05.22.18
Gemini version available ♊︎France is Irrelevant to Whether or Not UPC Ever Becomes a Reality, Moving/Outsourcing de Facto Patent Examination to European Courts Managed in/Presided by France
The ‘Three Frenchmen’ of UPC
The UPC/EPO/EU plot, with Barnier as a longtime ‘activist’ for the EU-centric UPC, Battistelli as a saboteur of the EPO and especially the Boards of Appeal (which UPC would render obsolete), and Campinos as Battistelli’s succession choice (Campinos already works for an EU agency, EU-IPO)
Summary: Team UPC is still focusing on France as if it’s up for France to decide the fate of the UPC, which EPO insiders say Battistelli wants to be the chief of (the chief, it has already been decided, would have to be a Frenchman)
LONGTIME readers are already aware that EPO patent quality is getting worse, whereas it’s said to be improving at the USPTO or US courts. It’s no exaggeration to say that European patent courts will grapple with many bogus patents in the coming years. Cui bono? Patent lawyers. They bill for the trouble (at both ends). The UPC would vastly expand their scope of operations, damages and so on. This is why many patent law firms happily ‘enlist’ themselves to join what we call “Team UPC” — basically a cabal of patent maximalists who don’t mind smashing Europe’s economy if they can make a buck (or a euro) in the process. It’s actually Team UPC, aided by Battistelli, which came up with the UPCA, crafting the very same rules they’d be governed by (if they ever managed to pull this off). These rules are as ridiculous (overzealous) as one might expect.
“It’s actually Team UPC, aided by Battistelli, which came up with the UPCA, crafting the very same rules they’d be governed by (if they ever managed to pull this off).”Bristows LLP’s Vanessa Rieu wrote and then promoted some fluff about France (cross-posting it later, maybe for a fee, in sites of lawyers). We already mentioned this a few days ago because other Team UPC ‘activists’ had pushed this envelope as well, no matter if France ratified a long time ago and is in no way ‘the’ barrier to UPC. Germany isn’t ratifying and the UK, even if it ratified, cannot actually participate in the UPC. In other words, only 1 of 3 countries whose ratification is imperative (France that is) would be eager to see the thing kicked off; hardly surprising given the projected role of France and the role played by Frenchmen like Barnier, Battistelli and Campinos.
Meanwhile, Kluwer Patent Blog, a blog dominated by UPC propaganda which is often composed by Bristows (and ‘unwanted’ comments deleted by them as well), publishes this new reminder that bogus patents are worthless patents unless one can use these for blackmail alone (the patent trolls’ modus operandi), usually against the poor and weak — those unable to afford a court battle. “If you know your patent lacks novelty, you’d better not enforce it” was the title of this post from yesterday:
The Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15) recently handed down an interesting judgment (dated 6 February 2018) revoking a utility model and ordering the owner to pay the damages caused by having enforced it while knowing that it lacked novelty. According to Article 114 of the former Spanish Patent Act (equivalent to Article 104 of the Act now in force), when a patent or utility model is revoked, as a general rule, the revocation does not affect, inter alia, final judgments where infringement has been declared. However, there is an exception for cases where the owner had acted in bad faith.
What is interesting about this recent judgment is that it is one of the very few to date, if not the only one, in which the contours of this exception have been examined. The facts of the case can be summarised as follows:
In 2002, the owner of the utility model filed a patent infringement action against the company that brought the revocation action that led to the judgment of 6 February 2018 being discussed here. As a result, at second instance, on 6 April 2006 the Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15) handed down a judgment declaring the infringement and ordering the defendant to pay 532,109.85 Euros by way of damages.
Imagine thousands of such cases per year, including some affecting European companies well outside their juristriction with proceedings in a language foreign to them. Imagine patents being asserted against them, using legal documents in a foreign language, alluding to dubious patents granted in a hurry. This is the vision Battistelli and Team UPC have for Europe. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA