which we mentioned the other day. They try to make the UPC's collapse seems like merely a procedural fluke.
These liars need to be confronted and corrected, not ignored. For years they've lied, cheated and even advertised job openings for jobs that did not exist and would not exist. They also floated fabricated rumours as part of their lobbying push. We may soon work on a book chapter about all that deception and the UPC's collapse (for scholarly publication). This whole thing is a cautionary tale about how precarious democracy is in Europe. ⬆