07.15.16
Gemini version available ♊︎What If EPO Under Battistelli Gets Broken Beyond Repair Just Like the UPC?
Not only the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is going down under but also its chief proponent, who might take the Office and the whole Organisation with him to the grave unless his nepotists’ regime gets stopped peacefully (unlike in Turkey right now)
Summary: The latest evidence surrounding the demise of the EPO’s reputation and quality of work, as well as the demise of the system Battistelli forcibly tries to introduce (a race to the bottom)
THE EPO is preparing for the next lobbying event of Battistelli. It will (if he survives this long in the job) cost him millions of Euros. Oh wait, no… he'll have the EPO foot the bill, as usual. What has happened to the EPO? Even the marketing stinks (almost no tweets today and in yesterday’s truly awkward tweet no links were included, just the usual and rather corny stock photography). People keep telling me (privately) that quality of patents nosedived and some people even write about it publicly. This clearly isn’t the EPO I respected and wrote about (sometimes positively) a decade ago. It is rapidly going defunct and if we strive to save the EPO, then we aren’t doing a terribly effective job so far. The deeper Battistelli sinks, the more damage is caused and still he refuses to resign while the Administrative Council fails to do its job and fire him. That’s just how messed up the Office and the whole Organisation became after Battistelli’s (and his circle) coup. “I don’t know,” wrote one person today about whether Battistelli just wants to ruin the Office. “However, I have my suspicions that money may be at the root of all of this.” Remember that Battistelli’s contracts remain secret and information we have about his current salary contradicts what he publicly stated. The Administrative Council’s Chairman is complicit in hiding information about this, so what kind of oversight is this? Even FIFA looks like an institution of integrity compared to this.
“The Administrative Council’s Chairman is complicit in hiding information about this, so what kind of oversight is this?”It might take a while longer to save the EPO (meaning, saving it from the coup d’état), but one thing that won’t be saved is the UPC, at least right here in Britain. This ‘baby’ of Battistelli is being “knifed” (to use the proverb) before it’s even born.
“Following Brexit,” said IP Magazine, “the EPLIT has urged the government to take the necessary steps in ratifying the UPC Agreement” (EPLIT is just a bunch of self-serving parasites and this article, which is behind a paywall, fails to say that EPLIT overlaps Team UPC, i.e. those who stand to benefit from their own antidemocratic creation).
“Even FIFA looks like an institution of integrity compared to this.”To quote the article: “Following the UK’s June ‘Brexit’ vote, the European Patent Litigation Association (EPLIT) has urged the country’s government to take the necessary steps in ratifying the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement ‘as soon as possible’.”
Once again they are showing their true colours and utter disdain for democracy or law for and by the people. This is a theft of democracy; they’re trying to steal democracy in order to increase their profits. They’re not even hiding it anymore.
“A longtime pro-UPC blog finally admits that UPC is in very serious trouble.”Truth be told, the UPC is dying, hence its constructors are rather nervous. They’ve tried to write the law behind closed doors for a number of years and it all goes down in flames this past month. Cronyism is self-defeating in this case.
A longtime pro-UPC blog finally admits that UPC is in very serious trouble. Earlier today it published “Brexit vote: ‘Prepared path to Unitary Patent system might not exist anymore’” [via]
To quote a portion: “Can the Unitary Patent system still enter into force? Is it attractive without the UK or will companies rather stick with the established patent system as in force right now? According to Dr. Axel Walz, co-founder of the IP Dispute Resolution Forum (IPDR) in Munich, these topics have been discussed a lot among German colleagues after the UK vote of 23 June 2016 to leave the European Union. In an interview with Kluwer IP Law Walz said he thinks it is ‘at least doubtful’ whether EU law allows for the establishment of a Unitary Patent system with the inclusion of a non-EU-member.”
Henrion wrote about the above that “European companies are still protected from the harmful effects of UPC specialized patent court and patent trolls…”
Well, we need to ensure it stays that way.
Regarding the UPC and EPO, one person wrote at IP Kat:
May i suggest that someone might like to check what the EPO management’s line on all this is? Rumour had it that top management may be preparing for a delay in the EU patent with consequences for other projects/roadmaps. That may be an indicator of what is going to happen. The EPO won’t dictate matters but will be reliant and perhaps well informed.
Well, the UPC is increasingly being recognised as a dead end by the legal community/profession, as we showed here before. A day or two ago two more articles were published on this matter. One was titled “Is Brexit an IP Exit?” It said: “The Unitary Patent, which has been moving towards approval, provides for a single patent which can be granted for all EU-member countries, with a single Unified Patent Court for enforcement throughout the EU. Prior to the Brexit vote, it was widely expected that the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court would be implemented by mid-2017. However, it is likely that the uncertainty created by the Brexit vote will delay this implementation date. Moreover, many commentators believe that the U.K. is unlikely to be allowed to participate in the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court after it leaves the EU, as it would require the EU to provide the U.K. with a benefit without its corresponding EU obligations.”
“Rumour had it that top management may be preparing for a delay in the EU patent with consequences for other projects/roadmaps.”
–AnonymousAnother new article about this was titled “Brexit Prompts IP Uncertainty for US Portfolios” and it said that “[s]hort-term, the exit will have little to no effect on patents. The UK is a signatory to the European Patent Convention of 1973. As such, its patent system is governed by the European Patent Office (EPO). The EPC is a treaty separate from the EU. Indeed, countries such as Albania, Norway and Switzerland are not members of the EU, but are member states of the EPO. Similarly, it is anticipated that the UK will remain a member state of the EPO, and UK patents and process will still be governed by the EPC.
“That said, the EU was expected to launch the so-called Unitary European patent system and a Unified Patent Court (UPC) to resolve issues related to the Unitary Patent. Under this new unitary patent system, a single EU patent would issue from the EPO, offering patent protection throughout the entire EU. This contrasts with the current EPO system, under which the EPO performs a centralized examination and then returns the application to the individual national patent offices, which then issue their own national patent, conferring their respective bundles of patent rights. It was anticipated that the EPC would receive sufficient ratification signatures to come into effect sometime in 2017.
“You want only justification for the existence of the UPC.”
–Anonymous“However, the terms of the EPC agreement require UK ratification of the agreement in order to come into effect. If the UK is outside of the EU, it is reasonably anticipated that that launch of the Unitary Patent and the UPC may be delayed. We are waiting to hear from the respective EPC negotiators what specific effect the formal withdrawal will have. For example, the agreement may be altered to remove the requirement of the UK accession, and proceed with another country as one of the three required signatories. Alternatively, and depending on how other bi and multilateral negotiations progress, it is also possible that the UK might be permitted to join the unitary patent system without being a member of the EU. Accordingly, due to the uncertain future of the unitary patent system, clients planning to take advantage of that system should reevaluate their future filing strategies.”
Going back to IP Kat, one person wrote in a tongue-in-cheek fashion: “You want only justification for the existence of the UPC. You are a true European. President Juncker will add you to his Christmas card list.”
Another person was sort of faking (wishful thinking) a statement of UPC agenda and someone wrote that “UPC will create a single point of failure for software patents in Europe,” demonstrating that not only patent lawyers ‘in the know’ are involved in this discussion at this stage. Responding to “they DO represent all of British industry” (about a bunch of patent maximalists) the person said: “Sorry, my company was not part of it. The UPC will create a single point of failure for software patents in Europe, and those patent crooks can hardly deny that. In fact, we should go in web demonstration mode against the UPC like my company did for the past failed software patent directive.”
“…we should go in web demonstration mode against the UPC like my company did for the past failed software patent directive.”
–AnonymousNotice the part which says “we should go in web demonstration mode against the UPC like my company did for the past failed software patent directive.” Is it 2005 all over again? Will it ever be?
An anonymous commenter said: “What are you on about? It isn’t clear to me whether you want or don’t want software patents. I wouldn’t want you representing me…”
Well, clearly not a software developer this last comment… no software developer that I know ever wanted or defended software patents. The more software professionals get involved in this debate (over UPC) at this stage, the better. Battering of what remains of the UPC will help ensure it’s nailed inside a coffin for good; no more renames and embellishing (for marketing to new European politicians who are clueless on these matters). █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA