04.09.17
Lying Has Become the Norm When It Comes to the Unitary Patent (UPC)
Battistelli’s EPO and litigation firms resort to lies, distortions and outright bullying of critics
Summary: Response to the latest lies and half-truths that are being disseminated by a bunch of litigation businesses aided by Battistelli and his henchmen (or henchwomen, like Margot Fröhlinger)
TECHRIGHTS is anything but new to the UPC plans, which were known as all sorts of other things over the years (“harmonisation”, “EU Patent” etc.) and people can find articles on the subject going nearly a decade back. We are on pretty solid ground when it comes to the subject and we can easily spot lies, then report them in public. Not many other sites are both capable and willing to do this. We are neither obsessed, nor do we respond in vain. It has become very apparent that Techrights has become the #1 enemy of Team UPC (a conspiracy of few law firms looking to make a lot of money from the UPC and thus lobbying for it at huge private expense). This post is an assorted rebuttal to some of the latest lies, as well as observations made by various people who prefer to remain anonymous.
UK-IPO Distortions
The other day someone asked: “Did the UKIPO really say that the UK government was fully on track with regard to the UPC? Can’t find it.”
“We are on pretty solid ground when it comes to the subject and we can easily spot lies, then report them in public.”We wrote about that the other day, after we had spotted something rather dodgy at Managing IP.
We suppose that it’s possible someone said something on the phone, but it’s definitely not an official statement. Yet they paint is as official policy, just like they framed a 5% vote at 1:30 AM as something very official (more on that later, for this nonsense is still being repeated by Team UPC). Lies by omission have become a common strategy among Team UPC, which means we must always dig deeper and fact-check everything they say. Remember these highly misleading claims about Spain back in March. How can they get away with that?
“Allusions” and “Omissions” is what someone we spoke to called it. This person too recognises that Team UPC is being rather disingenuous. “Great way of communicating with the world,” this person sarcastically dubbed it, but they are desperate, no doubt, albeit it’s no excuse for this strategy, which clearly involves misleading potential clients.
“Is this the new normal?”
Well, apparently so.
“Did the UKIPO really say that the UK government was fully on track with regard to the UPC? Can’t find it.”
–AnonymousWe have stressed this repeatedly in this site and elsewhere: nothing that Team UPC says should be taken seriously (without a barrel of salt).
As one person put it the other day: “Quite frankly, the opinion of this author whose firm is heavily invested in the UPC is as biased and thus irrelevant as that of the other UPC proponents. They are all in vain trying to cherrypick from the apparent mess something to suit their needs and further their agenda. Whether it’s Tilmann, Mooney, Hoyng or now Mr Smyth.”
“Yes,” somebody later told us, “they all have a vested interest in this succeeding…”
But at what cost?
What we now have is an unprecedented mess, wherein lawyers can be assumed liars (at least about the UPC) and customers are habitually being misled. Many of them don’t even realise this. In the mean time, business are being lied about, not just to. The UPC is definitely not desirable to us who create things (e.g. software), yet patent lawyers tell the world, politicians included, that businesses want the UPC. They don’t. They don’t need patents in other countries if at all. Some have signed a petition to clarify this and a group representing SMEs condemned claims that UPC is desirable to SMEs. AstroTurfing like the EPO now?
“They are all in vain trying to cherrypick from the apparent mess something to suit their needs and further their agenda. Whether it’s Tilmann, Mooney, Hoyng or now Mr Smyth.”
–AnonymousYesterday someone anonymous wrote: “Even in-house lawyers (not patent attorneys, but the other kind, who can call themselves ‘patent attorneys’ for no sensible reason I can think of) are planning to risk their employers’ assets by taking the unitary patent route. In regards to the ‘assertion’ “How numerous are likely to be CJEU referrals by the UPC anyway?”, was the same question asked by Smythe et al when the SPC regulation was drafted?”
Only a fools would put any eggs in the UPC basket, as it's a sinking ship.
EPO Distortions
Last night we found this new article titled ‘Europe’s unitary patent system will boost Korean firms’ (a blatant lie right there in the headline).
We can’t help but speculate; Did Battistelli’s hired PR firm pay for these lies to be printed, or did Team UPC pay for these lies to be spread in Korea? Who knows… all we know is, “Margot Froehlinger, the principal director for unitary patent, European and international legal affairs at the European Patent Office ECCK” managed to seed these lies in yet another continent’s press (maybe there is similar coverage in Hangul). She has become Battistelli’s most prominent mouthpiece on UPC matters, as we noted here before [1, 2, 3]. Irrespective of Margot Fröhlinger, we have spotted yet more self-serving nonsense printed as though it was factual.
Marks & Clerk Distortions
“Even in-house lawyers (not patent attorneys, but the other kind, who can call themselves ‘patent attorneys’ for no sensible reason I can think of) are planning to risk their employers’ assets by taking the unitary patent route.”
–AnonymousWatch this new puff piece/marketing disguised as an article in the Scottish Legal. The headline says nothing about it being an advertisement for Marks & Clerk, which promotes software patents in Europe and is regularly helping Battistelli’s agenda. Further down in this ‘article’, which parrots EPO talking points, it’s made apparent that it’s not from a journalist but from “Tim Hargreaves, chartered (UK) and European patent attorney, and partner, at Marks & Clerk’s Edinburgh office…”
His colleague is meanwhile lobbying for the UPC. The first sentence of this new ‘article’ of hers (marketing by Karen Fraser from Marks & Clerk) is an utter lie. It repeats the above-mentioned lie/fabrication:
Following the UK Government’s announcement that it will ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement, the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) are expected to go live in December 2017, subject also to ratification of the UPC Agreement by Germany. Applicants will then have a choice between obtaining the “traditional” bundle of national patents that has always been available under the European Patent Convention (EPC), and a unitary patent on the basis of European patent applications granted by the European Patent Office. This applies to all newly filed European patent applications and to currently pending European patent applications, as long as they are granted after unitary patents become available and as long as they currently designate all participating states.
That’s a gross representation of what is actually happening. Francisco Moreno said: “Useful information if the go-live date is December 2017 or later. Waste of time if this unitary patent system never becomes available…”
“Waste of time if this unitary patent system never becomes available…”
–Francisco MorenoBased on where it stands in the UK (which the above article is about), it’s not going anywhere, hence it is, as Francisco Moreno puts it, “waste of time” (and money, which firms like Marks & Clerk would pocket after they gave misleading/poor advice).
British Special Interests
Remember that firms like Marks & Clerk or Bristows are trying to write the very law that would govern them (if they succeeded at this mass manipulation campaign that is still ongoing). The UPC “is just a theory and pipe dream at this stage,” I told this former ‘Kat’ (David Pearce), “but lawyers lie. That’s what they’re paid for.”
“UK courts are thorough and generally get it right. A good proportion of asserted patent are invalid in some way.”
–David Pearce“Obviously,” he said in relation to another thing, noting that those lobbying for the UPC are “mainly big litigation firms who have something to gain.”
Like IAM and its funding sources, which include the EPO’s PR firm that paid IAM for pro-UPC events?
On another occasion, David Pearce responded to IAM and Erick Robinson, after they had said that “unlike Germany or China, the UK invalidates patents like they are going out of style. Sort of like the US.”
“Not a very fair assessment,” he said. “UK courts are thorough and generally get it right. A good proportion of asserted patent are invalid in some way.”
“Like IAM and its funding sources, which include the EPO’s PR firm that paid IAM for pro-UPC events?”Later today we are going to write about UK courts ruling in favour of a patent troll — a subject already covered here the other day. It would have been far worse if UPC was in effect.
German Special Interests
Postponed again (as always) is the UPC ratification process in Germany. It’s in a limbo. The UK is not ratifying, hence (as expected) the Germans have no point ratifying either. The crucial point is, the UK cannot ratify, or cannot stay in the UPC after leaving the EU. But UPC hopefuls try to spin that with “Postponed is not abandoned – German proverb.”
“The UK is not ratifying, hence (as expected) the Germans have no point ratifying either.”Christopher Weber and Alexander Esslinger are still fantasising, saying that “[t]he process of formal ratification of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement by the UK is unlikely to be completed until mid-July,” citing Team UPC. So once again they are pushing back the dates. Not too long ago they pushed back as far as 2018. They must have realised by now that even believing their own lies would be rather unreasonable.
Bristows, in the meantime, repeats the old lies about Germany (the magnitude of the distortion is a must see). Bristows’ Richard Pinckney wrote the other day [via] that “the laws authorising Germany to ratify the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement and to amend the national patent law have been approved by the Bundestag (parliament) and the Bundesrat (Federal Council), the draft law (bill 18/11238) to enable Germany to ratify the UPC’s Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) is at an earlier stage.”
“They must have realised by now that even believing their own lies would be rather unreasonable.”Did he mention that only about 5% voted? No? Not convenient a fact? How much longer will they carry on with these fantasies? Nick Kounoupias, a “UK solicitor and IP expert” by his own description, published this article titled “Was it a dream?”
“UK patents will remain unaffected,” he explained, “and US based businesses and individuals owning UK patents will still be able to enforce UK patents within the borders of the UK. However, overseas businesses operating within the UK could still obtain unitary patents and deal with the new UPC but only for use outside the UK.”
“As we see it, the UPC is a dead — or at best dying — project, but those who counted so much on it succeeding refuse to see it and try to blind others too.”That’s a loaded statement which assumes that the UPC will somehow become a reality, with or without the UK participating. “Patent law has not yet been harmonized across the EU,” Benjamin Henrion wrote, “so there should be little change to the present position…”
As we see it, the UPC is a dead — or at best dying — project, but those who counted so much on it succeeding refuse to see it and try to blind others too. They still believe they can somehow salvage this thing by gross distortion while the EPO goes down in flames. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
FIAR Radio said,
April 9, 2017 at 6:15 am
“nothing that Team UPC says should be taken seriously (without a barrel of salt)” I lol’d. EPO makes me salty as well.