It must be almost the tenth time Benoît Battistelli pulls this trick in order to paint himself as sympathetic, concerned, and victimised
Summary: An incredible little essay signed by Benoît Battistelli, whom some colleagues hold accountable for the premature deaths of (up to) more than half a dozen EPO staff
THE EPO boasts the biggest liar in the world. Sepp Blatter is a Saint and an angel compared to him. The USPTO has some issues, but nobody ever dares compare it to anything like the EPO, where some executives would probably be in prison if they were not above the law. In some people’s views or minds, Battistelli employs terror tactics for ultimate control and he breaks national laws in the process. Yes, even Dutch politicians openly call it that and defend the characterisation with terms like “Gestapo” and “Reign of terror”. It’s almost an objective interpretation.
“Such are the symptoms of psychopathy; Battistelli’s mental state seem to have made him incapable of admitting any errors; instead he attacks anyone who dares tell him the truth, even delegates over whom he has no authority.”Benoît Battistelli is a master of institutionally violent autocracy, yet he pretends to be a victim of violence. He is a master of hypocrisy, lies, etc. while he accuses others of falsehoods. Such are the symptoms of psychopathy; Battistelli’s mental state seem to have made him incapable of admitting any errors; instead he attacks anyone who dares tell him the truth, even delegates over whom he has no authority. May the European authorities do to him what they did to Sepp Blatter, but they probably lack the authority to do so. They cannot even enter EPO facilities without prior permission (e.g. to independently investigate suicides).
And now, as we predicted last night, the EPO’s President shamelessly exploits the Berlin attack (warning:
epo.org link). How about victims (fatalities) of the EPO's legal bullying and Battistelli's reign of terror? Did Battistelli fail to spot the hypocrisy? Is he senile or something?
“European Patent Office condemns blind hatred,” he wrote, yet anything Battistelli does seems to be driven by vengeance and hatred. Spot the hypocrisy from this man who turned the EPO into a “reign of terror”. He complains about terrorism now.
Benoît Battistelli speaks of “inclusive society based on fundamental principles of freedom, equality and justice.” Seriously? Signed by Battistelli?
“Says the man who keeps breaking German law and insists it’s OK because he’s enjoying immunity and impunity.”He says “sympathy goes to the victims, their families, relatives and friends.” Except those whose family and relatives Battistelli rebuked after his “Gestapo” drove loved ones to suicide?
“As a symbol of our solidarity with Germany and the German people,” Benoît Battistelli continued…
Says the man who keeps breaking German law and insists it’s OK because he’s enjoying immunity and impunity.
Benoît Battistelli says the “attack will never be able to destroy these principles, nor our values of cultural diversity…”
What principles? Benoît Battistelli must be a sick, demented person if he wrote all the above himself and didn’t merely sign it. He speaks of “tolerance and mutual respect.” That’s like Stalin or Pol Pot speaking of tolerance and mutual respect.
Another new low for the EPO… pass the vomit bag. █
Send this to a friend
Reference: Historical revisionism
Summary: Rebuttal to some recent articles from sites of (and for) the patent microcosm, or the meta-industry which wants more and more patents (hence more and more litigation)
PATENTS are a two-edged sword and for patent lawyers it means double-dipping. They profit both from the plaintiff and the defendant, or the aggressor and the victim. When people speak of the benefits of patents they often neglect to mention the harms; only one group benefits irrespective of the outcome.
“When people speak of the benefits of patents they often neglect to mention the harms; only one group benefits irrespective of the outcome.”The US, at a national level, wanted so badly to use patents against China and now China is schooling them using their own weapon. As the trolls’ voice (IAM) puts it, “[f]or US patent owners, a key element of their China strategies could be about to get much harder” (I have also heard this personally from an old friend who pursued or at least explored the option as recently as months ago).
The patent strategy of the US is clearly not working. The US is killing its very own businesses — especially small (or local) businesses — and only a growing meta-industry benefits. Watchtroll, part of this meta-industry, is now attacking another politician who does not agree with him and his grubby, money-grabbing hands. We don’t want to entertain IAM or Watchtroll too much (they are the opposition’s voice), but we are hardly surprised by these posts of theirs that border on personal attacks, lobbying disguised as news, and shameless self promotion.
“As one can expect, patent law firms ignore all the decisions they don’t like, then amplify rare exceptions.”Speaking of shameless self promotion, in these times when it’s widely agreed that software patents have become a waste of time and money (after Alice in particular) law firms like Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP don’t want us to know the facts and instead cherry-pick cases to construct a flawed narrative. Hunter Freeman and Seann Patrick Lahey from McNair Law Firm give tips for overcoming a de facto BAN on software patents. Imagine if they gave such tips in areas of criminal law, immigration, etc. (like ways to avoid prosecution for rape/murder). It’s surreal, yet it has become so banal. This banality is now so prevalent that we must not simply ignore it. Here is Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP cherry-picking PTAB/CAFC cases. As one can expect, patent law firms ignore all the decisions they don’t like, then amplify rare exceptions. Why? To mislead prospective/existing clients. They fight an information war.
“Having been awarded a software patent in 2016 is no small achievement,” says this new press release as if software patents are likely to survive courts like the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
In the “PTAB Litigation Blog”, a blog run by a self-serving firm rather than unbiased observers, more of the expected bias can be found this past week. “The PTAB Currently Places The Burden Of Proof For Claim Amendments On The Patent Owner,” it says (as should be, rightly so). Is there a problem with that?
“It’s typically a sign of one firm’s financial failure if not bankruptcy, resulting in re-employment elsewhere.”Baker Donelson, another person from the meta-industry, is downplaying PTAB IPRs that are being used to invalidate many thousands (by extrapolation) of software patents in the US. Curiously, based on Donelson’s link in his article (IAM-hosted), the author’s employer is being absorbed. “Baker Donelson will combine with the well-respected national law firm Ober|Kaler as of January 1, 2017,” it says. Yet another example of one legal firm collapsing onto another in the post-Alice era? We’re losing count. It’s typically a sign of one firm’s financial failure if not bankruptcy, resulting in re-employment elsewhere. Sustainability of such firms is declining, spurring a panic and frantic attacks on Obama’s patent policy.
Let it be understood that software patents are not potent and CAFC has done virtually nothing to stop PTAB from invalidating software patents even outside the courts. Let it also be clear that the meta-industry (or patent microcosm as it’s sometimes called) created a misleading picture and constructed a parallel reality in order to further its agenda and embellish its bottom line.
“The era of software patents is over and the only opportunity for a rebound might be Justices and USPTO Director appointments by Trump…”See this new report about Verint Systems Inc. v Red Box Recorders that says “Plaintiff Verint asserted six patents against Red Box (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,774,854, 5,790,798, 6,510,220, RE43,324, RE43,386, and 8,189,763) in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Red Box rebutted, asserting that all claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 due to being directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas.”
That’s Alice and if it’s pursued all the way up to CAFC or SCOTUS expect all these patents to be thrown away. The era of software patents is over and the only opportunity for a rebound might be Justices and USPTO Director appointments by Trump, which is why the meta-industry already lobbies him so unbelievably hard (more on that in the next few posts). █
Send this to a friend
Summary: Croatian media helps Battistelli promote the UPC in Croatia, yet the EPO says nothing about it and the subject of criminal charges against the EPO’s Vice-President (Topić from Croatia) isn’t even brought up
SO-CALLED ‘reform’ at the EPO turns out to be a race to the bottom of everything, except litigation (more and more of it). “Residents of EPC contracting states can perform all procedural steps before the EPO,” the EPO wrote the other day, but “not in their language,” Benjamin Henrion responded. In other words, services are getting poorer (we have heard such stories from British applicants who complained that the EPO could not even properly deal with English). Imagine what a mess the UPC would be when it comes to languages — a subject we covered here many times before. It’s one of the main reasons Spain opposes the UPC, which will probably never take off anyway (not in its current form). If people need to hire the patent microcosm for services such as translations, not just legal advice, who is this whole system good for? Surely the middlemen, not the inventors. It’s especially prohibitive — from a financial point of view — to SMEs, which is why they oppose the UPC (don’t believe what the EPO and Team UPC say on ‘their behalf’).
“Quite a few people wrote to us about it, yet the EPO keeps absolutely quiet about it.”The EPO’s lies have become so routine that they’re mundane and banal now. EPO workers hardly believe anything their management says (and rightly so!). In fact, even EPO-friendly media like MIP refuses to accept this latest lie, not a study (commissioned by the EPO and EUIPO themselves, to assess themselves!). “This study by @EPOorg & @EU_IPO analyses the contribution of IPR-intensive sectors to the EU economy,” the EPO wrote a couple of days ago, but what they generally do is attribute the success of any domain where patents are grantable to the EPO and EUIPO, then pretend that they are worth trillions. We already mentioned this lie, which is habitually being used to promote the UPC.
The EPO is meanwhile providing a sort of UPC ‘attack map’, almost as though it’s pitching/speaking to patent trolls and showing off to them just how many companies in how many nations they’ll be able to attack with an EP and one single court ruling (in a foreign language).
Amid all this nonsense from the EPO’s Twitter account there is absolutely no mention and no announcements about Battistelli and his visit to the country where his bulldog is accused of serious crimes, as we first noted yesterday morning. Quite a few people wrote to us about it, yet the EPO keeps absolutely quiet about it. No Battistelli photo ops with Željko Topić’s protectors/successors at SIPO Croatia? Did he meet them to say something?
“This time, for a change, Battistelli did not just dispatch some UPC ‘lobbyist’ like Margot Fröhlinger or Grant Philpott.”Regarding “Battistelli in Zagreb,” one reader told us, “State media servis [sic] of Republic of Croatia – HINA, (www.hina.hr) made [an] interview with B. Battistelli.”
Here is coverage (see screenshot above) other than HINA news about Battistelli in Zagreb.
We waited patiently for more information as quite a few people appear to be talking about it and they are generally disturbed by this for numerous reasons.
“Regarding Battistelli’s visit to Zagreb,” one reader told us having sent more information, “I got this from Croatian sources.” We remind readers that Topić has quite a few enemies (or victims) in Zagreb and they too are eager to see this man facing justice, even arrested like some of his old friends. To quote the information we received:
Battistelli and Topić were guests at the celebration of SIPO’s 25th Anniversary which took place in Zagreb on December 9th.
According to information from sources in Croatia, the preparations for the event took place in great secrecy and the SIPO didn’t make any prior public announcement on its web site.
The celebration was formally held “under the auspices of the Government”, but the Croatian Government refused to contribute financially.
The Assistant Minister of Science Krešo Zadro was sent as the Government representative. This could be interpreted as a subtle diplomatic snub to Battistelli who prefers to have his events attended by top-ranking Ministers.
Sylvie Forbin, a deputy Director of WIPO and Christian Archambeau from the EUIPO also participated.
Unofficial sources say that the SIPO Director Kuterovac got funding for the event from EPO and WIPO.
A puff piece with photos is likely to appear on the SIPO website next week.
Here’s the link to the SIPO website
A short report about the event appeared on the Croatian news portal “Panopticum”.
This report does not mention that Topić was in attendance.
An English translation follows
SIPO Celebrates 25 Years
Text: B. Dobrijević
Photo: S. Hoffmann
In Zagreb, on Friday, 9 December 2016, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) celebrated its 25 years of existence. The celebration took place in the NCB under the auspices of the Croatian Government. The introductory remarks at the celebration were made by the Director of the institution, Ljiljana Kuterovac, and there was a welcoming speech on behalf of the Government of Croatia from the Assistant of Minister of Science, Kreso Zadro. The meeting was also welcomed by the President of the EPO, Mr. Benoit Battistelli, the Deputy Director General of WIPO in Geneva, Mrs. Sylvie Forbin, and Christian Archambeau, Deputy Executive Director of the EU Office for Intellectual Property (EUIPO) in Brussels.
We recall that after the establishment of the Republic of Croatia as an independent and sovereign state, it was necessary to establish the appropriate national institutions and, on 31 December 1991, a national body responsible for the protection of intellectual property which now bears the name of the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office was established.
The presence of Christian Archambeau is noteworthy because of his past role at the EPO. We wrote about him before.
Another message we have received says that the underlying/hidden purpose of Battistelli’s visit was UPC promotion. For the uninitiated, there are still many barriers to the UPC (not just Spain, which we mentioned above) and in relation to the UK see our “UPC Scam” 7-part series, plus two short followups:
“Battistelli [was] lobbying for Unitary Patent project in Croatia,” told us a reader, citing the Croatian media as proof:
This article which just appeared gives a clue as to what Battistelli was up to in Zagreb.
RH pozvana da se priključi projektu jedinstvenog europskog patenta
(“Croatia invited to join the European Unitary Patent project”)
I don’t have a full translation but the gist of it is given by this passage:
“Hrvatska je, uz Španjolsku, jedina zemlja Europske unije koja se još nije priključila projektu jedinstvenog europskog patenta, rekao je u razgovoru za Hinu predsjednik Europskog patentnog ureda Benoit Battistelli i savjetovao Hrvatskoj da zbog razvoja i širenja svojih patenata u EU to svakako učini.”
“Croatia, along with Spain, is the only country in the European Union which has not yet joined the European Unitary Patent project , said the President of the European Patent Office Benoit Battistelli in an interview with the news agency Hina he advised that Croatia should make sure to do so in view of the development and expansion of its patents in the EU.”
This time, for a change, Battistelli did not just dispatch some UPC ‘lobbyist’ like Margot Fröhlinger or Grant Philpott. He went there himself and it would be valuable to know if he met some SIPO/government officials to discuss Topić's criminal charges. For a number of years now Team Battistelli went to great lengths to cover this up. Maybe there will be some photo ops and creative writings at the EPO’s “news” section and Battistelli’s “blog” next week (as early as tomorrow). When people search for stuff like “SIPO EPO” or “Croatia EPO” they’ll be a lot less likely to learn about the real story rather than some silly “anniversary” alongside UPC puff pieces. █
Send this to a friend
No, it’s not happening unless one is gullible enough to believe EPO-funded media
Summary: Another long installment in a multi-part series about UPC at times of post-truth Battistelli-led EPO, which pays the media to repeat the lies and pretend that the UPC is inevitable so as to compel politicians to welcome it regardless of desirability and practicability
THE UPC-CENTRIC EVENTS that we are seeing these days, some of which are organised by MIP (Managing IP) and IAM with support from the EPO, are a symptom of a rogue operation. Kluwer Patent Blog, part of Team UPC, continues to lobby for the Unitary Patent in the UK, even when it’s neither doable nor desirable, for reasons we are covering in this long series. Yesterday’s article from Kluwer Patent Blog was titled “Judge Grabinski: ‘Involvement UK is very positive for Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent’” and it has attracted responses like “No democracy: such amendment would not need a revision of the UPC but could be implemented by the Administrative Com” or “Administrative Committee to replace the role of Parliaments to adapt the UPC in case UK leaves, pretty insane…”
Another part of Team UPC is joining this echo chamber. They are blogging about themselves under the heading “UK signals green light to Unified Patent Court Agreement”. But can they actually do this? No. Not really.
Earlier today we we covered yesterday's so-called 'roundtable' of the USPTO, noting the effect of having events or panels that are stuffed with just one side, barring any opposition from entering or at least speaking. This is what Team UPC has been doing for a long time and many examples were covered here over the years, predating even the name “UPC”. UPC hopefuls write about Brexit and the UPC, but the two are still incompatible. Watch what Darren Smyth, a booster of the UPC, wrote only days ago. Who is he kidding? Following all the misleading coverage from press paid for/bought directly and less directly by the EPO, some people still piggyback the false perception that the UPC will certainly come to the UK. Sorry, that’s not going to happen. Stop living in your bubble, UPC hopefuls…
All those sham debates like the one we wrote about this afternoon may make Team UPC feel confident, but they’re in for a surprise.
“Too many patent lawyers to my taste,” Henrion wrote to us regarding yesterday’s USPTO ’roundtable’. He watched the whole thing and said “Nader was there, but not even a[ny] software developers among the panels.”
Did we ever see any software developers at UPC events? Nope. Just lots and lots of lawyers and sometimes large businesses and executives who hire these lawyers. The EPO also dispatches Margot Fröhlinger to lie to the audience these days. Talk about preaching to the choir… what a pointless exercise in lobbying (to guests like politicians).
“UK government’s intention to ratify the UPC Agreement,” MIP wrote the other day (“Unitary Patent and UPC: A progress report” by Kingsley Egbuonu in London). But that is just meaningless if it cannot be done (it can’t). Here is how Egbuonu summarised it:
The German Federal Ministry of Justice updates Managing IP on Germany’s ratification timeline; IP Federation, BioIndustry Association, EPLAW and the UPC Preparatory Committee respond to UK government’s intention to ratify the UPC Agreement (UPCA); and some of the developments we expect in the coming months
Need we remind readers that MIP, Egbuonu’s employer, is virtually in bed with the EPO? We wrote about half a dozen articles about MIP’s UPC advocacy and relationship with the EPO. Do they really think that the public isn’t seeing this? Do they honestly believe they’re seen as objective observers?
Germany is still needed for intent to ratify the UPC. As Steve Peers put it last week: “UK & DE ratification will bring Unified Patent Court treaty into force treaty: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2013.175.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2013:175:TOC … ratification: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/agreements-conventions/agreement/?aid=2013001 … https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/803260415425843202 …”
It’s not as simple as that at all. In fact, if it ever gets this far, the population will quickly learn about what’s going on and then point out that these agreements are not constitutional and that the public is not being informed. It’s going to end up like ACTA and TPP.
Even UPC boosters like Darren Smyth wrote: “This does rather increase focus on the question of where is the German ratification? Are they ready to ratify yet?”
See this first comment on Darren Smyth’s cheerleading a week ago: “”pretty much a certainty” is a pretty bold claim in today’s world Darren!”
Here is another comment addressed at Darren, the UPC pusher (see his role in UPC propaganda events nowadays):
Sorry Darren, but “proceeding with preparations to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)” does not mean the UK will ratify the UPCA. The ratification is anything but certain.
The move is simply to gain time and to try to have a better bargaining position when the actual Brexit negotiations are starting.
The day UK will sign the protocol on immunities, I will believe that ratification is on its way. Before this, it is just gobbledygook.
In clear it means UPC is further delayed. As long as UK threatens to ratify the UPC, but actually does not do so, the UPCA will be held in limbo. It is meaningless to continue with the preparations if there is no clear will to ratify. The present statement is anything but a guarantee for ratification.
And even if UK would ratify, could any sensible representative advise his clients to go for a unitary patent when it is not clear what the future of the UPC will be once UK has left.
A proper decision on the ratification will not become before the start of negotiations under Art 50 Lisbon. It should be by March 2017, or even later when taking into account the legal battle about the involvement up front of the parliament.
The situation created by this statement is not very pleasant for the remaining contracting states, but that is not to be a surprise. It is like the participation in the EU: we want to participate, not for the sake of being a member, but simply to insure that nothing can happen which goes against our interests.
The only way for the other contracting state to get out the deadlock is to give a time limit to the UK for deciding whether they want to ratify or not.
And it goes on, without exception. Nobody in IP Kat comments has expressed any optimism about the UPC in a post-Brexit UK. The next comment says:
As some other commentators have remarked already, the government statement should not change much for the moment.
Bearing in mind the history of the UPCA and its contents, it is a rather bold claim to say that the UPC was “not an EU institution”. On the other hand, this is pretty much along the lines shown by the UPC proponents from the patent profession. Also, we have repeatedly seen such formalistic sharade being applied in the very same context, e. g. when it comes to the solution on Art. 6-8 or the position of the EPO in relation to unitary patent protection. It is rather characteristic of the project as such, that a government obviously sees itsef forced to rely on positions as weak as these.
Anyhow, the announcement should bring the German ratification procedure back to life shortly. Should it be completed smoothly (which is not certain), I would expect that at least the German ratification instrument will not be deposited until there is a binding solution of the UK ratification issue instead of cloudy declarations of intent.
“I’m forging ahead with my castle-building program for my goldfish,” one person said with the help of a parable, “even though it has been floating on its side for a week.”
“The one about building a castle for my dead goldfish is my favourite,” Tufty the Kat wrote about it in Twitter.
Many people already realise that the UPC bubble is about to burst, no matter what Lucy ("in the Sky With Diamonds") says. Just look at this tweet which seemingly agrees with the comments in IP Kat, even though it comes from Christopher Weber, a self-serving UPC proponent from Kather Augenstein. Recall Lucy with her photo op next to Battistelli -- one that she publicly bragged about. It basically sums it up, does it not? Those two were already pretty close, and one seems to have taken the role of “pawn”. Here is another visual reminder as a photo (or picture) is worth a thousand words:
Dr Luke McDonagh’s remarks in Twitter are also quite noteworthy. Here he says: “PM May: “The UPC is not an EU court. Let’s ratify.” Baldrick: “But the UPC is bound by EU law & CJEU.” PM May: “Shhh, Farage may hear us!””
We know some people who have already contacted UKIP about this and UKIP is aware of the issues. That won’t go down well, will it?
The UPC simply won’t (probably can’t) be ratified in the UK once businesses and people realise what it is and what it can do to them (not for them). McDonagh added: “But leaves UK in a position more enmeshed with EU law than before June 23rd ref; makes hard Brexit yet more awkward…”
“Postpone the difficult questions for later,” one person wrote to explain what May and Lucy do for Battistelli here.
Here is another comment about this unexpected and bizarre move:
What a pointless exercise.
Why should the UK ratify an agreement it may well be forced out of during Brexit negotiations? Is the UK really so naive as to think that the EU is not going to look after itself first?
Without a guarantee the UK should sit still and let the negotiations play out…..
Another person said: “This is beyond exciting. The wheels are still on the bus. It remains to be seen if there is sufficient fuel in the tank to reach the next service station, let us hope the journey is largely downhill and without too many red lights.”
And here comes another: “Wow! A case of the UK sacrificing its UK litigators to help smooth Brexit negotiations? Ratify so as not to block the UPC and then hope (or rather desperately wish) that some fudge deal will be found to allow the UK to participate at some point in the future when no longer an EU state.”
Another one: “Bonkers. Absolutely bonkers. How can we be signing up to the UPC whilst simultaneously leaving the EU and ending the jurisdiction of EU courts over the UK? Nothing about the way Brexit is being pursued by HMG makes sense, but then I guess we shouldn’t expect differently when HMG has been set such an impossible task.”
Like we said earlier, not a single comment is optimistic about this. “So we are going to have UE rights in force across Europe (in the UK) at the time of Brexit,” one person wrote hypothetically. “Will we also get transitional provisions to turn those into UK patents?”
The answer to this rhetorical question is “no”. It makes no sense whatsoever.
“I fear that this is the worst of both worlds for the UK profession,” wrote another person. “I had watched my Trade Mark colleagues who are today in an EU system and who are faced with the prospect of exiting it with a certain smugness until today. Now we have contrived to enter a system that we may need to leave.
“Blinding negotiation tactics too Neville-Rolf!
“Of course it is what CIPA appears to have been pushing for (although who knows what they have been doing really as they move in mysterious ways), either because they are skilled tacticians or terribly naïve. Time will tell which it is.”
Another person called it “Astonishing!”
“Perhaps the conclusion is that this improves the UK’s negotiating position,” this person added, “especially if the court gets well “embedded” in London?
“Not the best outcome for patentees, though. Even more uncertainty added to the UPC (which creates a great deal of uncertainty on its own – particularly during the transitional period). Should be fun working out all of the permutations for this one!”
Now quoting Theresa May herself to highlight the contradictions:
Theresa May. October 2016. Conservative Party Conference.
“Our laws will be made not in Brussels but in Westminster. The judges interpreting those laws will sit not in Luxembourg but in courts in this country. The authority of EU law in Britain will end.”
“We are going to be a fully independent, sovereign country – a country that is no longer part of a political union with supranational institutions that can override national parliaments and courts.”
“But let’s state one thing loud and clear: …. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.”
So again, May is contradicting herself. She’s trying too hard to appease CIPA and some law firms.
Then came the epic comment that mentioned Michel Barnier‘s role in the UPC and it is pretty great an observation:
And the roller coaster continues…wow, just wow, haven’t had this much excitement in years, please pass the paper bag, I’m feeling a bit queasy. So according to our illustrious representative for IP, the UK is continuing with its efforts to sign up to a deal that will force sovereignty of the EU court system on its national courts even if it is no longer a member of the EU – can’t imagine how that will go down with the erudite population that so loudly voted to “take back control”…and, in passing, one in the eye for the greedy Italian governement though, eh, thinking its day had come to shine and bask in European institutional glory ? I wonder what Michel Barnier thinks of all this, he was after all, the mouthpiece of the political rationale to cajole the various EU states into agreeing to the UPC in the first place – the mind boggles !
Here is another good comment:
It seems Britain really does want everything: to leave the EU but to remain part of an important new EU patent system (which most of the Europeans outside Germany, France and UK didn’t want anyway). How can it think to ratify the UPCA when is has voted not to be part of the larger EU?
Isn’t this a case of the bureaucratic machinery wanting to plough on when the field has already disappeared in the storm?
Madness indeed and probably a waste of tax payers money..
Sorry to say (as a UK ex-pat lawyer) but the UK government behaving like a big kid that wants to eat the cherries and cream on the top of the cake but has already refused to eat the sponge layers….
A good parent would say, sorry Sweetie but you can’t have it all…
“This is just a pressure release valve,” explained a person, “they had to say something so they’ve said we’re going to keep going. No timescale on actual ratification, or even a commitment actually to ratify.”
And in reply to the above:
I too spotted the absence of a firm commitment to ratify.
If this is simply playing for time, however, it would have been better if the IPO had avoided statements such as “It [the UK] will be working with the Preparatory Committee to bring the Unified Patent Court (UPC) into operation as soon as possible”. If that is not intended to mean what it so clearly implies, then the UK will end up burning a lot of bridges… which would not be the best of starts to exit negotiations with the EU Member States!
So the media, some of it funded by the EPO, missed all these comments from actual insiders who know this stuff. “These are truly astounding news,” remarked a commenter, “that deserve a much wider circulation than the cozy club of patent specialists. But will anyone care in these times that some call “post-truth”?”
Another person asked: “Which department would ratify the Agreement? Is Neville-Rolfe’s or Boris’s?”
Well, they cannot pretend it’s not an EU thing, as the following comment points out:
Perhaps she hasn’t read the opening paragraph of the brochure on the UPC web site helpfully called “An Enhanced European Patent System”
“In December 2012 the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament agreed on two regulations laying the foundation for unitary patent protection in the EU. Shortly afterwards, in February 2013, 25 EU Member States signed the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC).”
I know she has been busy lately…
Later on another person wrote: “The UPC refers questions to the EU court. So will EU decisions have two incarnations – one ignoring the EU court decisions, and one for continental Europe?”
Still, they cannot simply pretend it’s unrelated to the EU. In the words of another commenter (most are completely anonymous, so there’s no fear or retribution for being honest):
From the official news release: “The UPC itself is not an EU institution, it is an international patent court.”
Ah, sure. Except that Art. 20 of that very agreement you intend to ratify explicitly says that the UPC shall apply European Union law in its entirety and shall respect its primacy, and Art. 21 adds that decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be binding on the UPC.
I knew we had now entered the post-truth era, but we are now into post-logic territory as well…
What would be funny now would be if Germany started dragging its feet on ratification, to get some extra leverage in the Brexit negotiations…
This UPC-related “announcement was devised by little Baldricks,” said the following, “completely clueless…”
I’m with the commenter “do not pull my leg”.
The announcement was devised by little Baldricks, completely clueless how mainland European minds work, who think they know how to “game” the forthcoming BREXIT negotiations, who have their cunning little plans how to come out of it with the best “deal” for England.
To those infected by wishful thinking I would suggest that the announcement reveals no HMG commitment whatsoever, just more playing for time, by an Organisation that hasn’t a clue what to do next.
Another response to the same post called it “bullshit beside reality!”
A longer direct response said:
our comments suggest that you believe that mainland European minds and English minds work differently? At best that sounds like some mild racism, or possibly you adhere religiously to national stereotyping? Without even appreciating which nations are involved: “Brexit means UK exit”. At least for the time being, the little Baldricks are meant to be devising cunning plans for the best “deal” for the UK.
I entirely agree that the little Baldricks don’t actually have any cunning plans and that HMG hasn’t a clue what to do next. Otherwise we wouldn’t need any announcement before actual UK ratification. Perhaps some political justification was required for the continuance of the ongoing UPC project at Aldgate Tower in London?
Responding to the above, one more person wrote: “Actually, it’s much simpler. HMG needed to give a firm decision at yesterday’s Competitiveness Council, because otherwise other European countries were planning to go ahead without us.”
So the consensus seems pretty clear in IP Kat comments. It’s a shame that the media, led by EPO-bribed publications, missed the real story and instead parroted publications like the Financial Times, obviously unaware of its financial ties to the EPO.
IAM has meanwhile been trying to shame Germany into the UPC. It has done this quite blatantly for a while and Benjamin Henrion wrote that they are “working on a Constitutional appeal in Germany. CETA was in the same process.”
“To the extent that the British public cares,” noted another observer, “this is going to be tricky to explain #UPC,” later noting “I say tricky, I mean it’s going to be highly entertaining to see the intellectual contortions necessary.”
“All [?] legislation for participation in #UPC has passed,” this person said later, “so no time for awkward questions in Parl’t”
Actually, there is plenty of time. Just a statement on some Web site is hardly enough to propel the UPC into a reality.
“This is true,” wrote the mouthpieces of Team UPC (MIP), “although it’s hard to think of a lobbying group that would push the anti-UPC case in UK at this time.”
Wait and watch…
It was the same in the days of battles over software patents.
“So Brexit means Brexit,” IAM wrote, “but maybe it’s going to be a bit softer than the rhetoric suggests. UK’s UPC ratification will create much goodwill.”
For who? IAM and its readers? On a separate occasion MIP wrote “UK to ratify UPC. Huge news for Europe, for global patent litigation & maybe an indication that whatever the rhetoric Brexit will be softish” (either way, Brexit means that UPC would be tricky if not impossible to start/maintain).
There were also some responses from other countries (“#EUCouncil #Compet Good news – UK about to ratify the unitary #patent agreement”), but these fail to take into account practical limitations. Who is this good news to? Patent law firms? Patent trolls? Patent bullies? All the above? At whose expense? And are they just building false hopes?
The real casualty here is the media, which Battistelli continues to corrupt as we wrote this morning. No wonder so many people fell for the delusion seeded by the Financial Times (financial ties to the EPO). █
Send this to a friend
Confer recent paper from Professor Joshua Pearce, "A Case for Weakening Patent Rights"
A Case for Weakening Patent Rights
[PDF] (shown above are the first five pages among 70 in total)
Summary: A rebuttal to some new articles about patents, especially those that strive to increase patent-related activities (usually for personal gain)
THE scope of patents in the US has been tightened by the US Supreme Court under Obama, but there is a growing threat — and belief among patent maximalists — that things will change under Trump (perhaps premature to speculate about this). PTAB is at stake, Alice is at stake, and perhaps more aspects related to AIA and the Supreme Court (where vacancies exist for Justices, not just because of Scalia’s death).
According to this new article, the “Supreme Court Patent Cases Haven’t Hindered Diagnostics Innovation, Preliminary Data Suggest” (article behind paywall). They might be referring to cases like Mayo (Supreme Court) and they need to stop conflating patents with innovation. In some cases, not only do patents contribute nothing to innovation but they actually harm innovation.
“PTAB is at stake, Alice is at stake, and perhaps more aspects related to AIA and the Supreme Court (where vacancies exist for Justices, not just because of Scalia’s death).”Gary D. Colby, writing for the New Jersey Law Journal (behind paywall), has just published and repeatedly pushed an article titled “Software Patent Eligibility May Be Informed by Copyright Law”. The summary/outline says “Dissents in two recently decided cases suggest that patent eligibility of “intangible” inventions finds analogies in copyright eligibility.”
Well, software developers want only copyright to protect their code. Many polls/surveys keep showing this, yet the patent microcosm ignores the findings and pretends that software patents are desirable (to the litigation industry they are definitely desirable, but at whose expense?).
As soon as the week started the patent microcosm started commenting on PTAB and “inventorship” (something the lawyers never did, they only speak about it). To quote the concluding part, “until the PTAB rules definitively that inventorship error is not a ground on which PGR may be based, it is our view that failure to raise that ground in a petition will most likely lead to an estoppel on the issue. See 35 U.S.C. § 325 (e). Thus, for now, any PGR petitioner that thinks it might have a possible basis for challenging inventorship better raise that ground in its PGR petition or risk being estopped from later challenging the patent on that basis.”
“Well, software developers want only copyright to protect their code.”The term “inventorship” totally misses the point that patents are granted not necessarily for inventorship. These sorts of fairy tales that are perpetuated ad infinitum in legal blogs do a lot of harm and software patents propagandists (who do not even know how software works!) call reformists the “patent infringer lobby” because they are trying to undermine Alice and the likes of it. See this disgusting latest article from Watchtroll for example. What is this? Is Watchtroll some kind of a troll? A spokesperson for patent trolls?
One last article worth noting was published by Jason Rantanen about the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and it said this:
As expected, for the fiscal year ending on October 31, 2016, the Federal Circuit docketed more appeals arising from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office than from the district courts. This result will almost certainly hold true for the calendar year as well: from January through October of this year, the Federal Circuit received 471 appeals arising from the district courts and 560 appeals arising from the PTO.
That’s because of PTAB, which is a growing force after AIA (the catalyst that introduced it). Some patent maximalists now use this as an excuse to weaken or lobby to altogether eliminate PTAB, bemoaning the ‘flood’ of appealed PTAB cases (examinations/IPRs) as though it justifies anything but more (new) hirings at CAFC. As is the case with programming (code), sometimes it requires more work to actually remove code than to add/write new code. In this case, what the USPTO needs is less patents, not more patents. It’s worth investing money in invalidation of bad patents. Sometimes less is more (or better quality of patents, higher certainty and so on).
“The term “inventorship” totally misses the point that patents are granted not necessarily for inventorship.”The US is currently in the process of cleaning up a mess created (or culminating) in the David Kappos era and thankfully we now see software patents being invalided by the thousands and patent lawsuits (including the majority of which that are filed by patent trolls) in a freefall.
It’s good for everybody. Except the patent microcosm… █
Send this to a friend