01.30.20

Enablers of Constitutional Violations and Unified Patent Court (Unitary Patent) Dreams

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Now judges are being co-opted as well (because bribing media and academia has not been sufficient)

Photo credit: Emma Longland (photograph of Robin Jacob in an IAM think tank)

Summary: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) lobby — or Team UPC — which managed to enlist a former judge (the one above), is riding the back of IAM, an EPO-funded propaganda arm that’s shameless about lying to people to keep those bribes coming

TOMORROW the European Patent Office (EPO) will kiss goodbye to the UPC. It’s finished. António Campinos knows it. Battistelli also knew that, but he hoped that Brexit would not happen.

“UPC was all along nothing but a Trojan horse for software patents in Europe, raids, trolls, and even worse things (it’s absolutely crazy that UPCA even got off the ground and earned a few ratifications!).”This happens to be one of the few and rare ‘upsides’ of Brexit. UPC was all along nothing but a Trojan horse for software patents in Europe, raids, trolls, and even worse things (it’s absolutely crazy that UPCA even got off the ground and earned a few ratifications!).

Yesterday in Mirage News someone published “Intellectual property and transition period” (of Brexit). “You can apply for a European patent through us or direct to the European Patent Office (EPO) to protect your patent in more than 30 countries in Europe,” it said, but many granted patents are rejected by courts! Now more than ever.

Here’s more:

The UK and EU have ratified the Withdrawal Agreement. This allows the UK to depart the EU on 31 January 2020 and for the transition period (1 February 2020 to 31 December 2020) to begin.

During this time, EU law will continue to operate as it does now in the UK. The Intellectual Property (IP) system will continue as it is until 31 December 2020.

There will be no disruption to IPO services or changes to the UK IP system during this transition period.
The IPO will convert almost 1.4 million EU trade marks and 700,000 EU designs to comparable UK rights at the end of the transition period. These will come into effect on 1 January 2021.

The arrangements in the IP section of the Withdrawal Agreement take effect at the end of the transition period. These arrangements provide legal certainty and protect the interests of rightsholders and users of the IP framework.

The Withdrawal Agreement ensures continued protection of existing EU-level IP rights in the UK after the end of the transition period.

This will ensure existing UK IP rights can be managed appropriately in line with existing domestic arrangements.

[...]

Patents

You can apply for a European patent through us or direct to the European Patent Office (EPO) to protect your patent in more than 30 countries in Europe, using the (non-EU) European Patent Convention (EPC).

As the EPO is not an EU agency, leaving the EU does not affect the current European patent system. Existing European patents covering the UK are also unaffected.

European patent attorneys based in the UK continue to be able to represent applicants before the EPO; see the news story on the EPO website.

“As the EPO is not an EU agency,” they said, “leaving the EU does not affect the current European patent system.”

The UPC is. It’s an EU system. And hence it’s untenable. The UK leaving the EU means that the whole UPCA is a piece of outdated and legally invalid junk. It’s toilet paper, however glorified (law firms spent much of their money on it, hoping for high RoI).

“The UK leaving the EU means that the whole UPCA is a piece of outdated and legally invalid junk. It’s toilet paper, however glorified (law firms spent much of their money on it, hoping for high RoI).”Coming yesterday from “City, University of London” was another new piece about Brexit and there’s a section about patents. It says that “the UK will participate in the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court system” as if the UK can participate (it cannot) and as if it already exists. Those are the two famous lies of Team UPC. These two lies are STILL being spread. Not only does the UPC lack legal validity; it doesn’t exist and no such thing will exist, so it is a loaded statement. It’s dead for many reasons, including Brexit (there are other reasons too).

Here’s the full section of the text:

Senior Lecturer and Intellectual Property and Trademark Law researcher, Dr Enrico Bonadio said:

“In the post-Brexit era, intellectual property (IP) law faces an uncertain future. The impact of Brexit on IP rights cannot be foreseen with certainty and depends on the outcome of negotiations and agreements made between the UK and the EU during the upcoming second phase of the negotiation. It is uncertain, for instance, if the UK will participate in the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court system, despite the UK’s ratification of the relevant agreement in April 2018. As far as EU trade marks and designs go, what appears certain is that EU trademarks and designs will no longer have effect in UK – with the British government creating (at the end of the transition period) a comparable UK trade mark for every registered trademark or design, without charging for it. The British government has also said it will not implement the EU Digital Single Market Directive, which leaves open the possibility the UK will diverge in the digital and copyright fields.”

As we noted the other day, IAM was about to use Robin Jacob for UPC propaganda. They had announced this upfront. This was the marketing strategy.

Emma Longland wrote about Robin Jacob’s words on Twitter, all this while attending an IAM event (patent maximalists’ think tank), sponsored by the EPO’s PR firm for UPC propaganda. These think tanks of patent trolls need to be called out if not shut down (if possible). They corrupt our democracy and this is in fact their business model.

As for Longland, the very fact that she’s attending says a lot about her (or her employer). She’s pushing CRISPR patents (her description in Twitter says “EP & UK Patent Attorney, HGF Ltd. Life Sciences esp CRISPR”), so basically patents on life and nature…

“As we noted the other day, IAM was about to use Robin Jacob for UPC propaganda. They had announced this upfront.”Have these people no sense of humility and shame?

This is what she wrote about the ‘main attraction’ — a judge turned de facto lobbyist of the patent ‘industry’. “Attending meeting about UPC on Thursday,” Longland wrote, “it’s still alive, they want it in Europe and I’m in charge of appointing judges; Sir Robin Jacobs, @IAM_magazine #PharmaBioIP – At The Bloomsbury Hotel”

Expensive hotel and expensive propaganda, spreading (again) the lie that UPC is alive. This wouldn’t be the first time he says that; he said that before and Team UPC was ever so delighted.

But no, there’s no UPC without the UK as they’d have to start all over again (rewriting, re-ratifying, dealing with several constitutional violations, EPO corruption etc.). “Also,” I responded to Longland, “when you say “they want it in Europe” by “they” you mean Team UPC i.e. litigators and trolls (or their lawyers). Everybody else would loudly opposed it (if they knew what it really was; most never heard of it)…”

“…there’s no UPC without the UK as they’d have to start all over again (rewriting, re-ratifying, dealing with several constitutional violations, EPO corruption etc.).”We don’t pick on Longland per se but on the person she mentions, Robin Jacob. We’re not alone either; even some attorneys see the ethical breach there…

Longland also tweeted: “Sir Robin Jacob – populism has been dictating the answers in the patent system, e.g. Prometheus and Myriad in US, and we haven’t been defending the Pharma patent system enough; keynote address, @IAM_magazine Pharma & Biotech IP event pic.twitter.com/dGCLE7V1yt – At The Bloomsbury Hotel”

An event funded by lawyers of “Pharma & Biotech” tells us that what 99% of people want and need is dumb, stupid and “populism”; we should really just do everything that’s dictated by the patent “barons”. After all, who cares about science, public interest etc. anyway? The ‘church’ of “Pharma patent system” — like the “free market” (i.e. deregulated oligarchy), should decide on everything…

This is very typical IAM, which later had to clarify, under pressure, that there’s a misunderstanding or misrepresentation (which IAM was happy to exploit). “Just to clarify,” IAM wrote, “he’s not a judge anymore!”

“An event funded by lawyers of “Pharma & Biotech” tells us that what 99% of people want and need is dumb, stupid and “populism”; we should really just do everything that’s dictated by the patent “barons”.”Oh, now you mention that? Having built hype to sell seats and propaganda?

“Revolving doors do tend to — well… — revolve,” I told him.

He’s “not a judge anymore!”

But he was.

And his decisions still bear much effect on the system.

Matteo Pes, an attorney who is occasionally critical of the UPC (we respect his sincerity), then wrote on Twitter: “Yes, but what you do/say after you get retired as public servant affects the perception of the people of what you did as public servant. I really don’t like those words…”

Judges for hire. Apply now… for think tanks.

It is obviously very bad when the general public gets the perception — nakedly proven — that judges may ‘monetise’ their authority later on, e.g. by receiving a pre-promised job from some oligarch looking to reward them for a decision (or systematic pattern of them). It’s bribery.

“It is obviously very bad when the general public gets the perception — nakedly proven — that judges may ‘monetise’ their authority later on, e.g. by receiving a pre-promised job from some oligarch looking to reward them for a decision (or systematic pattern of them). It’s bribery.”What’s pointed out above, with detailed description of what the judge did (photographs included), will hopefully be noticed by the FCC in Germany. This is exactly the kind of thing which makes the UPC unacceptable, not only constitutionally untenable. It’s like a system ‘bought’ by the industry or a mere section of it (the monopolists), aided by lawyers who are paid for it.

“Bundestag asked to submit comments on UPC complaint,” Benjamin Henrion noted, pointing to the latest “Update (27/01/2020)” from the famous complainant (who had worked for a Team UPC firm before he turned against it).

“EPO cannot be brought to court,” Henrion explained, and “this is like the Police violenting [sic] people and which cannot be brought to Court for maladministration…”

Here are latest three updates from the complainant in Germany:

Update (29/05/2019):

In its Opinion 1/17 of 30/04/2019 on the compatibility with Union law of the planned Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism (“ISDS mechanism”) in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (“CETA”), the CJEU (Full Court) once again confirms its requirements as to the protection of the principle of Union law autonomy in relation to international courts, cf. here.

Update (29/11/2019; 16/01/2020):

As a sidenote to recent events, between 24 and 26/11/2019 a delegation of the German Federal Constitutional Court visited the UK Supreme Court, discussing, inter alia, “the justiciability of issues relating to the separation of powers” (cf. the official press statement of 27/11/2019).

Update (27/01/2020):

In the constitutional complaint proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) with docket no.s 2 BvR 2480/10, 2 BvR 421/13, 2 BvR 786/15, 2 BvR 756/16 and 2 BvR 561/18, which deal with the compatibility of acts of the European Patent Office with the German Grundgesetz, the German Bundestag decided in its 115th session on 26/09/2019 to appoint a representative and to submit comments (cf. the Plenary Protocol of 26/09/2019, section 14033 C [German language] and the resolution of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Consumer Protection of 25/09/2019 [German language]).

According to the usual procedures, this suggests that the BVerfG has shortly before granted the German Bundestag, which, amongst others, must be mandatorily involved pursuant to sec.s 23(2), 94(4), 77 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), an opportunity to submit comments in these proceedings and has set a respective deadline.

In the constitutional complaint proceedings on the UPCA, the same procedure took place already at the end of 2017 (cf. the Plenary Protocol of 13/12/2017, section 361 C [German language] and the request by the CDU/CSU Parliamentary group to file such comments [German language]); also cf. the above update of 28/02/2018.

The comments in German may seem to exclude input from other EU nations (concerned about the UPC), but this particular complaint refers the German constitution alone, so it probably makes sense.

There are many constitutional violations or at least 4 aspects of these. That does not even take account of constitutional violation in other European countries.

“Those who care about the integrity of the EU would ferociously oppose the UPC and anything of its kind. It’s not “unified” or “unitary” or “community” but a coup of the litigation zealots.”As Henrion noted, citing Bristows (Team UPC): “Sky v SkyKick: troll trademarking “computer software”. At least on trademarks the CJEU will cast some sanity in the system, not like for the coming UPC, where the patent microcosm will evolve in the reclusion and silence of a Trappist monastry…”

Something like the UPC is vendor-captured court. It’s not really subjected to public scrutiny and it is steered by patent maximalists rather than people who respect laws and constitutions. Such a court would be a massive slap across the face of the EU and merely contribute to more “exits” (like Brexit). Those who care about the integrity of the EU would ferociously oppose the UPC and anything of its kind. It’s not “unified” or “unitary” or “community” but a coup of the litigation zealots. Sure, it has been misnamed and falsely marketed. █

Permalink  Send this to a friend