THE EPO hasn't been mentioning UP or UPC or UPCA much lately. There's simply nothing to say really. Team UPC too has been very quiet. Bristows, for instance, has said nothing for a month and a half (it typically reuses a bunch of nonsense and as recently as a year ago it blogged about UPC several times per week). So is the UPC dead? Not yet, but it's dying. Mischievous tricks are still being attempted.
"This whole session was likely set up by (directly or indirectly) Team UPC to only amplify Team UPC."Last week we wrote (on Tuesday afternoon) about the Tuesday (morning) hearing regarding UPC. We showed that it was stacked (or had been systematically stuffed) by a group of Team UPC figures. As Benjamin Henrion put it: "UPC critics not invited to the debate in the UK, next time invite some..."
They won't. This whole session was likely set up by (directly or indirectly) Team UPC to only amplify Team UPC. It's not a consultation. They don't care what scientists have to say, they just want litigation. Lots and lots of lawsuits...
When one's bread and butter is taxing actual scientists the British Parliament needs to be sceptical. Whose interests are being served?
"Next time invite not only lobbyists seeking to destroy the UK using litigation (their business)" was my response to this official tweet about the session. "Tomorrow at 10.45am (GMT)," it said, "EU Committee discusses post-#Brexit #patentlaw and #UnifiedPatentCourt with Stephen Jones, President of @TheCIPA, and Kevin Mooney of @SimmonsLLP..."
Illusion of balance or 'debate'.
Whatever they mean by "discusses" (in the above tweet); more like being lobbied. Here's Team UPC promoting this session. Henrion says that "Wikipedia page on UPC has been hacked by the patent industry, no need to mention the critics. But at least one patent attorney admits "Now, in the future, the UPC will decide on the patentability of software patents" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unified_Patent_Court#Controversy_Section …"
"They're like attack dogs and they don't wish to be held accountable for what they say."That's more "software patents by corruption of EPO management and Team UPC (greed of the litigation 'industry' for legislative capture)," I responded to him. "It's time for another legal action against the UPC," he continued. "Stay tuned #upc software patents #undemocratic ..." (we suppose that the constitutional challenge in the German Constitutional Court isn't the last of its kind unless it suffices).
As we noted last month, Team UPC now uses cloaks of anonymity to discredit UPC critics. They're like attack dogs and they don't wish to be held accountable for what they say. A few days ago we noticed that the anonymous writer of Kluwer's UPC blog posts (maybe/usually Bristows) wrote about the latest from Ingve Björn Stjerna (promoted via Twitter). The fact that the pro-UPC Kluwer Patent Blog responded to it anonymously almost a fortnight later (after the paper from Ingve Björn Stjerna) may mean it took it a long time to come up with spin, slant, etc. Team UPC is a bunch of manipulative self-serving bullies who are a tremendous threat to science in Europe. They know it, but they don't care; all they care about is money (legal bills). There was profound corruption all along, ranging from the political arena to the Office. This is what Kluwer wrote (anonymously, albeit obviously from someone who knows the UPC, hence a Team UPC actor):
The fact that the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) requested the Bundespräsident not to proceed with ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement indicates that the complaint against the UPCA will be admitted for a decision. This is one of the observations of Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna, the Düsseldorf based IP specialist who is behind the constitutional complaint and who published an article about the case earlier this month.
[...]
More generally spoken, Stjerna has his doubts about the functioning of the BVerfG, whose composition is influenced by political agreements: ‘How independent will be the examination by judges, who are appointed under political considerations, in this legislative project, which was highly desired politically across party lines and passed with positive knowledge of all constitutional problems? Skepticism seems justified. Against the background described above, it would not come as a surprise if the BVerfG made its contribution to the political agenda and waved through the ratification of the UPCA – on time for the “Brexit” talks between the EU and the British government – by the end of November.’
It is surprising that Stjerna apparently thinks the constitutional complaint may be decided as soon as next month. This is contrary to the opinion of many other observers, who think a decision cannot be expected any time soon – and the chances for the Unitary Patent system to launch before the Brexit are zero.
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is a new proposed court which will hear disputes related to opted-in European Patents and the newly created Unitary Patent. The current plan is that the UPC will only be open for participation by EU member states. It is still unknown whether the UK will be able to participate after Brexit. The notice considers the possibility that the UPC does not come into force at all, in which case, there are no steps to be taken on exit day.