WE RECENTLY completed a 20-part response to the UPC propaganda that followed the FCC's decision 24 days ago in Germany. There's an index for this response and one reader suggested collating such series to make mini-books or whatever. But these rebuttals are always "work in progress" and we did not expect the propaganda to ever stop completely. Are law firms trustworthy? Are lawyers lying for a living? Yesterday we stumbled upon a new example of it (yes, almost 3 weeks late), which contained lies and total nonsense from a law firm. "It is no secret that the headquarters of UPC in Paris, London and Munich are ready to start their case-law activity," it said.
"Imagine someone saying that Corbyn is ready to take up his duties as British Prime Minister. As of days or weeks ago, Corbyn isn't head of his party, let alone the party that's in power."Tomasz Gawliczek (JWP Patent & Trademark Attorneys) has just had it promoted/elevated to Lexology, where statements such as these will certainly be greeted by a wider audience, mostly lawyers. They keep lying to one another about what happened (while talking about the judge's wife and other such gossip).
To say that "headquarters" of UPC (odd term to use) in London "are ready to start their case-law activity" is just insane. They cannot do so legally, they lack the actual staff, they lack the authority and so on. This ignores reality! And what about Brexit? Imagine someone saying that Corbyn is ready to take up his duties as British Prime Minister. As of days or weeks ago, Corbyn isn't head of his party, let alone the party that's in power. But here go the dreamers, providing exceptionally poor legal advice in their official site and elsewhere:
The entry into force of the Unified Patent Court requires ratification of the UPCA by at least thirteen EU Member States, including three in which the highest number of European patents is validated, i.e. designated as territories of target protection. Until now, those countries were France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. France was the first to ratify UPCA, followed by the United Kingdom. As soon as the creation of a unitary patent court appeared to be possible in the near future, Brexit became a reality. Legally, the UK, if it so wished, could remain a member of the UPC system even outside the EU. Such a solution could be deemed feasible, as suggested by Alexander Ramsey, the Chairman of the UPC International Preparatory Committee in the 2019 interview. The problem is that the UK, after leaving the Union, does not want to recognize the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice at all. This condition is however required to some extent in order to participate in the UPC.
In the light of problems resulted from Brexit, those interested in establishing the UPC are now closely observing the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. As announced at the beginning of 2020 (more than three years later), this court is expected to consider a constitutional complaint seeking to determine whether the UPCA complies with the German Basic Law. During the ongoing negotiations and preparations, it has been long speculated that the German Court is waiting for the final resolution of the Brexit issue – a claim that was strongly denied by one of its judges, Justice Huber, just last year. However, if Germany withdraws from the UPC project without taking responsibility for its finalization, the unified patent court will undoubtedly remain just a project.
It is no secret that the headquarters of UPC in Paris, London and Munich are ready to start their case-law activity. If London withdraws from the project, it is unofficially assumed that Milan may take its place. After nearly 50 years, it seems that the time has come for the UPC to come into being. Europe is once again waiting in anticipation together with a large number of patent holders.
"So here we are still having to respond to rather basic and easily-debunked falsehoods."We knew the UPC lies would likely persist for a while, but it has now been nearly a month since the decision and Coronavirus lock-downs have not put the cork on these mouths. So here we are still having to respond to rather basic and easily-debunked falsehoods.
Yesterday we also noticed Andrew McGettrick (HGF Ltd) advocating software patents in Europe and more specifically in the UK, which does not allow them (it has its own laws). These law firms are pursuing illegal means by misusing buzzwords ("AI" and "Computer-Implemented" in the headline!) that the corrupt European Patent Office (EPO) management openly and blatantly recommends as means for breaking the laws associated with patents (EPC). Here's a portion:
With recent advances in computer technology, AI and ML are increasingly being used in products and services for the healthcare industry, such as in breast cancer screening, stroke detection and patient monitoring, and to assist in the creation of new drugs and antibiotics. Statistics from the World Intellectual Property Organisation also show increasing numbers of AI related patent applications being filed in the Life and Medical Sciences sector. It is, therefore, important to understand what types of invention can be protected in this area and why.
[...]
In another interesting development, we have now seen written decisions issued by the European Patent Office on some landmark cases relating to AI. In 2018, two European patent applications were filed by Stephen L. Thaler declaring an AI entity DABUS as the sole inventor. The European Patent Office objected to this, and a hearing was held with the applicant. A decision was issued in November 2019, with the full written rationale following in January 2020.
In short, the EPO decided that an AI entity could not be named as an inventor, and so the applications were refused on the basis that no valid declarations of inventorship were filed. The rationale of the European Patent Office was that inventors needed to be natural persons. In addition, DABUS was neither a natural nor legal person and so could not hold property. Therefore, there could be no transfer of ownership of the invention from DABUS to the applicant.
Thus, for now at least, it appears to be impermissible for an AI entity to be named as an inventor on a European Patent application. It remains to be seen, however, whether more widespread inventing by AI entities could lead to a change of law in the future.
"This too has become rather common as they piggyback hype wave and vague concepts rather than actual substance or matters of law, science, etc."We never truly expected UPC advocates to stop lying. UPC has long been a Trojan horse for software patents (which 'ordinary' European patents courts consistently reject, citing the EPC), so we more or less expect EPO and its allies (CIPA et al) to carry on pushing this "buzzwords agenda" championed primarily by the two stooges with no background in science but extensive background in lying (politics). Heck, even the US has become more strict on these matters, especially because of 35 U.S.C. €§ 101. ⬆