●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Monday, June 27, 2022 ●●
● Jun 27
[00:40]		*SaphirJD has quit (Quit: Leaving)
● Jun 27
[01:42]		*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes
[01:42]		*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes
● Jun 27
[02:16]		*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes
[02:17]		*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes
[02:18]		*rsheftel1435 (~rsheftel@freenode-4nq.hn3.1cipql.IP) has joined #techbytes
● Jun 27
[03:15]		*techrights_guest|47 (~490b85f4@54n9xgft8g6u2.irc) has joined #techbytes
● Jun 27
[05:07]		*Guest166 (~d8a05725@54n9xgft8g6u2.irc) has joined #techbytes
[05:59]		*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes
● Jun 27
[06:00]		*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes
[06:03]		*techrights_guest|47 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
● Jun 27
[07:02]	schestowitz	http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/06/20/upc-the-great-paradox-why-the-cjeu-could-bring-in-uniform-protection-and-equal-effect-when-interpreting-the-eus-external-patent-law-e-g-trips-notwithstanding-the-futile-ef/
[07:02]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | UPC the great paradox: why the CJEU could bring in "uniform protection" and "equal effect" when interpreting the EU's "external" patent law (e.g. TRIPS), notwithstanding the futile efforts at keeping its grubby little hands off "internal" patent law - Kluwer Patent Blog
[07:02]	schestowitz	14 comments
[07:02]	schestowitz	Martin
[07:02]	schestowitz	JUNE 20, 2022 AT 8:26 PM
[07:02]	schestowitz	Dear Mr Monta,
[07:02]	schestowitz	thank you for this analysis.
[07:02]	schestowitz	I did not follow the TRIPS discussion at the ECHR, and now have some catching up to do.
[07:03]	schestowitz	Adam Brown
[07:03]	schestowitz	JUNE 20, 2022 AT 8:26 PM
[07:03]	schestowitz	Someone could suspect the EPO to have influenced the decision of the European Commission in 2011 to NOT join the EPC, in order to avoid intervention of the CJEU in substantive patent law issues.
[07:03]	schestowitz	The fact that the EPO has recruited Mdme Frohlinger in April 2012 might be interpreted by some as pantouflage, she was offered to finish her carreer at the EPO after the Commission bowed to the demand NOT to join the EPC.
[07:03]	schestowitz	The EPO does not want the CJEU to intervene in its dirty independent kingdom, Aka Eponia.
[07:03]	schestowitz	Mike Snodin
[07:03]	schestowitz	JUNE 21, 2022 AT 12:28 PM
[07:03]	schestowitz	Miquel, I quite agree that the CJEU will likely have a significant influence on the development of UPC case law.
[07:03]	schestowitz	However, before considering how the CJEU might rule on matters concerning uniform protection and equal effect, is there not a more fundamental question to answer? That is, because established CJEUs case law could be seen to cast doubt upon pronouncements in the UPCA (and Regulation 524/14) that the UPC is a court common to the Member States, do we not first need to establish whether the UPC is indeed capable of making 
[07:03]	schestowitz	preliminary references to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU?
[07:03]	schestowitz	I am losing count of the number of questions relating to the UPC that are highly significant to how (or even whether) the UPC will operate, but where there is huge uncertainty regarding how those questions might be answered. Indeed, in view of AOs comments on the previous thread, it seems to me that the list now includes questions regarding the constitutionality of forced intervention under Rule 316A UPCA.
[07:03]	schestowitz	Being dragged into proceedings at the UPC against ones will reminds me of another question that has been bothering me. The question is: how might challenges to the validity of opt-outs (under Article 83(3) UPCA) be resolved? The reason that this bothers me is that:
[07:03]	schestowitz	 my understanding is that the whole point of filing an opt-out is to escape the jurisdiction of the UPC; but
[07:03]	schestowitz	 if, as I understand will be the case, the validity of an opt-out can be challenged, even the proprietor of a patent for which a valid opt-out has been filed could be drawn into an action (however short) before the UPC.
[07:03]	schestowitz	This makes me question whether it can possibly be right for challenges to the validity of opt-outs to be determined by the UPC. Indeed, it seems to me that:
[07:03]	schestowitz	 challenges to the validity of opt-outs are NOT included in the list of actions in Article 32(1) UPCA as falling within the exclusive competence of the UPCA; and
[07:03]	schestowitz	 according to Article 32(2) UPCA, the national courts of the Contracting Member States must therefore remain competent for such actions.
[07:03]	schestowitz	I would have thought that, in principle, a court established by an international treaty cannot expand its jurisdiction / competence beyond that afforded to it by the treaty. If this is correct, then even if it was an inadvertent oversight to omit actions regarding opt-outs from Article 32 UPCA, this lack of competence can only be resolved by amendment of the UPCA (and NOT by amendment of the Rules of Procedure).
[07:03]	schestowitz	In any event, it seems to me that the national courts of the Member States ought to be perfectly capable of determining the validity of opt-outs much as they are perfectly capable of interpreting and applying other international treaties relating to patents (such as TRIPS and the EPC) that their governments have signed and ratified.
[07:03]	schestowitz	Implicitly but necessarily and specifically
[07:03]	schestowitz	JUNE 21, 2022 AT 1:21 PM
[07:03]	schestowitz	Having seen the complete mess that the CJEU has made of the law on SPCs, I shudder to think what might happen if it were to get its hands on substantive patent law.
[07:03]	schestowitz	Under the EPC and the established case law of the Boards of Appeal, we have a (mostly) settled, (mostly) consistent and (mostly) sensible approach to the most common substantive issues. Unless the CJEU undergoes wholesale reform to introduce a specialist IP chamber with appropriate legal and technical expertise, it should be kept well away from such matters.
[07:03]	schestowitz	Simona Fonzi
[07:03]	schestowitz	JUNE 22, 2022 AT 11:17 AM
[07:03]	schestowitz	Unless the CJEU undergoes wholesale reform to introduce a specialist IP chamber with appropriate legal and technical expertise, it should be kept well away from such matters.
[07:03]	schestowitz	That might be an option once the UPC has been recognized a fake common court by the CJEU.
[07:03]	schestowitz	Everybody understands that the Benelux Court of Justice is a common court because national courts (which are the guardians of EU law together with the CJEU, dixit opinion 1/09) are in charge, while with the UPC those national courts are removed.
[07:03]	schestowitz	Politicians had a different reading of art 19 TEU, considering that compliance with this article could be satisfied by drawing a link between the UPC and the CJEU for compliance with EU law issues.
[07:03]	schestowitz	Patent robot
[07:03]	schestowitz	JUNE 21, 2022 AT 1:23 PM
[07:03]	schestowitz	Lets not forget that the EU Regulation on the unitary patent violates Art. 142 EPC.
[07:03]	schestowitz	Article 142 Unitary patents
[07:03]	schestowitz	(1) Any group of Contracting States, which has provided by a special agreement that a European patent granted for those States has a unitary character throughout their territories, may provide that a European patent may * ONLY * be granted jointly in respect of all those States.
[07:03]	schestowitz	Thus, under Art. 142 EPC (as e.g. in CH/LI), proprietors cannot choose between the unitary patent and national validations in the UP states.
[07:03]	schestowitz	Concerned observer
[07:03]	schestowitz	JUNE 22, 2022 AT 2:01 PM
[07:03]	schestowitz	Robot: the manner in which the Participating Member States have failed to harmonise their laws will also lead to gross violations of Article 64(1) EPC.
[07:03]	schestowitz	The EPC demands that, in any given country in respect of which a European patent is granted, that patent SHALL, with the possible exception of protection for the direct product of a process, confer on its proprietor THE SAME RIGHTS AS would be conferred by A NATIONAL PATENT.
[07:03]	schestowitz	However, as and when the UPCA comes into force, there could be up to five types of patent in any given Participating Member State that, due to differences regarding the applicable law of infringement, might fall into three different categories that confer (subtly) different rights:
[07:04]	schestowitz	(1) National patent, European patent (opted out) and European patent (not opted out; litigated at a national court): Law of infringement: national patent law.
[07:04]	schestowitz	(2) European patent (not opted out; litigated at the UPC): Law of infringement: the UPC Agreement.
[07:04]	schestowitz	(3) European patent having unitary effect: Law of infringement: patent law applying to unitary patents in the Participating Member State determined according to the UP Regulation.
[07:04]	schestowitz	Whilst some might argue that the same law applies to categories (2) and (3), my view is that this is far from certain. This is not least because different constitutional arrangements in different Participating Member States will lead to the provisions of the UPC having different significance / effect under different national laws.
[07:04]	schestowitz	Especially when it comes to issues such as exemptions from infringement (such as the Bolar and research exemptions), the difference between patents in category (1) and those in category (2) could be very significant indeed. For example, a clinical trial based upon a head-to-head comparison with a drug patented by a third party might infringe a category (2) patent but NOT a category (1) patent.
[07:04]	schestowitz	And remember that (1) and (2) might both be European patents. Moreover, the patent in question might, at any time after grant, move from category (1) to category (2) (e.g. by withdrawal of an opt-out).
[07:04]	schestowitz	How any of this can possibly be lawful (with regard to providing third parties with a reasonable degree of legal certainty) is anyones guess.
[07:04]	schestowitz	Patent robot
[07:04]	schestowitz	JUNE 22, 2022 AT 6:05 PM
[07:04]	schestowitz	Concerning observations, indeed.
[07:04]	schestowitz	Categories (2) and (3) are certainly different e.g. due to Art. 4.4 EU Regulation 1260/2012 (translation arrangements for the unitary patent)
[07:04]	schestowitz	Simona Fonzi
[07:04]	schestowitz	JUNE 23, 2022 AT 10:10 AM
[07:04]	schestowitz	may provide is not must provide, the same for may only is not must only, so it might be that it is a possibility, not an obligation.
[07:04]	schestowitz	https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-may-and-vs-must/
[07:04]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.differencebetween.com | Difference Between May and Must | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms
[07:04]	schestowitz	BusinessEurope and other large patent applications wanted to keep all options opened (National + European + Unitary), si I guess the parallel with the Swiss/Lichtenstein agreement was seen as an option.
[07:04]	schestowitz	Concerned observer
[07:04]	schestowitz	JUNE 23, 2022 AT 4:28 PM
[07:04]	schestowitz	Simona, based upon your interpretation of the word may, are there any legal arrangements for unitary patents that are forbidden by Art. 142 EPC? If not, it seems to me that your interpretation may be questionable on the grounds that it would effectively render Art. 142 EPC otiose.
[07:04]	schestowitz	You may also want to discuss this point with the EPO. Based upon the footnote added to Article 142 EPC, it seems that the EPO is convinced that the group of Participating Member States has availed itself of the authorisation given in Article 142(1). According to your interpretation, however, Article 142(1) EPC does not (explicitly) provide any such authorisation.
[07:04]	schestowitz	Attentive Observer
[07:04]	schestowitz	JUNE 22, 2022 AT 9:35 AM
[07:04]	schestowitz	It is clear that the tenants of the UPC wanted to make everything possible in order avoid the CJEU to put an eye on patent law. I am not sure that the CJEU will accept the fact to have been excluded from this domain.
[07:04]	schestowitz	As far as SPC are concerned, it is clear that the CJEU has brought some case law which is linked in broad terms to patents. Do you honestly think it will refrain to go into the patent domain? I doubt it.
[07:04]	schestowitz	The day the UPC will have a prejudicial question about SPC to the CJEU, we will know what the CJEU holds from the UPC.
[07:04]	schestowitz	I am also wondering why the UPC can, in the absence of a EU wide SPC, have jurisdiction over SPCs which are granted by national authorities. Even in case of a UP, it still a national authority which will grant a SPC with limited territoriality. I never got a convincing explanation as to why this is possible. Conflicts of competence are preprogramed.
[07:04]	schestowitz	Under the EPC and the established case law of the Boards of Appeal we might have a (mostly) settled, (mostly) consistent and (mostly) sensible approach to the most common substantive issues.
[07:04]	schestowitz	Before thinking of the CJEU, we have to see what the UPC might do of all this.
[07:04]	schestowitz	As far as infringement is concerned, the UPC might become the leading court in Europe when all patents will become under the competence of the UPC when the transitional period is over.
[07:04]	schestowitz	As far as validity is concerned it is not sure at all that the UPC will become the leading court in Europe.
[07:04]	schestowitz	The case law of the UPC might even collide with that of the BA of the EPO.
[07:04]	schestowitz	Just think for instance of the way added subject-matter is dealt with at the EPO and by national courts.
[07:04]	schestowitz	What then? As a UP will be a patent granted by the EPO, first instance divisions are only bound by case law of the BA/EBA. The BA are only bound by the case law of the EBA.
[07:04]	schestowitz	Contrary to what Sir Robin Jacob has said at a conference on the UPC in Munich, I am not sure at all that the UPC will become the leading court in matters of validity in Europe.
[07:04]	schestowitz	In view of the difference in basic fee between opposition (815) compared to that for a revocation action before the UPC (20 000), one could even expect that the number of oppositions against granted patents might increase.
[07:04]	schestowitz	In any case before the EPO, each party bears its own costs and simultaneous interpretation is borne by the EPO. This is by no means the case at the UPC where the losing party will have to take over the costs of the winning party, comprising as well simultaneous interpretation costs.
[07:04]	schestowitz	In matters of validity, the UPC might simply add a further layer of case law to the existing national case law or that of the BA/EBA. Where is the gain? It will rather be unsettling to have diverging case law.
[07:04]	schestowitz	But compared to the huge profits the supporters of the UPC hope to cash in, especially internationally active lawyer firms specialised in litigation, what does it matters if case law is diverging. It might even be better for the business.
[07:04]	schestowitz	zoobab
[07:04]	schestowitz	JUNE 22, 2022 AT 5:08 PM
[07:05]	schestowitz	In any case before the EPO, each party bears its own costs and simultaneous interpretation is borne by the EPO.
[07:05]	schestowitz	Not really, the costs of interpretation other than EN/DE/FR are sent to the parties:
[07:05]	schestowitz	https://techrights.org/2016/01/08/epo-vesus-spanish-speakers/
[07:05]	schestowitz	Attentive Observer
[07:05]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | The European Patent Office (EPO) Doesnt Like Spanish, So Why Should the Spanish Tolerate the EPO? | Techrights
[07:05]	schestowitz	JUNE 23, 2022 AT 1:06 AM
[07:05]	schestowitz	@ Zoobab,
[07:05]	schestowitz	The information you got from Techrights is manifestly wrong.
[07:05]	schestowitz	The costs of interpretation other than EN/DE/FR are NOT sent to the parties, as it is for the party wanting to use the official language of a contracting state to provide the interpretation!
[07:05]	schestowitz	See R 4(1 and 3)
[07:05]	schestowitz	It is extremely rare that such an interpretation to and from an official language of a contracting state to the language of the proceedings is needed. Not even once in a blue moon.
[07:05]	schestowitz	Martin
[07:05]	schestowitz	JUNE 24, 2022 AT 10:13 AM
[07:05]	schestowitz	ive seen two such cases in three years. (once Spanish, once Italian)
[07:05]	schestowitz	But the parties do know that they have to provide translations themselves, and pay themselves, procedural language was English in both cases, and ultimately, the translation provided by the party was not to the benefit of the representative, but to the applicant/opponent who appeared beside their representative (company owner/leading tech department/)
[07:29]		*Guest166 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[07:30]		*GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed)
[07:30]		*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@zisyvswuxwtzs.irc) has joined #techbytes
[07:30]		*Guest166 (~d8a05725@54n9xgft8g6u2.irc) has joined #techbytes
[07:34]		*Guest166 has quit (Quit: Connection closed)
● Jun 27
[08:45]		*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes
[08:45]		*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes
[08:50]	schestowitz	x https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=22/06/26/0032216
[08:50]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-soylentnews.org | Microsoft's Complicated Dance With Open Source - SoylentNews
[08:52]	schestowitz-TR	re SN:
[08:52]	schestowitz-TR	"Microsoft's complicated dance with..."
[08:52]	schestowitz-TR	"Hitler's complicated dance with Jews"
[08:52]	schestowitz-TR	"Putin's complicated dance with Kiev"
[08:52]	schestowitz-TR	"China's complicated dance with Tibet..."
[08:52]	schestowitz-TR	and the list goes on
[08:52]	schestowitz-TR	for this one entry, F* SN
[08:52]	schestowitz-TR	hopefully those are rare
● Jun 27
[09:28]		*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes
[09:28]		*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes
● Jun 27
[10:18]		*psydroid2 (~psydroid@memzbmehf99re.irc) has joined #techbytes
[10:41]		*psydroid3 (~psydroid@memzbmehf99re.irc) has joined #techbytes
[10:42]		*psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
● Jun 27
[13:19]		*psydroid3 has quit (connection closed)
[13:21]		*psydroid2 (~psydroid@memzbmehf99re.irc) has joined #techbytes
● Jun 27
[16:54]	schestowitz	"
[16:54]	schestowitz	SUEPO Munich invites all staff to demonstrate on Wednesday 29 June 2022 (the first day of the 171th session of the Administrative Council) at 12.30h in front of the Isar building.
[16:54]	schestowitz	Mr Campinos hopes that his Mobility Package (CA/32/22 Rev. 1) introducing seconded national experts posts for the delegations will guarantee him a re-election for a second mandate. In a letter sent on 10 June, SUEPO warned the delegations of the decentralisation risks and the requirement of a Conference of Ministers under Article 4a EPC.
[16:54]	schestowitz	The Technologia survey 2022 results are now available and disastrous for Mr Campinos. In this letter sent on 23 June to the Heads of Delegations, SUEPO urges the Council to take due account of the results and to give the proper mandate to EPO management to repair the situation.
[16:54]	schestowitz	Come to the demonstration to show the Administrative Council and the rest of the world that there can be no peace at the Office with a President who protects and pursues the Battistelli attacks on staff rights, who orchestrates a flawed Financial Study, who refuses to invest in younger employees who are the future of the EPO, who pushes for a decentralisation of the EPO to serve his re-election and who is unable to conduct social dialogue.
[16:54]	schestowitz	This paper gives further contextualized information about the current situation.
[16:54]	schestowitz	"
● Jun 27
[18:42]		*schestowitz_TR is now known as Schestowitz-3
[18:47]		*refill has quit (Z-lined)
● Jun 27
[22:23]		*psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)