IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Friday, August 27, 2021

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.theverge.com | Microsoft’s Panos Panay now directly advises CEO Satya Nadella - The Verge

x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575251/

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | How organisations can ethically negotiate ransomware payments

https://twitter.com/at2rty/status/1431191113201750020

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@at2rty: @schestowitz anonymous & BIDEN same team same war 🙄morts dont 13 soldats américains 😥 Des dizaines de morts dont 13… https://t.co/XHgt4U5mrU

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@at2rty: @schestowitz anonymous & BIDEN same team same war 🙄morts dont 13 soldats américains 😥 Des dizaines de morts dont 13… https://t.co/XHgt4U5mrU

schestowitz

schestowitz

anonymous & BIDEN same team same war Face with rolling eyesmorts dont 13 soldats américains Disappointed but relieved face

schestowitz

Des dizaines de morts dont 13 soldats américains : ce que l’on sait de l’attentat revendiqué par l’EI à Kaboul

schestowitz

schestowitz

PASTED 20 COMMENTS in case they delete them later (as happened before): http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/08/18/unified-patent-court-will-start-operating-within-a-year/

Aug 27 11:09

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Unified Patent Court will start operating within a year - Kluwer Patent Blog

Aug 27 11:09

schestowitz

schestowitz

DXThomas

schestowitz

AUGUST 18, 2021 AT 4:08 PM

schestowitz

I do not want to repeat what I have said in a parallel thread, but it is not by dodging the problem created by the mention of London in Art 7(2) UPCA that the UPC will be working on solid legal foundations.

schestowitz

The problem is serious and cannot be ignored!

schestowitz

I have not yet seen a convincing and compelling argument allowing to ignore London in Art 7(2) UPCA.

schestowitz

I am even surprised that lawyers can seriously envisage the “provisional” transfer of the duties allotted to London to Paris and/or Munich.

schestowitz

The whole communique of the UPC Preparatory Committee looks more like wishful thinking than looking at the reality created by the Brexit. As long as this reality has not been duly and correctly faced and the necessary legal steps not taken, it does not appear reasonable to decide anything for the owner of a European patent than a systematic op-out.

schestowitz

If the UPC goes nevertheless on the road with all this problems, I fear that other complaints will be formulated, either before the CJEU or before national constitutional courts.

schestowitz

It would have been much better to ask the CJEU to give its opinion on the UPCA as it had been requested for EPLA.

schestowitz

Even if the proponents of the UPCA were reluctant before Brexit, the new situation created by Brexit should have led to a request for opinion by the CJEU on the UPCA as it stands. It is difficult to understand why this has not been done.

schestowitz

Trying to go through a brick wall, can hurt very badly.

schestowitz

LightBlue

schestowitz

AUGUST 18, 2021 AT 5:18 PM

schestowitz

If the intention was not to repeat earlier comments in a parallel thread, it seems to have missed its mark.

schestowitz

DXThomas

schestowitz

AUGUST 18, 2021 AT 7:41 PM

schestowitz

@ LightBlue

schestowitz

Thanks for your comment.

schestowitz

If you would have taken the bother to correctly compare the threads you would have realised that you could have kept quite.

schestowitz

Concerned observer

schestowitz

AUGUST 18, 2021 AT 7:03 PM

schestowitz

It will only hurt if there is a sufficiently independent judiciary that is willing and able to inflict pain.

schestowitz

It is perhaps possible that some national courts might object to the fact that the UPC lacks a proper legal basis … for example on the grounds that, under the Vienna Convention, there is no way to interpret either the UPC Agreement or its Protocols in a manner that glosses over the fact that the UK’s participation is mandatory.

schestowitz

On the other hand, which national court would have jurisdiction to rule on this point, let alone have the gumption to reach the only logical conclusion?

schestowitz

The main problem here is that the key pieces of legislation are international treaties. As we have seen with the EPC, no ruling of a national court will ever be viewed as providing a definitive (and hence binding) interpretation of an international treaty. Further, I have no doubt that the CJEU will dodge any difficult questions by claiming that it has no jurisdiction to rule upon the validity of the UPC Agreement.

schestowitz

One might hope that the ECtHR would object to the UPC on the grounds that it lacks lawful judges (as there can be no lawful judge if the treaties underpinning the UPC lack a proper legal basis). However, when it comes to dealing with (other) international bodies, it seems that the ECtHR is always inclined to overlook even the most obvious of problems … for example as illustrated by the failure of the case filed by SUEPO (subsequent to the

schestowitz

appalling decision of the Dutch Supreme Court) alleging breaches of fundamental rights by EPO management.

schestowitz

In essence, when it comes to international treaties, it seems to me that there is only ever as much adherence to the rule of law as the participating states can be bothered to enforce. If the UPC’s supporters get their way, the judges of the UPC will be starting off from the terrible position of being forced to overlook the lack of proper legal basis for the legislation upon which the UPC is based. Given such a start, as well as other obvious (

schestowitz

governance) flaws in that legislation, it seems somewhat unlikely that the various divisions of the UPC will end up operating in a manner that companies (and the general public) in Europe find to be entirely unproblematic.

schestowitz

For a sense of perspective, the governance flaws in EPC1973 and EPC2000 were much less obvious … and yet we are now in a situation where there is clear evidence of problems (to say the least!) with the management of the EPO, as well as of a lack of independence of the Boards of Appeal.

schestowitz

This is not to say that the situation is hopeless, it is just that knowing the correct interpretation of an international treaty is of no use when one is faced with a political will to proceed based upon an incorrect interpretation. The challenge in such a situation is to find an effective way to restore sanity. And if you find such a way, please do let me know!

schestowitz

Fragender

schestowitz

AUGUST 18, 2021 AT 7:15 PM

schestowitz

The BVerfG in its latest decision stated, that the question of UK-participiation can not be constitutionally reviewed. Instead they said it is subject to “normal” interpretation of the treaty.

schestowitz

To me this sounded like a pointer to the EuCJ, doesn’t it?

schestowitz

DXThomas

schestowitz

AUGUST 18, 2021 AT 8:06 PM

schestowitz

@Concerned observer

schestowitz

I can only but agree with you.

schestowitz

I would not be as pessimistic as you are when it comes to the CJEU. I have not yet given up every hope.

schestowitz

If the notion of rightful judge should keep any meaning, the CJEU should act.

schestowitz

A possible way to force a proper amendment of the UPCA would be to systematically op-out upon grant of an EP. With only a few cases to deal with, the whole UPC might then become a financial disaster.

schestowitz

It is clear that at the beginning the number of opt outs will be relatively high as only some test cases will be converted in UP. It is only if the case law develops in a favourable direction, whatever one wants to understand under this topic, that the UP system will be used.

schestowitz

Depending on the technical area it will in any case not be interesting to pay renewal fees for a UP. This could also become a problem for the UP/UPC.

schestowitz

Should it come to a clash of case law between the case law of the BA and that of the UPC, what is foreseeable, users of the system will become much more cautious.

schestowitz

Concerned observer

schestowitz

AUGUST 19, 2021 AT 1:39 PM

schestowitz

I am not quite sure why you would be optimistic about the CJEU. See, for example, paragraph (b) of Art. 267 TFEU, as well as the ruling in C 572/15:

schestowitz

“the Court has already held that adjustments set out in an annex to an Act of Accession are to be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State and that they do not constitute an act of an institution, but are provisions of primary law which may not be suspended, amended or repealed otherwise than by means of the procedures laid down for the revision of the original Treaties (see, to that effect, judgment of 28

schestowitz

April 1988, LAISA and CPC España v Council, 31/86 and 35/86, EU:C:1988:211, paragraph 12)”.

schestowitz

I can think of many reasons why the CJEU would be inclined to use similar logic as an excuse for declining to rule upon the (in)validity of the UPC Agreement.

schestowitz

Frankly, it is more than a little bizarre that the EU would agree to legislation that creates a unitary title under EU law but then entrusts the granting and enforcement of that title to institutions that are established under international law, and hence outside of the reach of all EU legal norms. To me, this suggests that there is a fundamental problem with the UP Regulation … though, in relation to the complaints filed by Spain, the CJEU has

schestowitz

already found a way of ducking that issue.

schestowitz

Max Drei

schestowitz

AUGUST 18, 2021 AT 10:49 PM

schestowitz

On the issue of opting out, I’m old enough to remember the genesis of the PCT and the EPO and all the talk back then about the risk of putting all your eggs in one basket. The PCT was very slow to take off.

schestowitz

DXThomas envisages that only a few test cases will take the UP route. I wonder though.

schestowitz

I can imagine the bulk pharma filers investing in a spread of cases, distributed between opt-outs and UP route patents, aiming for a sweet spot in the distribution which combines reduced annuity fee budgets with full power of enforcement through infringement litigation.

schestowitz

What do others think?

schestowitz

DXThomas

schestowitz

AUGUST 19, 2021 AT 9:57 AM

schestowitz

Dear Max Drei,

schestowitz

You are right when you remind us of the reservations expressed by potential applicants towards the PCT and the EPO in the seventies. The fear of putting all the eggs in the same basket was real.

schestowitz

It however turned out that those treaties had a strong legal basis and the way the PCT and the EPC were handled by the responsible authorities showed that the fears were unjustified and the two systems proved to be a success story.

schestowitz

I see this quite differently as far as the UPC is concerned. For a start, by dodging the problem of Art 7(2) UPCA it will start on a wrong legal footing. The first party loosing before the UPC will make everything possible to fight this decision, and the question of the actual conformity with Union law will be at the centre of the discussions. Why on Earth the UPCA has never been submitted to the CJEU for opinion as it was the case for EPLA.

schestowitz

There also many other problems which I have mentioned and I will not dwell on them.

schestowitz

That there will be a mix of UP and a mix of opt-outs, it might take quite a while for cases coming before the UPC. In general it is cheaper to come to an extra judicial settlement rather than to fight before court. The IP budgets are not extensible at will or for the benefits of litigating lawyers. It is only if it will be clear that the UPC comes up with reasonable decisions that we will see if the whole UP/UPC system is worth it.

schestowitz

Max Drei

schestowitz

AUGUST 19, 2021 AT 12:49 PM

schestowitz

Just a small caveat, on budgets. The way I understand it, the corporation has one for drafting, filing, prosecution and maintenance of its patent portfolio, and quite another one, entirely separate, for fighting patent disputes. The former is tightly constrained and expected not to change much, year by year. Those setting it for an employer that is a global pharma corp, and those implementing it, will find the cost saving offered by the UP to be

schestowitz

seductive.

schestowitz

As to the latter, what budget to allocate to winning a patent dispute is subject to different pressures and constraints. When giant ego’s are involved, there is always the possibility of an unconstrained budget for doing “whatever it takes” to see off the competitor.

schestowitz

So, I suspect the UP will be relied upon heavily, despite the legal uncertainties. I also suspect that in the very first UP dispute, the loser will not back down until after the case has been taken all the way to the CJEU. Great news for the “leading” patent litigation firms, eh?

schestowitz

LightBlue

schestowitz

AUGUST 19, 2021 AT 1:40 PM

schestowitz

The use of the PCT and or the EPO route for patentees has never been driven by considerations of a “strong legal basis”. What matters to the patentee is the resulting product, a granted patent. If the systems are user friendly and do not catch applicants out unawares, they will use the system, particularly if it has cost/cash flow benefits.

schestowitz

Once a system starts to show potentially dangerous failings, the applicant will consider alternatives. With the EPO, the developing A123(2) situation, with the so-called ‘gold standard’ effectively requiring literal disclosure, is one such failing.

schestowitz

DXThomas

schestowitz

AUGUST 19, 2021 AT 3:41 PM

schestowitz

@ LightBlue,

schestowitz

If I follow your logic, then due to the developing A123(2) situation, which you consider a failure, your advice is thus to drop the route via the EPO, then the UP/UPCA will never exist for lack of patents granted by the EPO.

schestowitz

It remains that in spite of some problems, the PCT and the EPC have never started with a problematic legal situation. And this is a great difference with the UPCA.

schestowitz

André Frans

schestowitz

AUGUST 18, 2021 AT 10:56 PM

schestowitz

What is the agenda to remove the UK from the PPA? Get 2 more countries to sign it, even though the UK is still mentioned in there?

schestowitz

DXThomas

schestowitz

AUGUST 19, 2021 AT 9:21 AM

schestowitz

It would be a very pragmatic solution to ignore UK in the the PPA or London in Art 7(2) UPCA.

schestowitz

But then we end up in a legal jungle as treaties and agreements would not be worth the paper they are written on.

schestowitz

I might be called naive or optimistic, but then we would end up in a society in which the right of the strongest prevails. This is not what I want for my children or grandchildren.

schestowitz

five cents

schestowitz

AUGUST 19, 2021 AT 10:02 AM

schestowitz

I’ll continue the discussion about Art.87(2) here, before the comments in the other thread close.

schestowitz

Brexit is not a patent treaty or Union law. Brexit is an event. It changed the players, not the rules. We’re still members to the same patent treaties and EU member states still have to comply with the same Union law. The same people who earlier argued that post-Brexit UK could remain a party to the UPCA now seem to argue that the UPCA is somehow incompatible with Union law and should therefore be amended. But if the UPCA is not compatible with

schestowitz

Union law, someone should be able to point to some EU law and article that makes it incompatible.

schestowitz

Arguably, it’s not Brexit but the UK’s withdrawal from the UPCA that causes the current problems with Art 7(2) and the PPA.

schestowitz

For Art 7(2): The London seat of the Central Division is not linked to the participation of the UK in the EU or the UPCA. Is there actually a legal problem here? Or is it just a matter of political and practical undesirability to have a UPC court in London. Art 87(2) is clearly not intended to change the UPCA when one or more member states are not happy with the content anymore.

schestowitz

For the PPA: Countries decided that they wanted a new patent system, but only wanted it to start if DE, FR and UK were to take part. The UK later decided to withdraw. The only logical conclusion then is that you can’t start the system without ratifying an amended version of the system.

schestowitz

DXThomas

schestowitz

AUGUST 19, 2021 AT 10:18 PM

schestowitz

@ five cents,

schestowitz

Your comment is interesting and at the same time puzzling.

schestowitz

Do you mean that the London section could be left in London and just be staffed with citizens of UPCA member states?

schestowitz

I do follow you when you consider that the system cannot be started without ratifying an amended version of it.

schestowitz

In the parallel thread I have explained why the UP/UPC system is not the system with which the European harmonisation is the best!

schestowitz

The Convention Watchdog

schestowitz

AUGUST 20, 2021 AT 9:39 AM

schestowitz

The UK does no longer wish to have the London Section and to continue the preparations for starting its operation. This ie evident from the fact that the UK has withdrawn on July 20, 2020 its ratification of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the UPC. Without such a Protocol an international authority has no legal basis for acting on the territiry of a State.

schestowitz

Russell Barton

schestowitz

AUGUST 20, 2021 AT 11:24 AM

schestowitz

The Gordon & Pascoe opinion in item 89 considered that the a court in London could not make preliminary references to the CJEU without further measures in place and in addition (not considered by Gordon & Pascoe) the UK territory is now not subject to Art 21 of the UPCA.

https://www.bristowsupc.com/assets/files/counsel_s%20opinion%20on%20effect%20of%20brexit%20on%20upc,%2012%20sept%202016.pdf

schestowitz

schestowitz

If that’s correct then in accordance with 1/09 presumably Art 87(2) does kick in and problem can be quickly solved (provided member states agree on the solution).

schestowitz

If it’s not correct and i/ being a court common to EU member states is sufficient and ii/ somehow a court can legally exist in the UK as a national court common to the EU members without any legal agreement with the UK, then as you suggest a diplomatic/financial settlement with the UK might work to hire space in London.

schestowitz

DXThomas

schestowitz

AUGUST 23, 2021 AT 7:56 AM

schestowitz

If I understand well your argumentation, you consider that Art 87(2) UPCA could be used to transfer the duties allotted to London to another location, and hence the problem of Art 7(2) UPCA be resolved.

schestowitz

A contrario would it mean that a “provisional” transfer to Munich and/or Paris and a “final” transfer later to another location is not supported by Art 87(2)?

schestowitz

Camparinos

schestowitz

AUGUST 19, 2021 AT 2:07 PM

schestowitz

Technically, there is still till the end of the year to file further constitutional complaints in Germany.

schestowitz

Stjerna unveiled further problems in the 2012 emails written by the Ministry of Interior, where they mention that the Statutes of the Court can be adopted at a 3/4 majority, while for example, the Statutes of the CJEU are adopted at unanimity. National parliaments can be sidelined if they don’t agree with the way the Court is designed.

schestowitz

<https://twitter.com/at2rty/status/1431278910981935115

*psydroid_ (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 27 11:14

*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@5ek4rkvgqqvr4.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 27 13:29

*blitzed has quit (Quit: +++ATH0&D2 NO CARRIER NO CAREER)

Aug 27 15:52

*blitzed (~blitzed@ar26wv7j5hvfq.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 27 15:52

*psydroid2 has quit (connection closed)

Aug 27 16:01

*psydroid2 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 27 16:19

*psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Aug 27 16:35

*psydroid2 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 27 16:48

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@at2rty: @schestowitz BIDEN J 🕎✡ NOT HAPPY Americans are not suffering he brings BUSH BACK Americans need to suffer say the… https://t.co/oRytT4deNv

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@at2rty: @schestowitz BIDEN J 🕎✡ NOT HAPPY Americans are not suffering he brings BUSH BACK Americans need to suffer say the… https://t.co/oRytT4deNv

schestowitz

schestowitz

BIDEN J Menorah with nine branches✡ NOT HAPPY Americans are not suffering he brings BUSH BACK Americans need to suffer say the white house Rolling on the floor laughingSmiling face with open mouthSmiling face with open mouth and smiling eyesFace with tears of joyGrinning face with smiling eyes

schestowitz

Dying Iraq War Veteran Tomas Young Reacts to George W. Bush Joke About M... https://youtu.be/LJQS3eLSXgA via @YouTube

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.youtube.com | Dying Iraq War Veteran Tomas Young Reacts to George W. Bush Joke About Missing WMDs - YouTube

schestowitz

https://twitter.com/csolisr/status/1431248982563491848

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@csolisr: @schestowitz In my case, the off switch is unplugging the USB webcam from my desktop computer

https://twitter.com/PeterSchwarz11/status/1431196697842028544

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@PeterSchwarz11: @IlhanMN von Minnesota schickte am Donnerstag einen Brief, in dem Präsident #JoeBiden aufgefordert wurde, den ehem… https://t.co/gKpNJXTKy7

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@PeterSchwarz11: @IlhanMN von Minnesota schickte am Donnerstag einen Brief, in dem Präsident #JoeBiden aufgefordert wurde, den ehem… https://t.co/gKpNJXTKy7

schestowitz

schestowitz

@IlhanMN

schestowitz

von Minnesota schickte am Donnerstag einen Brief, in dem Präsident #JoeBiden aufgefordert wurde, den ehemaligen Geheimdienstanalysten der Luftwaffe, Daniel #Hale, der letzten Monat zu fast vier Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt wurde, vollständig zu begnadigen.

schestowitz

Quote Tweet

schestowitz