Summary: Germany, a key player in UPC negotiations (most patents at stake), cannot proceed to ratification and Britain's expected exit from the European Union further restricts any progress

THE EPO hardly speaks about what happened in Germany. What happened there? Well, the UPC may be dead there. Earlier today or late last night Mathieu Klos (Juve) retweeted Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle), who had published an important/exclusive article. He added: "UPC - und da ist sie wieder, die Brexit-Problematik. Komplexe Verfassungsbeschwerde. Urteil + Lösung erst nach Abschluss des Brexits?"

"They pretend, yet again, that the UPC is inevitable and everyone must prepare for it. Bristows is notorious for such bad character; they're patently dishonest."He speaks of the Brexit issue and the complex constitutional complaint in Germany. Judgment/solution, apparently, can only come after completion of Brexit (i.e. years from now). Unless we misunderstood what he and Thorsten Bausch meant to say...

The blog which published this is part of Team UPC. Those are UPC proponents.

What do UPC boosters say? Well, the EPO and Bristows (a Battistelli booster) speak of a so-called UPC "Guide [which] is currently only available in PDF format, but the EPO is working on providing an online version of the same."

They pretend, yet again, that the UPC is inevitable and everyone must prepare for it. Bristows is notorious for such bad character; they're patently dishonest.

Christopher Weber, a German booster of the UPC, moaned about "Attack on the #UPC on all levels. Everybody who thought limited attack on formal grounds = completely wrong..."

"The UPC is stuck on the table.""The UPC itself is an attack (on businesses, for law firms)," I told him, so "this is merely a defense."

He only responded with an irritated off-topic rant. These people have nothing but frustration.

The original article from Bausch said this:

The third alleged violation pertains to the perceived lack of an independent judiciary under the UPC. Perhaps (but this is my speculation based on Prof. Bross’ criticism to the EPO system) this is related to the fact that the judges are only appointed for six years, with a re-appointment being possible, but not guaranteed (Art. 4 UPC Statute).

"Excellent update," Richard Gillespie wrote in the comments, "many thanks for asking that question! The only thing to add is that as the UK triggered Article 50 on 29 March 2017 – my understanding is that if the UPC is not in place before 29 March 2019 (i.e. before the UK leaves the EU) the UPC will effectively be dead – the UK can no longer sign up at that point as it will no longer be a member state and as the UK is hardwired into the treaty renegotiation will be required."

"As Battistelli has just months left at the job, the UPC looks like another dying project, just like TPP when Obama left Office."Birgit Clark, a German based in the UK, said this: "Just to confirm that I contacted the court’s press officer who confirmed the content of the above blogpost to me today by email. Thorsten Bausch was simply quicker and took the initiative. All completely above board!"

She then received a rude response: "Dear Birgit, how about just keeping quiet until it was you who took the initiative and brought something forward in this matter, instead of first questioning the legitimacy of Dr Bausch’s post and then, after – of course – it got confirmed, quickly moving back in line, now trying to pretend that you had any meaningful stake in this? Just awful."

Suffice to say, the liars and cheats from Bristows also took the opportunity to meddle, having repeatedly written dismissive posts about this complaint (without even knowing what it was about!).

As we said before, we don't expect any major progress this year. The UPC is stuck on the table. As Battistelli has just months left at the job, the UPC looks like another dying project, just like TPP when Obama left Office. ⬆