And in other news, Kieren McCarthy of The Register is back to debunking the EPO's lies

Summary: The tactics of Team UPC aren't changing, only the shamelessness associated with these tactics is changing (because it looks like the end of days to them)

TEAM UPC -- unlike managers at the European Patent Office (EPO) -- is not above the law. It can also be held accountable.

We've privately seen communications from these people urging strongly for software patents in Europe and it's no secret that they like Battistelli. They tried to pretend otherwise when he was unpopular and when he became too much of liability to their 'cause' (profit) they wanted him replaced. They replaced him with another Frenchman, António Campinos, this one younger and more 'orange'... but the goals are the same.

"The UPC(A) has been practically dead for 3 years. UPCA proponents just didn't give up lying about it... "Yesterday we saw this tweet which said: "Bad news for the #UPC? UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated that the UK would not extend the Implementation Period beyond 31 December 2020; and that any future partnership must not involve any kind of alignment or ECJ jurisdiction."

This cites IAM, which the EPO paid to promote the UPC.

The UPC(A) has been practically dead for 3 years. UPCA proponents just didn't give up lying about it...

Sometimes, albeit not so often, even Team UPC sort of ridicules itself for its false predictions and empty promises.

"Of course they all know -- deep inside at least -- that the UPCA is illegal/unconstitutional."Thomas of Team UPC is nowadays attacking the courts/judges (first because of speed, now other things; this is at least the second time this week). Give it up and move on, Thomas. Maybe move out of Munich. You're only there for the money.

Of course they all know -- deep inside at least -- that the UPCA is illegal/unconstitutional. But they don't really care as long as they can profit from it.

Thomas speaks of an "outside view on DE Constitutional Court’s particularities of a UK barrister." It can be found here and here, e.g. stating that the German Constitutional Court (FCC) "sits with an even - yes even - number of Judges (two Senates of 8). The idea is that more than a bare majority is required to rule any law unconstitutional."

"These people have been harassing judges with falsehoods, provoking for replies and imposing on them deadlines that fellow judges did not even agree on/consent to."Well, this thread or cluster of 'tweets' is not a form of journalism; it's just a "Barrister at Blackstone Chambers" pushing his agenda.

These people have been harassing judges with falsehoods, provoking for replies and imposing on them deadlines that fellow judges did not even agree on/consent to. It's just like Watchtroll's raves about abusive judges (who behind the scenes collude with the litigation firms) and rants about anything that upholds 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101. It's tasteless. It's disgusting. They also lie a lot. Knowingly. Intentionally.

Thankfully, this morning the media caught up with them. Not the typical corporate/mainstream media but someone who really understands these issues and is based in the US. "The dream of a single European patent may die next month – and everyone is in denial about it" has been published by Kieren McCarthy, who covers EPO scandals again (first time in ages).

"Let's hope that Mr. McCarthy intends to carry on covering these issues; he has hardly done that for years."Pro-UPC people are cherry-picking/quoting Team UPC's talking points only, whereas the FFII's President takes note of: "Can a non-EU country be a part of a UPC? If the answer is no, the entire thing needs to be redesigned because the UK was a compulsory signatory. If the answer is yes, then where and how do you draw the line? Can JP join the UPC? Can the US?"

Here's the opening bunch of paragraphs (it's pretty long and detailed):

It has been years in the making and Europe’s largest law firms are smacking their lips in anticipation but the long-held dream of a single European patent system may die next month – and everyone appears to be in denial.

“It would be realistic to expect the UPC to be operational in early 2021,” said the head of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC) Preparatory Committee, Alexander Ramsay, in November. That confident prediction came just one week after the lead judge in a case against the UPC at German’s Constitutional Court said he expected the court to finally decide it in the first quarter of this year.

Similar confidence abounds in the intellectual property world; large law firms already have plans to handle what they believe will be a sudden influx of clients from smaller specialist patent law firms because, with a single patent stretching across Europe, it will be that much more important to make sure you get issued one, and defend it.

Industry journals continue to be convinced that the German court process is little more than an annoyance; a delay that is holding back the unitary patent’s introduction rather than an existential threat. And the man who almost certainly brought the case (he has yet to officially admit it), German lawyer Ingve Stjena, is being treated as part-joke, part-pariah by his profession.

And yet. And yet. The reality is that Stjena’s complaint isn’t frivolous, or wrong-headed. In fact, there’s a very good chance that he is absolutely correct. And if the German court does ultimately reject his case it may have to go to some trouble to explain its way around his legal arguments for the UPC’s unconstitutionality.

Let's hope that Mr. McCarthy intends to carry on covering these issues; he has hardly done that for years. Team UPC needs more fact-checking in the media (or the little that's left of it). ⬆