LAST NIGHT we finally saw the EPO Patent Information Conference (EPOPIC) summary (warning: epo.org link), focusing as usual on António Campinos (that old Battistelli tradition of promoting his own brand and sticking his name in every page in the Web site). Prior to that we had written about the third day (yesterday), second day and the first day of the event.
"...courts would reject these patents. Unless... the EPO can replace the courts themselves. They hope to accomplish this with the UPC."The event's summary is a tad revealing. It starts by obsessing about the place/venue and the Belgian officials there. Is the Office and/or the President paying back for votes/support (the example of Belgian favours was mentioned yesterday)? It would be one heck of a way for the European Patent Office (EPO) to return favours to Brussels (lots of money flowing this way, with politicians in attendance). Battistelli was sending millions of the EPO's euros (Office money) to his other employer only months ago (European Inventor Award held in Battistelli's own theatre in Saint-Germain-en-Laye after several years elsewhere in France), so why not keep up this old tradition? The summary then mentions software patents in Europe, for example: "The training sessions gave delegates practical advice on a number of subjects including search strategies, understanding patent families, and protection beyond the expiry of a patent after 20 years. The presentations and discussions enabled participants to track key trends and debate the issues that may impact the future. Artificial intelligence, blockchain, software-related inventions, patent analytics, and linked open data were among the topics covered."
"Artificial intelligence, blockchain, software-related inventions," it says. Never mind if these are all software patents, marketed a little differently. But worry not; courts would reject these patents. Unless... the EPO can replace the courts themselves. They hope to accomplish this with the UPC.
"Watching/reading their coverage regarding UPC is like watching CNN for Trump coverage or watching Fox News for Obama coverage."Yesterday we saw Osborne Clarke's Arty Rajendra (mentioned here over a week ago and back in September) persisting with the two UPC lies. She did so in corporate media quite recently and now there's Lexology coverage (we presume paid for, by the writer's employer, not by the publisher). Lexology is like a marketing hub of law firms and pertinent lawyers. It's disguised as a news site and it's syndicated as such, accordingly (albeit not suitably).
Yesterday we also saw Max Walters amplifying Team UPC (yet again). Law Gazette's coverage has lately been boosting talking points from the litigation giants. Weeks ago we took note of Walters' misleading article, which preceded by a few days a parliamentary session stacked by Team UPC. They're all in this together, pushing the UPC lies, pretending this thing is actually desirable, maybe because of the name/marketing ("unitary" and "unified"). This latest article is based on misguided (or worse -- intentionally dishonest) word from the minister who ratified UPCA as a bizarre self-serving stunt on a day of propaganda ("IP Day"). Gyimah is quoted as follows:
Sam Gyimah said the government was ‘determined to make sure it works’ and that it recognises both the value that the UK would offer the UPC and vice versa.
Gyimah was appearing before the House of Lords’ EU Justice Sub-Committee which has been taking evidence over the past few weeks on intellectual property rights after Brexit.
The committee questioned Gyimah on whether the government is sufficiently committed to ensuring the UK remained in the UPC. Peers referenced quotes from IP barrister Daniel Alexander who had earlier told the committee that despite political uncertainty on whether the UK can remain in the system one view is to say ‘where there’s a will there’s a way.’