02.04.20

“Nothing Has Changed,” Team UPC Says About UPC and Brexit

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Reinforcing the stigma of lawyers as liars (semi-truths, selective with facts etc.)

Summary: Team UPC is downright delusional; it makes for good entertainment (if one can tolerate the lies and document those many years of lies, instead)

THE STATEMENT from the European Patent Office (EPO) about the UPC? Nothing. No comment.

António Campinos did some photo ops a few weeks ago, as did Benoît Battistelli with CIPA/IP Kat. Those two people are more or less the same, sans the perceived temperament.

“António Campinos did some photo ops a few weeks ago, as did Benoît Battistelli with CIPA/IP Kat.”We continue to amuse ourselves reading the responses from Team UPC (if any). The Bristows “UPC blog” has of course been silent (very bad timing for lobbying and damage-limiting lies) and Finnegan’s (Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP’s) Clare A. Cornell together with Anthony C. Tridico published this nonsensical “Brexit Update” saying that “Nothing Has Changed” (that’s the headline in Lexology and in Google News, which Lexology is like a ‘gateway’ for). So Team UPC has published a title that says “Nothing Has Changed…” as if to say, ignore Brexit and start the UPC already. After all, nothing has changed, right? Or as one Bristows employee put it the other day at IP Kat, it’s all "business as usual". Read the full text from Finnegan to behold a classic case of lie by omission. UPC was not mentioned even once!

Wow, how can one omit such a critical topic amid EU departure?

“We continue to amuse ourselves reading the responses from Team UPC (if any).”Same lies by omission came from the VP of the EPO and the EPO’s official statement, as we noted here before (end of the weekend). Aren’t they such amazing spinners?

As Benjamin Henrion put it yesterday: “The German Constitutional Court should also look at the new situation without the UK, as deals with non-EU member states have to follow rules like the AETR caselaw, which was used during the EPLA discussions in 2007 to exclude Switzerland or Turkey…”

The Team UPC lobbyists at Managing IP [sic] also weigh in. They continue to give litigation people false hopes. This think tank is paid for such propaganda campaigns (it helped set up UPC propaganda events) and it is currently using multiple accounts (like “IP [sic] Stars” in this case) to say: “The European Commission has published its negotiating guidelines and position for a future EU-UK deal. Feel free to stretch the meaning of 49 and 50 to cover the UPC!”

They added a screenshot, which I’ve examined before responding with: “49 talks about counterfeiting (like fakes caught at the border) [and] 50 might as well refer to EPO and EUIPO, not UPC (which is strictly an EU system)…”

“The Team UPC lobbyists at Managing IP [sic] also weigh in. They continue to give litigation people false hopes.”Henrion has also pointed out this article from Law 360. Its headline is “What Brexit Will Mean For Intellectual Property Law” and it’s behind a paywall. This almost assures only patent maximalists will read it, so this cites and quotes Team UPC speaking for itself rather than for the UK, i.e. for litigation and patent trolls rather than public interest. Law 360 certainly represents or fronts for the former group. We gave many examples of this bias in the past. Henrion quotes: “The general consensus is that the UPC will be better with the UK in it than outside [...] So I think the general feeling is if the UK is still willing to play a part, there is a willingness on the other side of the table to make that happen.”

When Baldwin says “UK” he means himself, not the UK. It is deliberately misleading.

Last night we also stumbled upon a new article — promoted in Lexology — by Linklaters LLP’s Georgina Kon, Richard Cumbley, Ian Karet, Julian Cunningham-Day, Sonia Cissé, Nemone Franks, Tanguy Van Overstraeten, Dr. Daniel André Pauly, Yohan Liyanage, Kathy Berry, Peter Church and Gargi Rohi.

Linklaters LLP is more realistic than most law firms. It names the barriers (at least two among more) to UPC ratification:

The fate of Europe’s unitary patent court (UPC) and unitary patent system remains uncertain, not only due to Brexit, but also an ongoing challenge to its legitimacy on constitutional grounds brought before the German courts. Regardless, the UK’s continued participation requires both an amendment to the UPC Agreement (to permit a non-EU member to participate) and the UK’s submission to the jurisdiction of the CJEU for the purposes of the unitary patent. For political reasons therefore, the UK’s continued participation seems unlikely. See our dedicated microsite here for further details on this topic.

There are several more barriers which they fail to name.

The IAM propagandists (funded by the EPO’s PR budget and patent trolls) have also used Lexology (their parent company) to promote Arwed Burrichter’s lies (pretending that UPC is inevitable and imminent and merely “on hold”). It’s just another part of that promotional IAM series, from which we cited some examples the other day. Here we go again, the same (template) question:

What single development would most improve the patent protection regime in Europe?

Once adopted, the unitary patent and the UPC will bring significant changes to the patent system in Europe. Under the new system, users will have the choice between the existing European patent (bundle patent) and the new European patent with unitary effect (unitary patent). Each option has its pros and cons and users will need to carefully choose what best suits them. Even if both systems coexist for a while, the UPC is expected to significantly harmonise patent law in Europe, which has long been needed. The adoption of the unitary patent and the UPC are currently on hold pending the outcome of a constitutional complaint before the German Constitutional Court.

Team UPC is 100% pro-UPC dogma; it’s like a “religion” to these people. They don’t seem to care what the public thinks. Or how UPC affects anyone but law firms.

“Team UPC is 100% pro-UPC dogma; it’s like a “religion” to these people.”They use words like community or unity or “harmonise” (this is a lie) to connote litigation without borders. What could be more “harmonious” than mass litigation? IAM followed up with another patent maximalist (also boosted in Lexology, as usual), claiming that “the EPO has been working on accelerating the grant procedures and reducing its backlog”; at what expense? Is the goal just speed or actual accuracy?

“European companies,” Nele D’Halleweyn acknowledges, “especially in the telecoms field, are facing more NPEs with an increasing number of European patents (ie, trolls).”

Here’s the full reply:

Over the past decade, many countries in Europe have taken initiatives to stimulate IP awareness and promote the filing of patent applications. Also, fiscal advantages can be obtained based on patents, further stimulating companies to protect their innovations. On the other hand, the EPO has been working on accelerating the grant procedures and reducing its backlog, the result being that European patents are granted more quickly and in greater numbers. It seems that this will lead to more oppositions and litigation. Moreover, European companies, especially in the telecoms field, are facing more NPEs with an increasing number of European patents (ie, trolls).

So even they are admitting the trolling epidemic (which IAM's editor was quick to dismiss when shown evidence). Remember that IAM is literally funded by patents trolls. These pranksters know who pays their mortgages.

“So even they are admitting the trolling epidemic (which IAM’s editor was quick to dismiss when shown evidence).”Last but not least, watch what the Team UPC boosters from Barker Brettell LLP (we’ve mentioned their lies many times in the past) have had to say: “Eight reasons to file a GB patent application in parallel with an EP application” (just promoted in Lexology).

They mean to say there are 8 reasons to pay them double for the same thing. These patent maximalists amass a fortune from duplication and UPC would enable them to turn one lawsuit into many (or lawsuits in multiple countries). To quote these liars (or lawyers, whatever):

The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world so having a GB patent can be valuable. Getting a patent granted at the UKIPO is generally cheaper, faster and easier than at the EPO. So, for attorneys (particularly non-European attorneys) thinking about filing a direct EP application or entering the EP regional phase, if the UK is a target market for your client, here we explain several benefits to filing a GB application in parallel that may outweigh the extra cost. And don’t worry about Brexit!

“And don’t worry about Brexit!”

They worry about decline in ‘demand’ for EPs (i.e. lawyers’ fees). That’s all they worry about. To hell with them and their self-serving lies. █

Permalink  Send this to a friend