THE FIRST step of António Campinos as EPO President was UPC promotion, which includes attacking constitutions across many countries in Europe. Since then the EPO has been promoting software patents virtually every day (sometimes more than once per day) in spite of the ban in Europe. So it's like the pertinent laws and truth itself don't matter to the EPO. It's like Battistelli is still in charge, but his face looks a little different now (nationality is the same).
"Actually, the United Kingdom does not want the Unified Patent Court; it’s just a bunch of law firms with a powerful lobby like CIPA that wants it and misrepresents SMEs, the country at large, and people who actually work in science and technology."We have stumbled upon quite a few Unitary Patent puff pieces this week. IAM's UPC propaganda mill was today's biggest culprit. It's like that same old UPC propaganda which the EPO's PR agency paid IAM for.
Some hours ago David Holland, Roger Lush and Melanie Stevenson (Carpmaels & Ransford LLP) overlooked major UPC barriers. Citing UK-IPO (which is biased for obvious reasons), they promote/perpetuate two famous lies and say: "Looking to the future, the government proposes that the “UK should continue to participate in the unitary patent system and the Unified Patent Court that underpins it”, confirming the United Kingdom’s long-held desire to participate in this new pan-European system."
Actually, the United Kingdom does not want the Unified Patent Court; it's just a bunch of law firms with a powerful lobby like CIPA that wants it and misrepresents SMEs, the country at large, and people who actually work in science and technology. This is what happens when law firms write "the news"; it's just marketing and lobbying. Speaking of law firms, hours ago Jörg Prechtel (Weickmann & Weickmann PartmbB) wrote this piece about the UPC, missing the point that the principal issue with UPC, as per the constitutional complaint in Germany, isn't just conditions for renewal of judges' contracts but the EPO having a long track record of breaking the law, attacking judges, and defaming them. Prechtel wrote this:
On 18 March 2018 the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe permitted the appointment of judges for a limited time (Richter auf Zeit), but only under specific conditions (Docket 2BvR 780/16).
This decision may affect a pending constitutional complaint against the UPC Agreement (for more information please see “Constitutional complaint against UPC Agreement”), since Article 4 of the Statute of the UPC provides that judges may be appointed for a limited time (six years) and can be re-appointed.
[...]
In light of this decision, the court’s stance regarding the UPC Agreement remains uncertain. While it considers the employment of Richter auf Zeit admissible in principle, there are restrictions (ie, temporary personnel requirements and the prohibition of re-appointment).
However, since the court system proposed by the UPC Agreement is international, the Federal Constitutional Court may not apply its strict national standards.