Helping the oppressors and aggressors
Summary: The aggressive London-based legal firm (recently hired by the EPO), Mishcon de Reya, shows up again in relation to matters that are of relevance to the EPO and we analyse potential correlations
REPUTATION LAUNDERING is a big and growing objective at the EPO. Battistelli and his goons are trying to control the press, e.g. by silencing critical voices in it and using it to defame critical voices inside the Organisation. See today's tweet from the EPO. This award pays millions of Euros of EPO budget to private corporations including the media, but the EPO does not want to say this to the public. In addition, the EPO wasted money on lawyers whom it used to send threatening letters to critics, like those who dare speak about the EPO-Microsoft connection. For information about this connection see past articles such as:
The last one is about the UPC, which probably isn't going to happen. Earlier today the
EPO wrote: "The EPO is pleased to inform users of its Online Filing software that a new update is now available" (follow the links to the downloads page and see how Microsoft-centric it all
still is).
We recently thought about some FFII joint action against the UPC, but seeing that Brexit is already sending the UPC down the drain, this might not at all be necessary. This week, FFII's Ante Wessels
looks at some overlaps between the investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS), the large corporations' wet dream, and UPC (serving to highlight TPP/TTIP connections):
UPC and ISDS: who would have to pay the damages awards?
[...]
Investment lawyer Pratyush Nath Upreti argues that investors will be able to use investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) to challenge decisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). [1] Investors could for instance use a Dutch bilateral investment treaty to challenge UPC decisions. Upreti identifies Dutch investment treaties as suitable for treaty shopping and warns for more frivolous IP litigation in investor-to-state dispute settlement.
This raises a question. Who would bear the litigation costs and damages awards?
If investors use a Dutch investment treaty the Netherlands will be the respondent. UPC decisions may regard the whole UPC area (almost the whole EU). ISDS damages awards may include expected profits. The Netherlands could end up having to pay litigation costs and damages awards including expected profits for almost the whole EU.
It isn't exactly news that UPC and ISDS would both serve large corporations and their aggressive lawyers such as Mishcon de Reya (also
acting for Microsoft on the patent front). It was therefore interesting to see my lawyer publishing
"The Mishcon de Reya legal challenge on Article 50 – some thoughts" (
direct link to the source). As a reminder, Battistelli opposes Brexit because it harms his UPC plans; now his lawyers in London (who threatened me and stalked me online for a while after
threatening letters had been sent by another firm regarding articles about Microsoft-EPO ties) step in and attempt to take action which would salvage the UPC and certainly help Microsoft too (a large client of Mishcon de Reya on the face of it). It's a small world after all, but the overlap of interests, as explained above, might all boil down to coincidences. A pattern emerges, however, wherein Mishcon de Reya helps aggressive entities.
James Nurton, who did a soft interview with Battistelli some months back,
earlier today released "Brexit 10 days on: latest developments". It's about the impact of Brexit, which EPO management certainty isn't happy about. To quote Nurton: "Practitioners say that they have had many enquiries about filing national UK trade mark and design rights from clients who want to ensure they have protection in the country whatever happens post-Brexit."
We suppose these enquiries actually meant money (per hour); so it's not so bad after all to at least some of them...
⬆
