12.01.21
Gemini version available ♊︎Prof. Thomas Jaeger in GRUR: Unified Patent Court (UPC) “Incompatible With EU Law“
Prof. Dr. Thomas Jaeger
Summary: The truth remains unquestionable and the law remains unchanged; Team UPC is living in another universe, unable to accept that what it is scheming will inevitably face high-level legal challenges (shall that become necessary) and it will lose because the facts are all still the same
According to Team UPC (a fake news/propaganda mill which evades very simple questions): “The Unified Patent Court (UPC) will be a court common to the Contracting Member States and thus part of their judicial system.”
A fake “common” court? This official page tells lies.
“Maybe it would be a good idea to mirror Jaeger’s paper,” found here, according to a reader. “Jaeger argues that the UPC is not a common court as they pretend because it is not linked to National Courts, as (for example) the Benelux court.”
Here’s a copy of it; the public deserves access, which is imperative to rebuttal of lies.
“We don’t expect the UPC to get off the ground for a number of reasons we’ve enumerated and named here in the past.”The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) “could strike it down, as the design of the EU is “CJEU+national courts”.”
Prof. Thomas Jaeger thinks so. And he warned about it 5 years ago as well.
This is legal chaos and hackery.
We don’t expect the UPC to get off the ground for a number of reasons we’ve enumerated and named here in the past. Too many times before (to be worth repeating). Do not be misled by a high quantity of fake (worse than low-quality) self-serving lies.
As our reader notes, even if the UPC ever runs, there is hope of halting it very fast. It’s simply not compatible. As someone put it in comments the other day: “All aboard the Titanic!”
The next comment said: “Time for an appeal to the Austrian Constitutional Court?”
DXThomas then wrote:
It is amazing to see how UPC proponents want to push it through at any cost, and want to ignore the problem of Art 7(2) UPCA. When looking at Art 6(1) ECHR, how can it be justified that the crystal clear wording of Art 7(2) UPC is to be ignored? A first year law student would blush if he came up with the theory of the provisional allocation of the London duties to Paris/Munich.
How can such legally qualified people come up with such legal nonsense? What do the judges think who applied for a job at the UPC?
The UPC proponents act exactly like the Polish government by superbly ignoring the notion of of legally appointed judge.
How can a court be conform with Union law if one of its members can be removed from office without offering him any means of redress? See Art 10 of the statute of the court = Annex I to the UPCA.
The financial interests of the UPC proponents must be extremely high in order to persist in such a way that they ignore fundamental aspects of the legality of the judicial.
Team UPC is just being very loud because public comments keep correcting it, so it’s trying to compensate by sheer volume, believing that shouting down the truth will be worthwhile. FAKE IT TILL YOU MAKE IT? Courts don’t work that way and the law is on the UPC opponents’ side. The “sceptics” know how constitutions and courts work. We may not have as many lobbyists and a generous “fake news” budget, but justice will prevail at the end, as it has for over a decade already. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA