--Groucho Marx

A couple of 'hoax' blog posts from Team UPC/Bristows called for a violation of international law and the responses were understandably critical. "Disenfranchised" wrote: "The approach is also narrow-minded. The Court is not something just to be divided up for political favours. That happened with Cameron in 2013 but only because there was no other way and look where that got us. The UPC needs amending (should have been amended 4 years ago) to recognise the Central Division as having a single seat (with freedom to delegate workload as required to local divisions) and remove the ridiculous Annex II. It should also reflect the post Covid reality that we hope to see – time for the first true CyberCourt."

"Even patent professionals are somewhat shocked by what Team UPC is hoping to accomplish and the lies it keeps telling.""Astonished" then wrote: "If – with the existing agreements – the UPC is started, it will be fun to see the first case tried in Milan go to the EuCJ because of the wrong venue (this gives a new meaning to “forum non conveniens”). But I don’t see a start of the UPC soon, the BVerfG mor or less invited new constitutional complaints, so I guess it will take some more years to resolve the open questions, assuming this is at all possible. With the mess made out of the UPC agreement, it would be best to completely scrap it and start from scratch – without interested litigators during the drafting."

"MaxDrei" then responded to the above: "The post from “Astonished” puts its finger on the problem: who today shall draft new legislation, if not the powerful lobby interests (here, the international patent litigation industry)? The days are long gone, when draft legislation was written by a public office (such as, in the UK, the “Parliamentary Draftsman”) with provisions carefully crafted to coincide with “the public interest” or the “general welfare” of society. Today, nobody knows any longer what that is (or if they do, the lobbyists immediately render it invisible)."

"So they had a little webchat and they have not actually met for 3.5 years. OK, got it..."See all the comments here; 6 out of 6 are unequivocally negative. Even patent professionals are somewhat shocked by what Team UPC is hoping to accomplish and the lies it keeps telling.

Some hours ago we found in Lexology a promotion of another bundle of lies, this one from Herbert Smith Freehills LLP's Sebastian Moore and Rachel Montagnon. Referring to the 'meeting' they say "albeit virtually" (i.e. just some webchat) and they speak of “good progress” without actually naming any. They allude to "European Industry" (meaning litigation 'industry', i.e. themselves) an then proceed with the same lies as Bristows told. They published this on 9/11, just like Bristows (in its own blog and in Kluwer Patent Blog) and said: "Yesterday (10 September 2020) the UPC Preparatory Committee met (albeit virtually) for the first time since March 2017. On the agenda were the issues triggered by the formal withdrawal of the UK from the UPC system and the events in Germany in relation to challenges to Germany’s participation."

So they had a little webchat and they have not actually met for 3.5 years. OK, got it...

"The note of the meeting on the Committee’s website (here) states that the Committee took note of the “good progress” being made in Germany with regard to the legislation needed for the German ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement and the Protocol on Provisional Application."

"This is the sort of moral depravity which causes Team UPC to be alienated and mocked by a growing proportion of the legal profession. Many lawyers want nothing to do with these liars, who are simply becoming a liability and an embarrassment to the entire profession."Wait, does the UPC committee run Germany now? Does it tell the Government of Germany what to do? This committee is just like a lobbying group, partly overlapping the litigation profiteers (see the members). The term "pressure group" would be more suitable than "Committee"....

Here's a lie: "The Committee also took note of the call from European Industry for a swift entry into operation of the Unitary Patent System."

Nonsense. The actual industry very often opposed the UPC. But they're often lied for/about. This is the sort of moral depravity which causes Team UPC to be alienated and mocked by a growing proportion of the legal profession. Many lawyers want nothing to do with these liars, who are simply becoming a liability and an embarrassment to the entire profession. ⬆