Bonum Certa Men Certa

Appalling Press Coverage Regarding the Unitary Patent (UPC)

Dave Croston in Financial Director
One example of plenty more fake news about the UPC (e.g. [1, 2, 3]), courtesy of those who stand to profit from legal Armageddon



Summary: How the media has lied (and keeps lying) about the UPC, which the European public neither needs nor wants, putting aside serious constitutional issues that are associated with the UPC

PUTTING ASIDE the issue of UPC censorship/deletionism in the media -- a subject we explored here before -- we continue to see a lot of EPO-leaning spin in the wake of Germany's barrier to the UPC [1, 2, 3]. It's more obnoxious than anything that the same people who conspired in secret to create this mess are now dominating the media, hijacking blogs, deleting comments, and telling off people who contradict or debunk their propaganda.



Watch this new piece titled "Germany delay probably not the end of the UPC" -- a piece which extensively quotes people with financial stake in the UPC. It quotes Team UPC's Wouter Pors a lot, for example: "Wouter Pors, head of Bird & Bird’s IP practice in the Netherlands, explained that the Bundesverfassungsgericht has the authority to issue an order blocking the president from signing in a law."

Where are the opponents of the UPC? They were not even approached for a comment. There is zero balance there. People who want to profit using the UPC (at the expense of everybody else) refuse to believe it's dead; that's hardly surprising. Where are the voice of reasons though? Totally omitted from this article, as usual...

Looking around for more coverage of this, we are finding little less than sites controlled if not owned by patent law firms. In fact, patent firms that actively wage a coup (to replace the current system with the UPC) are dominating all the blogs and some responded to the breakdown with potentially paid-for placements like these [1, 2] from William Fry and CMS Hasche Sigle.

One former Kat said that "it could be" the end of the UPC, but that's just because he tends to be more honest than most and he occasionally links to us regarding the UPC (albeit he does not agree with the relatively abrasive tone).

Almost all UPC opponents prefer to remain anonymous and it's easy to see why. They don't want to receive abuse. A German complaint was filed anonymously, but we think we know who filed it. Character assassination would ensue of the identity of the complainant was known.

Now that Germany must decide whether the UPC is constitutional at all (it's not, for reasons we covered here before), one person said he expects a "decision in perhaps 6 or 12 months."

That's a very long time. To quote in full: "A few people have asked about timing. From what I gather the Court proceedings have already been expedited, which means a decision in perhaps 6 or 12 months. Still before the date of Brexit but getting uncomfortably close."

"Remember that Spain raised this very complaint (incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law)," said another comment. It's part of an ongoing discussion (in uncensored comments) about the legality of the UPC (or absence thereof). Reproduced below are the relevant comments in case IP Kat (i.e. someone like Bristows) decides to 'vanish' them: [G&P refers to Gordon and Pascoe]

Firstly, the current UPC Agreement is the only one currently on the table. There is no amended Agreement, and there may never be.

Secondly, if the current Agreement does not comply with EU law (because, as argued by G&P, it is incapable of creating a court that forms "part of the national legal order" of EU Member States), then it would be irresponsible to bring it into force... as it would be unworkable from the off.

Also, just because the UPCA Member States are all currently EU Member States, it does not necessarily follow that the UPC (under the current UPCA) will form "part of the national legal order" of the EU Member States. Indeed, it would be absurd if the status of the Member States was the only relevant factor.

For example, why should the UK's departure from the EU suddenly remove the UPC from the national legal order of other EU Member States? Conversely, why should the mere fact that all signatories are EU Member States mean that an international agreement is capable of creating a court forming part of the national legal order of those states? Does there not need to be something more than just a common status of the participants to properly "embed" the UPC in the national legal order?

Remember that Spain raised this very complaint (incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law) in one of their cases - and that complaint was only dismissed because it was inadmissible, not because it was wrong.


"Secondly, if the current Agreement does not comply with EU law (because, as argued by G&P, it is incapable of creating a court that forms "part of the national legal order" of EU Member States), then it would be irresponsible to bring it into force... as it would be unworkable from the off."

Indeed it would, if that were correct. Except that this is not quite what G&P are saying. There is more than one way to provide the safeguards required in order to comply with EU law.

One is if the UPC itself were part of the national legal order of the contracting EU member states. Article 267 TFEU and the rest of EU law would then apply directly, with no need to say more. But it isn't, as you point out. As stated by G&P it's an international agreement, and the fact that it is common to the contracting EU member states doesn't change that.

So the way in which the current UPCA provides the necessary safeguards is by stating explicitly that the UPC is common to a number of EU Member States (Article 1). And by imposing obligations on the UPC as a court common to those EU Member States (Articles 20-23). Including an obligation to make references to the CJEU in accordance with Article 267. (See G&P paragraph 15).

This is not a direct application of EU law (including Article 267 TFEU), but instead it hard-codes the same obligations into the UPC itself.

The other side of the coin (currently) is that the CJEU automatically has jurisdiction to receive references and decide questions of EU law, because the UPC is common to a number of EU Member States, and the CJEU has jurisdiction over all those Member States. No need to hard-code anything.

However, this current form of the UPCA needs amendment after Brexit. G&P's proposed amendments keep the hard-coded obligations, but adapt them to the new situation that one of the contracting states is no longer an EU Member State. As previously, this is not a direct application of Article 267 etc.

Unfortunately the CJEU would no longer have jurisdiction automatically, as its jurisdiction is limited to EU Member States (G&P paragraphs 80, 84, 85). This is why G&P say that a separate agreement is needed, with the EU as a party. The CJEU's jurisdiction also now needs hard-coding.


One minor point: is it not a little odd that there are references in Articles 21 and 22 UPCA that only seem to make sense if the UPC does form part of the national legal order of the EU MSs?

For example: "as part of their judicial system" (Art. 21); "as any national court"; and "in accordance with Union law concerning non-contractual liability of Member States for damage caused by their national courts breaching Union law".

It appears to me that the drafters of the UPCA tried hard to create a "Benelux-type" court that the CJEU's Opinion 1/09 indicated was OK. But now it seems necessary to argue that the drafters were unsuccessful in their efforts, and that the UPC complies with EU law by way of a novel mechanism.

I can at least concede that the UPC is very obviously different from the Benelux Court. This is not least because the UPC is an alternative to the national courts, rather than a court that is "plugged in" to the national legal systems by way of appeal / remittance links.

However, I have my doubts over whether the proposed novel mechanism for complying with Article 267 TFEU would work. That is, given that the CJEU can only accept references from "any court or tribunal of a Member State", is there not a risk that the CJEU - despite the safeguards that you mention - would find that the UPC is not a court "of a Member State", and thereby refuse to accept preliminary references from that court?

Of course, I do not rule out the possibility that the CJEU will find a reason why the current UPC set-up is compliant with EU law. However, as the CJEU has not yet given the system the "thumbs up", we cannot be certain that they will do. In this respect, do you not worry that the arguments in G&P's opinion could perhaps undermine a crucial point for EU law compliance (namely the ability for the UPC, as a court "of a Member State" to make references to the CJEU)?

More importantly, do you not worry about the risks of "going live" with a system that is not guaranteed to be compliant with EU law and where there are no guarantees that the UK can remain in that system post-Brexit? I understand the temptation to press on given that we are now so close to realising a long-held wish amongst certain sections of the IP community in Europe. Nevertheless, given the lack of guarantees on important points (especially when there are lingering, and well-reasoned doubts on those points that cannot yet be dismissed), I cannot help thinking that pressing on regardless generates huge - and frankly unacceptable - uncertainty for rights holders (and interested 3rd parties).


What we advise readers is, ignore pieces written by firms with stake in the UPC, so-called 'reports' (puff pieces/PR) that extensively quote those firms, and stacked panels that include liars from the EPO. Sadly, nowadays comments about the UPC are being deleted from numerous prominent blogs, but those comments which miraculously remain almost unequivocally voice pessimism about the UPC. Professionals in the field evidently don't believe what Team UPC is saying and there are surveys that show that.

Recent Techrights' Posts

The 'Culture Wars' in Free Software Have Gone Out of Control
Social control media amplifies such utterly infantile discourse
10 Out of 10: RMS Attracts Massive Audience in Göteborg, Sweden (All Seats Occupied, Some People Standing)
a 55-second clip of his talk
The Lawsuit by Clients of Brett Wilson LLP Against Brett Wilson LLP is Officially On, It is Progressing, The 'Experts' Pick Outside Law Firms (RPC and Mills & Reeve) to Spare Them From Litigants in Person
So it is probably quite potent
Slopwatch: Plagiarism and "Linux" Articles by Bots
Sites that do this won't survive; many of them rely on slop services (suppliers) that will cease to exist after the bubble bursts
 
Geminispace is Very Large
The word continues to spread and the number of participants grows
Teaser: To Compensate for the Fact Our Clients Are Terrible Human Beings Who Strangle Women (While on Microsoft's Payroll) and We Get Paid by Mystery Parties We Bombard You and Your Wife With Almost 10 Kilograms of Legal Papers
If you can't win an argument, then drown the other side with papers?
Another Wave of Microsoft Layoffs, This Time During National Day Holiday
This time it's China again
Staying Happy in Times of Crackdowns on Civil Society
Optimism in this sort of "new reality" or "new normal" seems like something for the irrational person
"Nobel" Exploited Posthumously for "AI" Hype, Now They Do the Same With "Quantum"
ere have been many jokes about "Nobel" for peace (often granted to pro-war people) and a fake one for "Economics" (establishment propaganda)
Distinguished Lecture by Richard Stallman This Coming Monday in Rome
After "Free software, Crucial for Freedom in a Digital World"
Links 10/10/2025: Putin Admits Russia Downed Azerbaijan Airlines Jet, More New Heat Records
Links for the day
Noteworthy Claim That IBM is Firing a Lot of Lawyers This Week (RAs in the Legal Department)
A lot of what they do is patent 'trolling' or lawyering up against their own staff (e.g. HR disputes)
Links 10/10/2025: US Judge Bars Attacks by ICE On Journalists and Protesters; “We Took The Freedom of Speech Away” Says the President
Links for the day
Slopwatch: Serial Sloppers, Google News Gifting Slopfarms, and Fake News/Plagiarism About "Linux"
Google itself is a slop pusher these days
Qualcomm, the New Owner of Arduino, Blasted for Its Software Patents Tax on 'Smartphones'
A lot of Qualcomm's patents are on software. We wrote about this in prior years.
XBox Layoffs Rumours, Downtime, and Criticism From XBox Co-Founder
"everyone is ditching the xbox."
Links 10/10/2025: Honoring The Legacy Of Robert Murray-Smith, Many Articles on the Hey Hi (AI) Bubble
Links for the day
Gemini Links 09/10/2025: October Gothic and Reading Middle Earth Role Playing; C and Ada
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, October 09, 2025
IRC logs for Thursday, October 09, 2025
Links 09/10/2025: Farewell to Jane Goodall, California Bans Algorithmic Price-Fixing
Links for the day
Gemini Links 09/10/2025: Lost Wages and a Saga Of Continuing To Use Palm PDAs
Links for the day
Richard Stallman's Talk in Helsinki is Done. Tomorrow Göteborg.
There are scarce details in Finnish about Dr. Stallman's talk
New XBox Leaks Probably Serve to Confirm XBox's Collapse (Many More Layoffs)
It's very much consistent with what many other sites have reported lately
The Slop Song
The train wreck marches on
LLM Slop/Advanced Plagiarism Flooding the Zone With Capital That Does Not Exist
Many publishers out there still participate in this bubble instead of calling it what it is
Links 09/10/2025: Sacked Microsoft Workers Make "Sackbird", IBM Taps CockroachDB for PostgreSQL
Links for the day
"Happy Hacking Day" Richard Stallman Talk This Afternoon (From 14:00 to 16:00) at Haaga-Helia University in Pasila
Richard Stallman in Helsinki, Finland
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, October 08, 2025
IRC logs for Wednesday, October 08, 2025
Links 09/10/2025: Impact of Microsoft Layoffs, More Data Breaches
Links for the day
Gemini Links 09/10/2025: Autumn Blues and C IRC Bot
Links for the day
Slopwatch Appreciated by Real Authors of GNU/Linux Articles
We do try to keep on top of those things
Upgraded R.R.R.R.R.R. Today
The Web of 2025 is full of garbage, not limited to slopfarms
Freedom From Proprietary Prisons
Forking always an option
IBM's Watson Died in 1956, Now Watson Dies Again
IBM is becoming just a reseller of GAFAM and other stuff
Slopwatch: LinuxSecurity, UbuntuPIT, and Google News
We've also just noticed more slop from UbuntuPIT
Microsoft Says That Constant Mass Layoffs Are Success, the Media Isn't Buying This Microsoft Narrative Anymore
If people in the media feel an obligation to repeat whatever lies Microsoft tells, what point will there be to the media?
Links 08/10/2025: "Mali Puts Free Speech on Trial" And Apple Enforces Dictatorship
Links for the day
Links 08/10/2025: ‘Death to Spotify’ and Law to Ban Loud Commercials on Streaming (Dis)Services
Links for the day
Links 08/10/2025: Real Innovation and Nina.chat is Dead
Links for the day
Links 08/10/2025: Y2K38 Bug is a Vulnerability, Chat Control in Europe a Threat
Links for the day
Microsoft Windows is No Longer an Operating System, It's Surveillance Project
Why is this even legal to preload on PCs outside the US?
How and Why Once-Legitimate Sites Turn Into Slopfarms
Many sites will go offline and many social control networks will shut down once they realise or even openly admit they spend money and time gardening a bunch of bots and slop
UbuntuPIT Became a Slopfarm and Gnoppix Tarnishes Its Own Brand With Slop
It fits all the characteristics of mildly-edited (if at all) slop
Slopwatch: Linux Journal and Other Slopfarms
GAFAM needs to go the way of the dodo
Gemini Links 08/10/2025: "Seek Seek Revolution" and Gradient Backgrounds
Links for the day
Qualcomm Arduino Takes Aim at Raspberry Pi
Qualcomm is a Microsoft partner
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 07, 2025
IRC logs for Tuesday, October 07, 2025
Stagnation of the Economy and What Free Software Can (or Could) Do For It
If your economic model is based on a pyramid of lies, it won't last very long
Social Control Media is Sinking
it would rightly seem like the era of centralised "social" sites (they're not social, they're about controlling the users) is ending, not overnight but gradually