09.20.16
Like Big Tobacco Lobbyists, Benoît Battistelli and Team UPC Are Just Chronically Lying and Manipulating Politicians With Their Lies
Thank you for smoking! It’s good for your health. Honest.
Summary: Benoît Battistelli and Team UPC continue to meddle in politics and mislead the public (through the press) about patent quality as well the UPC, which is now in effect sunk inside the ashtray of history
PATENT law firms from Europe and abroad are conspiring against democracy using echo chambers that discuss the UPC. They set up private events, they pressure politicians behind closed doors, and they’re stuffing panels so as to ensure no dissent is publicly visible. This mirrors a lot of what we find in CETA, TISA, TTIP, TPP and so on. Watch what EPO and Battistelli have been doing regarding the UPC as of late. It’s the same thing European politicians now do for so-called trade deals. It’s truly appalling and it has got to be stopped. It makes EPO management look as crooked as can be. It harms the image of the Office and tarnishes the reputation it so heavily relies on. Battistelli is truly destructive and delusional (by his own choice); insiders know it and it’s hardly shocking that he has a 0% approval rating among staff.
At the EPO, particularly under Battistelli, open tenders are a joke. We wrote several articles which help illustrate it. According to this tweet (we don’t wish to link directly to the EPO’s Web site as it can facilitate spying/tracking), “[c]ivil maintenance suppliers interested in bidding for tenders on the new EPO building should join us for this event” (as if they will get a fair tender under Battistelli!).
“Battistelli is truly destructive and delusional (by his own choice); insiders know it and it’s hardly shocking that he has a 0% approval rating among staff.”Meanwhile, judging by what we see from Andrew Chung (who offered a platform for the liar last week), Battistelli continues to meddle in everything. He thinks he’s the God of Europe, which helps explain the vanity with which he responds to European politicians who inquire about his abuses. “Q&A: Benoît Battistelli, top European patent official, on patent eligibility and Brexit” is the title of the latest piece from Chung and as one can expect, no fact-checking or plurality of views is permitted. The liar just keeps lying about everything.
Expect the EPO to have already sunk to USPTO levels of patent ‘quality’ (we have new material on the way with which to demonstrate this) and expect Brexit to have already killed UPC. It’s the consensus, unless one asks Team UPC, which is another bunch of chronic liars. They lie for a reason as they still have some hope and projecting this hope, they believe, can hand them a miracle. Watch this new press release about integration of USPTO and EPO data. Is this the future? “Wellspring,” it says about itself, “the global leader in software solutions for tech transfer, intellectual property, and tech scouting, today launched the Advanced Patent Utility (APU) for Wellspring’s software products. The APU feature brings together several automated features for updating intellectual property data, including new functionality to synchronize patent records with critical information and changes in status in patent offices’ databases.”
“It seems evident that Battistelli is meddling in Italian politics for the UPC, which is a dead project (don’t believe the hype).”One does not require such a service because the data is already available online (or up for sale in bulk) from the patent offices. Regardless, the EPO no longer has quality control, so many of the registered patents are questionable, especially recent ones (from the Battistelli era of hasty rubberstamping). It has gotten so bad, say insiders, that sooner or later there might be no examination at all. So don’t believe the hype/myth spread yesterday by the EPO; they try to maintain the illusion of quality because they know it’s a problem, which means that the lie needs to be repeated again, and again, and again[citation needed]…
The liar spoke the other day at a public event, AIPPI. The EPO posted a photograph of the naked emperor and said: “President Battistelli spoke @ #AIPPI2016 on how EPO is keeping quality high while speeding up the process for users” (total nonsense, except the speed, which obviously compromised quality).
According to several insiders (like this one) and also alerts we have received, the media in Italy helped Battistelli lie about the UPC and also about Brexit (we expect to have English translations soon). It seems evident that Battistelli is meddling in Italian politics for the UPC, which is a dead project (don’t believe the hype). What a bunch of chronic liars the media is quoting, probably without even realising it (because it sounds flattering to Italy’s theoretical role).
The UPC has “prerequisites that represent the final nail in the coffin for the UK’s participation,” wrote even what we believe to be a patent attorney/practitioner. To quote a new comment in full:
I find the legal opinion mentioned by Meldrew to be very interesting indeed.
The legal arguments are certainly well considered, as are the various points that the authors of the opinion believe are essential prerequisites to the UK’s participation in the UPC. However, in my view, it is the nature and number of those prerequisites that represent the final nail in the coffin for the UK’s participation.
Not only would multiple (national and international) new legal instruments be necessary, but the EU would need to agree to various amendments to the legislation governing the jurisdiction of the CJEU. If that were not a tall enough task on its own, then the final pieces of the puzzle make the task virtually impossible.
Firstly, the UK would (with regard to cases before the UPC) need to submit to the supremacy of Union law in its entirety. It is very difficult indeed to see how this could be done when the UK is not an EU Member State, particularly as cases involving IP rights before the UPC could touch upon issues covered by a wide range of different EU laws (eg competition law, the Biotech Directive, other EU legislation containing provisions affecting patents or SPCs, and general principles of EU law). Is it really possible that the UK government would accept being bound, post-Brexit, by such a range of EU laws (including potential future EU legislation) just to ensure that the UPC goes ahead?
Secondly, the UPCA would need to be amended. Whilst that is clearly possible, there is the question of when the relevant amendments would be made. Whilst those amendments could be made in anticipation of all of the other conditions for the UK’s participation being met at a later stage, are the other Contracting Member States to the Agreement really going to agree to this instead of pursuing alternative amendments that would eliminate the need to rely upon the UK’s participation? Perhaps this will happen, but the evidence suggests otherwise (particularly the various attempts that have already been made to argue for new homes for the divisions of the UPC allocated to the UK).
Perhaps it is time to stop flogging this particular horse and instead focus efforts upon finding an alternative way of reaching the desired destination.
“The UK’s continued participation would require it to submit to EU law regarding proceedings before the Court,” said elements of Team UPC, such as CIPA (see the latest). For those who don’t know, CIPA is a parasite that merely advocates for the profit of the patent microcosm. We wrote about it in the past. As for the UPC, it is totally antidemocratic, it is an injustice, and it is thankfully dead by now.
“…in my view, it is the nature and number of those prerequisites that represent the final nail in the coffin for the UK’s [UPC] participation.”
–AnonymousMathieu Klos from Juve wrote that “CIPA has a strong preference for UK to participate, if a solid legal basis can be agreed http://www.cipa.org.uk” (obviously CIPA wants it, but it should hardly be a dot org, it’s just a front group of the patent microcosm).
Here is what WIPR, a London-based site, wrote about it [1, 2]. AIPPI is the second UPC propaganda event in less than a month (the first one was set up by the London-based Managing IP (MIP) [1, 2, 3, 4]). Team UPC’s lobbying is now on overdrive, several months after Brexit and about a year away from the end of Battistelli. “At the Managing IP European Patent Forum in Munich on September 6,” one attendee told us, “a senior partner from Marks & Clerk, after [the EPO's] Margot Fröhlinger’s talk, asked the audience how many people thought that the UK would ratify the UPC. Not one single person raised their hand. That never made it into the MIP write up!”
“…a senior partner from Marks & Clerk, after [the EPO's] Margot Fröhlinger’s talk, asked the audience how many people thought that the UK would ratify the UPC. Not one single person raised their hand. That never made it into the MIP write up!”
–AnonymousWonderful, isn’t it? Agenda masqueraded as reporting. We advise readers — whether they’re connected to the EPO or not — to ignore all the UPC noise in ‘IP’ media. A lot of it is paid-for nonsense. There’s a lot of PR money coming out of Battistelli's palm at the expense of the EPO and it is just the EPO and Team UPC (and their large clients) who are trying to bamboozle us again. Self-fulfilling prophecy tactics would have us believe that UPC isn’t dead even when it is.
“I’d like to see politicians working to shoot down the UPC,” I told this person today (Walter van Holst speaking about the secretive CETA), “but the patent cartel hides it from them, then misleads them and pleading for ratification.”
Not only European firms are doing this. Here is Fish & Richardson PC from the US sticking its nose with “Legal Alert: A Path to the UPC” (alarming and misleading headline).
“Unless Milan renames itself “London” the UPC in its present form is dead and buried.”To quote their conclusion: “In other UPC and UP news, the lower house of Italy’s parliament approved legislation this past week, which would permit Italy’s ratification of the UPC Agreement. Milan is a leading candidate to replace London as the site of the UPC central division that will deal with life sciences patent litigation, if the UK no longer participates in the UPC.”
This will never work. Unless Milan renames itself “London” the UPC in its present form is dead and buried. “A UPC post-Brexit will take years to build and not just because of the UK,” one person remarked, “keep an eye on Germany too.”
“At best,” said IAM’s editor (typically one of the most vocal proponents of the UPC), “UPC likely to be significantly delayed by Brexit. At worst? Well, current system suits Germany fine :-)”
“Why would anyone listen to these people whose track record when it comes to truth is so poor?”One might think that this sobering take from IAM would be enough to quiet down/silence Team UPC, but firms like Bristows invested so much in the UPC that they’ll cling onto anything within reach. Bristows are, as expected, at it again with UPC promotion, showing their utter disregard for democracy both in the UK and in the EU. Judging by this report from IAM (mentioned here with sneaky remarks ensuing), Bristows still leads the charge. To quote a written account from AIPPI: “Testament to the interest – and concern – of the IP community in what the future holds for the UPC and unitary patent was that the first of two sessions on the subject was packed out despite being held at 8:30 on a Sunday morning. The second session will be held tomorrow morning and is split into two parts. The first will look specifically at what Brexit means for the UPC, while the second will be a UPC mock trial. I caught up with the moderator of the trial, Alan Johnson, partner at London based law firm Bristows and chair of the AIPPI’s unitary patent/UPC committee, to discuss where we go from here.”
Kluwer UPC ‘News’, another prominent element of Team UPC, also pressed the UK to ratify two days ago [via Bastian Best]. This nonsense from Team UPC would have us believe that UPC can become a reality without the UK (to begin with). It cannot. Look at how it’s written.
“Team UPC actually advertised UPC jobs that did not exist and probably will never exist.”“Team UPC is inherently antidemocratic, as it has repeatedly proven,” I told Benjamin Henrion after he had called it “the sign of an undemocratic system.” It is so similar to what is happening when it comes to trade deals, as Henrion noted separately.
Why would anyone listen to these people whose track record when it comes to truth is so poor? Team UPC actually advertised UPC jobs that did not exist and probably will never exist. They allocated and set up a court in London before there was even ratification. What a nerve they have. Is there a penalty for bogus job advertisements? █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA