Bonum Certa Men Certa

Corporate (Wall Street) Media Agrees That Brexit Dooms the Unitary Patent (UPC)

This is what the EPO said in 2015 (every year the UPC is "ready" or "about to start")...

Benoît Battistelli quote



Summary: The nonstop lies or the fake news about the UPC starting "real soon now" don't quite pass a reality check or a basic assessment based on fundamental concepts, such as the UPC's facilitation of subordination (to Europe) in the United Kingdom

THERESA May may indeed have just killed the UPC, based on her historic speech which was delivered earlier this week. We already published a couple of articles about it and this one person drew our attention to a a new article by Peter Leung from Bloomberg BNA. "U.K.’s ‘Hard Brexit’ Plans May Undermine Patent Court" says the headline and here is the opening part with a succinct explanation:





The U.K.’s plan to join the proposed Europe-wide patent court could run into conflict with Prime Minister Theresa May’s desire to leave the jurisdiction of the European Union’s highest court.

May’s Jan. 17 speech promised to “bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain.”

However, decisions by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) will be binding on the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

May’s speech highlights the fact that the fate of the UPC is closely intertwined with the complex negotiations over the U.K.’s withdrawal from the EU.

In November, the U.K. announced that it would ratify the UPC agreement even though it will leave the EU. The new patent court is expected to start operations in 2017 and will have jurisdiction over a new unified patent right to have effect in most of Europe.

“The decision to proceed with ratification should not be seen as pre-empting the U.K.’s objectives or position in the forthcoming negotiations with the EU,” the U.K. Intellectual Property Office told Bloomberg BNA in an emailed statement.


The above, for a change, involved some fact-checking. Many publications these days, especially in the area of patents (or IP, which would mean also trademarks, copyrights etc.), are used/exploited/hijacked by Team UPC and/or the patent microcosm to promote the UPC based on jingoistic lies. They do the same thing to high-profile blogs. We have grown tired of that and recently adopted the label "fake news" in rebutting that noise.

"We need a strike in the UK against the Unitary Patent," Benjamin Henrion wrote this week, as there is threat of "software patents via the backdoor" (as we covered here before).

"Shall the need arise," I told him, we can set up a petition and call for protests, but "for now they're just waffling over a dead UPC..."

There are attempts to fool or to shame the system into the will of UPC hopefuls. Those who are sober realists are being painted as having embraced a more extreme view. Take this new blog post for instance. "Ultimately," it says, "whether the argument is accepted by the government and argued for strongly will depend not on its detailed, technical merits but whether it is acceptable to enough Tory MPs and right-wing newspapers. There are plenty of other areas of international trade where similar arguments are being raised. For example, representatives of the Law Society and English Bar made similar points about the mutual recognition of court judgments in the UK and EU, post-Brexit, when they gave oral evidence to the House of Lords’ Justice Sub-Committee recently."

The matter of fact is, businesses in the UK -- or Europe as a whole for that matter -- do not want the UPC (they're being talked about -- not for -- by the patent microcosm). Most of them don’t even know what the heck it stands for and what on Earth the UPC is or does. Those who think they know what the UPC would do often base it on misinformation, as they have been lied to by the patent microcosm (see this week's example of fake news in ‘Financial Director’).

The "Unitary Patent," says Gérald Sédrati-Dinet this week, "after 6 years, arguments I've raised on http://unitary-patent.eu are still valid" (links to some other fake news).

Remember he was threatened by the EPO, just like us. These people are bullying dissenting voices; they want to silence UPC antagonists.

It turns out that there is yet another barrier to the UPC, other than Brexit and Spain's persistent refusal to accept the UPC. According to this tweet, which links to a new article in Polish, "Poland [is] yet not ready to join European Unitary Patent System | WTS Rzecznicy Patentowi @MSZ_RP @PremierRP http://wtspatent.pl/aktualnosci/patent-europejski-ze-skutkiem-jednolitym/"

"And if not dead," asks the following comment, "is the UPP mortally wounded?"

Well it is dead unless it somehow gets resurrected, which is almost an impossibility in nature, unless one has strong religious beliefs (like a lot of the UPC echo chamber, where people just preach to their choir and say to each other what they want to hear). The UPC is dead/dying. But nobody wants to say it. Here is the full comment:

TM has now ruled out the CJEU having "direct" legal authority in the UK. Does this mean that the unitary patent project has just been killed (despite the UK, rather bizarrely, having previously indicated its willingness to proceed)?

And if not dead, is the UPP mortally wounded? It is now crystal-clear that the UK will no longer be an EU Member State, most likely by 2019. But the current wording of the UPC Agreement and the UP Regulations rather heavily rely upon all "Participating" Member States being EU Members. This affects pretty much every founding principle of the UPP, including issues such as unitary effect / character, legal personality of the UPC and scope / enforcement of decisions of the UPC... and there are no signs yet of any plans to "fix" those problems.

Based upon current signs, it seems that the political will is to press on regardless. But placing such a huge gamble on the system being able to survive Brexit seems absurd. The UK may feel that it will gain influence by getting the UPC up and running before Brexit... but it will then become a hostage to fortune with regard to the inevitable challenge at the CJEU, alleging non-compliance of the UPP with EU law. At that point, the UK will have no representation at the CJEU. So what will the UK then do if the EU Member States decide to kick out the non-EU country in order to preserve the system?


Here is another (longer) comment on the subject, latched just yesterday onto an article from 3 years ago:

Darren: I have an off-the-wall question for you. Can a "unitary" European Patent have unitary effect in a "Participating Member State" (PMS) that has not ratified the UPCA?

I had always presumed that the answer is a clear "no". However, the rather loose wording used in Reg. 1257/2012 has given me pause for thought. Let me explain why.

Art. 2(a) of Reg. 1257/2012 defines a "PMS" essentially as an EU MS that participates in Enhanced Cooperation under Decision 2011/167/EU (or subsequent decision) in connection with unitary patents. That definition of PMSs clearly includes countries that have not ratified the UPCA.

So this begs the question of whether Reg. 1257/2012 limits the unitary effect of an EPUE to only certain PMSs.

Art. 5(2) is one example of a provision of Reg. 1257/2012 that refers to PMSs in which an EPUE has unitary effect. This of course implies that there can be PMSs in which the EPUE does not have unitary effect... a concept that is confirmed by the 2nd paragraph of Art. 18(2).

However, what is meant in Art. 18(2) by "participating Member States in which the Unified Patent Court has exclusive jurisdiction with regard to European patents with unitary effect"? The UPCA does not talk about "exclusive jurisdiction", but rather "exclusive competence". Further, the "exclusive competence", as defined in Art. 32 UPCA does not have any geographical limits. (The opposite is true for the territorial scope of the decisions of the UPC, as defined by Art. 34 UPCA... but the question of where a decision has effect is completely separate from the question of where a patent has effect.)

Of course, this is where Art. 17(2) or Art. 18(5) of Reg. 1257/2012 could help. Those provisions require PMSs to update the Commission with progress made in updating national laws to ensure no "double" (unitary / national) protection. That is, those countries that do not notify the Commission under Art. 17(2) or 18(5) might be deemed to be PMSs in which there can be no unitary effect.

However, it seems absurd to interpret the territorial effect of an EU Regulation (which, of course, has direct effect regardless of national implementation) by reference to actions taken, or not taken, under national law.

Indeed, if ratification of the UPCA were a prerequisite to an EPUE having unitary effect in a PMS, then why does Reg. 1257/2012 not explicitly say so? After all, ratification progress is mentioned in Art. 18(3)... but with no apparent connection to Art. 18(2).

Also, what are we to make of the mis-match between "exclusive jurisdiction" in Reg. 1257/2012 and "exclusive competence" in the UPCA (bearing in mind the small areas of retained competence of the national courts, as well as the shared competence during the transitional period)?

If we can answer all of the above points, then I suspect that the answer to your original question will also emerge. Indeed, there will likely be a way found for the UPC and national courts to clearly distinguish between EPC Contracting States that are "ratified" PMSs, "non-ratified" PMSs, non-PMS EU MSs and non-EU MSs. But whether that distinction will survive Brexit is another question entirely...


People who are actually in this profession know deep inside that the UPC is unlikely to happen (certainty true in the UK). But what they say publicly is just a futile attempt to persuade young and inexperienced (especially in this area) politicians like Jo Johnson. We oughtn't let them get away with the spreading of falsehoods.

Recent Techrights' Posts

Linux and the Freedom Paradox
Linux is losing freedom if some external actors who only use Microsoft tools for development wrest control
Watch the FSF Party Live (via Livestream)
It's in WebM format, which is widely supported by now
Advocacy of Software Freedom Changed, LUGs Became Less Relevant
The way we see it, support groups like LUGs sort of outlived their usefulness when it became easier to install GNU/Linux
For the Second Time in a Few Weeks Microsoft Lunduke Makes False Accusations Against Senior Red Hat Staff to Incite a Despicable 'Troll Army'
Nothing that Microsoft Lunduke claims or says can be trusted
Compromised by NVIDIA Proprietary Library
Meanwhile in Boston there are "[r]oundtable talk with FSF volunteers (both in-person and online)"
How Software Patents Were Viewed or Their General Status Changed Over Time
A rough summary
 
The Free Software Foundation's Livestream Has Ended, Video/s Might be Online Next
I've asked whether they'll upload video of some of the event; I still wait for an answer
The Register MS Does Not Know the Difference Between Microsoft GitHub and GitLab
At the time of writing (October 5) the article from "Thu 2 Oct 2025" remains uncorrected
"Bullshit Generators" (What RMS Calls LLMs) and Fake Images Already Target the FSF
Why does Google News promote fake articles about the FSF while omitting all the real ones?
Software Patents as a Bubble
Don't invest resources in hype; if you detect a bubble, run away from it
Links 05/10/2025: Political Leftovers, Climate Change, and Security Incidents
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, October 04, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, October 04, 2025
When Microsoft "Integrates" Something With "AI" It Means It's Losing Money and Is Generally Hopeless
how did Bing fare after 36 months of LLM slop being hyped up as "replacement" for search?
Most Certificates Don't Improve Security, They Mostly Increase Downtime (for No Good Reason)
The 'Gemini sites' (capsules) are a growing force
The statCounter Site Has Data Integrity Problems
Maybe we'll get back to statCounter when its data becomes more "stable" again
10 Ways to Combat Software Patents
software patents are loathed also by proprietary software developers
"Just a Little Bit of Meat..."
Free software "absolutism" is not a radical stance, more so if the only "radical" belief the user possesses is that he or she must be in control of his or her software, and by extension his or her computer
Red Hat is Ignoring the Free Software Community, It's a "Fortune 1000" Vendor
Red Hat's blog also participates a lot in promoting of Wall Street's latest pump-and-dump "AI" scheme
Free Software Foundation Party Has Begun
We shall be focusing a lot on software patents today
Former Head of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Lina Khan Knows Whatever Microsoft Touches Will Die
Just like Skype (as recently as months ago) [...] When Microsoft grabs things, or when it buys things, it almost never ends well
Slopwatch: Fake Articles About LibreOffice in Austria and Wine 10.16
very short
Links 04/10/2025: "attempted Coup" Noted in Facebook, Russia Kills Journalists via Drones
Links for the day
Gemini Links 04/10/2025: Anesthesia and Baudpunk
Links for the day
Links 04/10/2025: "Privacy Harm Is Harm", Criticism Outlawed in US
Links for the day
Garmin Uses Linux for Some of the Garmin Products, Now It's Sued by Strava Using Software Patents
Software patents should never have been granted in the first place
Richard Stallman Will Give a Talk in Sweden in 6 Days
Dr. Stallman, despite his battle with cancer is still alive and mentally sharp
FSF Turns 40
We'll be focusing on patent-related topics this weekend
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, October 03, 2025
IRC logs for Friday, October 03, 2025
Gemini Links 04/10/2025: Distro Hopping and "Part Time"
Links for the day
We Are Turning 19 in One Month, FSF Turns 40 in 3 Hours (CET)
For our anniversary next month we still have no concrete plans
Patent Docs (or PatentDocs) Learned the Wrong Lessons From the Death of TypePad
Had they gone ahead with an SSG, they'd become a lot more future-proof
USPTO Patent Bubble Already Imploding, After Decades of Artificial Inflation, Entire Offices Close for Good
we can deduce that financial pressures (lack of "demand" for monopolies) play a role
TikTok is Not Harmless (Being CheeTok in the US Will Advance Orange Agenda)
Social control media isn't "fun and games"; it's a digital weapon that lets hostile groups or nations infiltrate others, then turn them against themselves
Andy Farnell and Helen Plews Explain What "Modern" Tech Does to Old People
Imposing terrible tech "religion" on people is not helping them
Tomorrow the Free Software Foundation (FSF) Turns 40 and Its Web Site is Still Slow Due to DDoS by LLM Slop Bots
For an advocacy group, uptime is important (for its message to remain accessible)
Slopwatch: Google News as a Firehose of LLM Slop About "Linux"
Google News is really bad
Datamation, Where I Used to Publish Articles, Appears to Have Been Sold to TechnologyAdvice Only to Become a Slopfarm
I'd prefer to not associate with that site anymore
Links 03/10/2025: "NPR’s Economics Lessons Come With Neoliberal Spin" and Canada Post at Risk
Links for the day
Gemini Links 03/10/2025: Panic Attacks and Food Adulteration
Links for the day
Links 03/10/2025: Lawyers Caught Using LLM Slop Explain Why They Did It, LibreSSL 4.1.1 and 4.0.1 Released
Links for the day
FSF Board Grew 50% Since Last Year, Has New President, Turns 40 in Two Days
It's a good move for the FSF and - by extension - for software freedom
Links 03/10/2025: Conflicts, Death of TypePad, and TikTok/CheeTok Gives a Boost to Far Right Groups in Europe
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, October 02, 2025
IRC logs for Thursday, October 02, 2025
Slopwatch: Linux Journal, Google News, and LinuxSecurity
They carry on polluting the Web with fake articles
Gemini Links 02/10/2025: Kubernetes With FreeBSD and robots.txt
Links for the day