THE previous post mentioned some of the latest patent maximalism of D Young & Co LLP, whose staff published and promoted loads of stuff the day before Christmas Eve. A couple of articles that caught our attention didn't sweeten the holiday because it was a pile or 'document dump' of nonsense. Promoted in Lexology was this article which is a load of lies -- the famous two lies -- from Team UPC boosters of D Young & Co LLP, or Rachel Bateman in this case. It fabricates 'facts' to make it seem like UPC has actual progress. It's only them who perpetuate this lie about the UPC, but it's as dead as last year. To quote some bits:
After months of silence on the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and unitary patent (UP), we have seen some interesting news and developments in recent weeks.
[...]
More likely is that the UK will leave the EU, and there will then need to be a decision on whether the UPC and UP can come into effect when/if Germany ratifies. The European Parliament analysis explains how the UPCA will need to be amended (and approved by all parties) to remove the mention of one of the UPC Central Divisions being in London, but if the UK voluntarily withdraws from the agreement, it could be possible for the UPC and UP to come into effect because the three remaining member states with the highest number of patents (France, Germany, and The Netherlands) would have ratified.
If the Unified Patent Court (UPC) comes into force, it will hear cases relating to European patents and SPCs, and unitary patents (UPs). In the event that the UPC comes into force and the UK needs to withdraw from the UPC and the unitary patent, UK and EU businesses will be able to use the UPC and unitary patents to protect inventions in the EU. Accordingly, UK businesses will also be open to litigation within the UPC based on their actions in the EU. However, UK and EU businesses would not be able to use the UPC and unitary patents to protect inventions in the UK. Instead, they must use national rights obtained via the UKIPO or the EPO.