08.01.17
90% of WIPR Readers Give Up Hope on Unitary Patent (UPC) in the UK, But Team UPC Keeps Lying About It
Summary: UPC boosters carry on promoting the illusion of UPC inevitability (even in the UK), in clear defiance of common sense and basic professional integrity
SURVEYS from WIPR are not everything to go by (they typically involve people in the patent ‘industry’), even though in the past they showed anything but UPC optimism. The latest survey apparently attracted the “second highest number of responses ever for a WIPR survey,” but we’ll come to that in a moment.
The UPC is not desirable to the UK. Firms in the UK (not law firms but firms that actually make things) object to it.
“The UPC is not desirable to the UK. Firms in the UK (not law firms but firms that actually make things) object to it.”In relation to the article mentioned on Monday (behind a paywall), one EPO insider wrote that: “Apparently Mr Hufschmid is one of the EPO Inventors awarded in Venice this year!”
Battistelli, whose name is apparently Italian, chose Italy for his latest PR charade. Will Italy also take Britain’s place? Many Brits seems to think so. Even Brits who are in the patent/litigation ‘industry’ and would prefer to believe otherwise.
Translations would, in the meantime, also be appreciated for this new article in German (it has just mentioned the good chances of Antonio Campinos as the next EPO President, bringing it under “EU” umbrella — like the EUIPO Campinos is from — in the form of UPC).
“…Campinos is already heading the rebranded (for EU) EUIPO and he is from a southern European country, more like Battistelli.”“Campinos is spoken of as worse,” one person noted (Campinos compared to Battistelli). Another added, “if humanly possible.”
Campinos is Portuguese and we wrote many articles about him and his immunity (scandal from Portugal).
Either way, Campinos is already heading the rebranded (for EU) EUIPO and he is from a southern European country, more like Battistelli.
Italy might soon be chosen as a substitute for the UK in the UPC, according to what mostly British patent practitioners believe. To quote this latest from WIPR:
Nearly 90% of WIPR readers believe that Milan would be a good fit for the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) central division seat should it be moved from London, according to a recent survey.
The seat, which is due to hear cases on chemistry, including pharmaceuticals and human necessities, is expected to be based in London, but this has been thrown into doubt following the Brexit vote.
These are the five top reasons that readers, who provided the second highest number of responses ever for a WIPR survey, think Milan would be a good replacement for London.
It certainly looks as though, based on various WIPR surveys (not just the above), there’s no faith in the UK ever entering the UPC. But Kingsley Egbuonu, living in another parallel universe in London and working for the pro-UPC Managing IP (they have spent years promoting the UPC), does not mention what actually happened in the middle of July (Team UPC certainly noticed, but decided to mislead by omission) and pretends all is fine for the UPC in the UK. Watch yesterday’s “progress [sic] report” from him (the part below is not behind paywall):
UK consents to UPC Agreement (UPCA) Protocol and will resume legislative procedure for UPCA ratification in the autumn, UPC IT team seeks user input, and Germany’s legislative steps for ratification criticised
UK consents to UPCA Protocol
The UK has deposited its instrument of acceptance to be bound by the UPCA Protocol. This Protocol allows parts of the UPCA which concern the court’s organisational structure, personnel and infrastructure to come into force early [...]
What a spectacular spin. And no mention about what happened in British politics 2 weeks ago? How come?
“Do they keep their head deep inside the sand or are they willfully lying, hoping that the lies can give the UPC some momentum?”Egbuonu wasn’t alone. Innofy’s weird “headline” that’s just a two-sentence statement was also released yesterday: “The Unitary Patent system is currently expected to start in the first quarter of 2018. Naturally, we will keep you updated as soon as any further news is released.”
Andrew Clarke sounds as deluded (maybe self-deluding) as Bristows.
Are they not paying attention to what has been happening? Do they keep their head deep inside the sand or are they willfully lying, hoping that the lies can give the UPC some momentum?
Currently, at the EPO, there is a growing crisis of governance and patent rules/scope. See one of the latest comments in IP Kat (from yesterday):
One of the aspects that have so far not been discussed is whether it would be legitimate for the Administrative Council to change the EPC with a retroactive effect: the change in the Rules is not to be applied to alle applications filed after the change, but to all applications and even patents pending before the EPO.
Normally, a change in law will not place a party in a worse situation. What has happened now is comparable by a parliament saying that all new cars should have safety belts, which not only would apply to newly sold cars, but also would apply to cars that have been sold so far and which are still driving on the roads. From now on, cars that are halted by the police and do not have safety belts will be removed from the road.
If this hypothetical car situation would become real, everybody would protest, even if it was felt that having obligatory safety belts was a good idea. Now, since it only affects a minimum number of companies/people apparently such a limitation of rights is gladfully accepted.
From my perspective, I would vote that the EPO (or the European Commission) would compensate holders of these kind of patents (and/or applicants that filed these patents before the change of law) would compensate for loss of patent right (and consequently loss of income).
A response to this said that “the vast majority of those cases will have been filed in the knowledge that patentability of products of biological processes was uncertain. They took that risk, and for a small amount of time (between the G decision and the EU notice) things looked good, but surely compensation should not be available in these circumstances.”
“The EPC itself is in a crisis and much of this causes the constitutional panic in Germany.”“To my mind,” added another comment, “this would have been an excellent topic of discussion at a Conference organised under Article 4a EPC. It seems like big legal issues like this where the AC is in danger of acting ultra vires would be the ideal subject for discussion.”
The EPC itself is in a crisis and much of this causes the constitutional panic in Germany.
We don’t believe that the UPC is going anywhere; neither do people who work in the field. But to some people (and their employer) it’s all about money, not truth or accuracy.
“We are very concerned that Team UPC — much like Team Battistelli — has become so detached from facts that it’s dangerous not only to itself but to everyone in the surrounding area.”The Philippines, a country with very few EPs, has a new example of this, courtesy of Shilpi Saxena Jr from Khurana and Khurana. Watch yesterday’s promotional puff piece; only days after a similar self-promotional piece about Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH). The truth of the matter is, the country is pretty irrelevant to the EPO, yet Battistelli used it in a desperate effort to make it seem like he’s “winning” (the Trump way).
We are very concerned that Team UPC — much like Team Battistelli — has become so detached from facts that it’s dangerous not only to itself but to everyone in the surrounding area. In the case of the UK, the British industry is greatly harmed by the likes of Bristows. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA