Bonum Certa Men Certa

European Patent Office Insists That Obeying the Law is Not Realistic, UPC Another Example of That

Summary: The EPO's arrogant response to a media query about the strike shows that it still doesn't grasp the basis for the widespread anger, thus totally incapable of tackling the crisis

THE EPO strike is about 1.5 days away. Some European (continental) media, not just British media, covers this. Translations would be well received if anyone could send us some.



Based on this followup article from WIPR (published a short while ago), the EPO calls upholding the law (not presidential monarchistic decrees) “unrealistic demands”. As the writer pointed out, in order to balance the nonsense from the EPO's PR team: "The CSC had called for an immediate suspension of disciplinary measures put in place against three staff representatives earlier this year, a “truly independent review” of their cases by a body that is trusted by managers and staff, a revocation of recent changes to the EPO’s service regulations, and an initiation of open and fair negotiations."

Well, how about bringing back the suspended judge, who was put on 'house ban' against the rules of the EPO? The EPO continues to show contempt for the rule of law and even hires (for the highest positions) people who have a track record of serious crimes, based on many criminal charges against them. As a reminder, for the sake of completeness regarding the strikes, see the following older articles:



The EPO's contempt for the rule of law (international, European, and national) can be seen also when it comes to the UPC. As someone pointed out this morning [1, 2]:

So what happens with a not opted out "bundle" patent that is litigated at the UPC?

Let's assume that the relevant national law under Article 5(3) of Reg. 1257/2012 is UK law. Does the UPC apply Section 60 as applicable to non-unitary patents, or does it apply Articles 25 to 27 of the UPCA?

I have seen commentary that definitively states that "For determining the infringement question relating to European or Unitary Patents, the UPC shall apply the articles regarding direct infringement (article 25), indirect infringement (article 26), limitations of the effect of a patent (article 27), and exhaustion of rights (article 29) provided in the UPC Agreement".

I cannot see the UK Courts going against the wording of the UK Patents Act. Thus, if the above-quoted commentary is correct, does this mean that the applicable law of infringement for the UK will be determined by the court in which the patent is litigated?

As there are substantial differences between the different laws (e.g. with respect to indirect infringement) such a conclusion would hardly be consistent with fundamental provisions governing legal certainty!


Upon reflection, instead of referring to the indirect infringement provisions, I should have perhaps have referred to the experimental use exemption in Section 60 (6D) (vs. that in UPCA Art. 27(b)).

I had quite forgotten that the Member States are taking a narrow interpretation of "European patent" - to mean, for example, "EP(UK)" rather than just EP. Baroness Neville-Rolfe made that clear in her letter relating to the amendments to UK law.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldsecleg/94/9406.htm

It is an interesting question whether the definition of "European patent" in the UPCA ("a patent granted under the provisions of the EPC, which does not benefit from unitary effect") supports that view. Perhaps those who are more familiar with the legislative history of the UPCA can comment.

However, the Baroness has also put forward a (rather tenuous) argument that Article 149a EPC overrides both of Articles 2 and 64 EPC - and so we should perhaps not take every statement in her letter to be true.

On this latter point, I have always puzzled over why an ability to conclude "special agreements" should somehow be interpreted as meaning that long-standing, fundamental tenets of the EPC (such as Article 2 and 64) can be overridden when the "special agreement" in question contains no explicit provisions to that effect!


We occasionally hear from patent lawyers (off the record) about how the UPC makes no sense from a legal standpoint. It's one of those things that are done in secret, supposedly for "the better good" or something like that (the words "unity" and "community" get thrown around a lot).

Amid several recent articles about the UPC from a UPC booster (outline of these recent Fordham 2016 posts here), some of the comments we found yesterday start with this one:

Might the UPC might make "precautionary" oppositions less necessary? Well, perhaps - though the influence that this factor will have on the number of oppositions will, at least in the short term, be limited by the fact that there will be significant markets (such as those of Spain and Poland) that will remain out of the system.

On the other hand, one could argue that the rather high costs for filing a counterclaim of invalidity at the UPC might make competitors more inclined to file "precautionary" oppositions. And why not? An opposition gives you another bite of the cherry, adds relatively little to total litigation costs and deals with markets that the UPC cannot reach. What's not to like about that?

This latter point emphasises the fact that the UPC and EPO oppositions need not be mutually exclusive. Each has its own pros and cons and will therefore be used (or not used) if it suits the needs of each individual litigant. Businesses therefore need both systems to be strong and effective. So I would say that it is about time to reverse what appears to have been a deliberate policy of under-staffing of the Technical Boards of Appeal.


"I thoroughly agree with your approach," one person responded. "Having one's cake and eating it has always attracted me as a philosophy."

Consider what the UPC would mean to boards and what mockery Battistelli made of the law when he suspended a judge in spite of the boards' institutional independence.

One patent lawyer seems to accept that the boards are under a conscious attack (see above) and adds: "I cannot understand why the AC goes for so long, negligently tolerating such nonsense from the President. Mere hand-wringing is not enough to deal with such a man. He (like any self-respecting CEO) just laughs at that."

Here is the whole comment:

Well said, Proof [the commenter above]. I expect the UPC mindset to be not a million miles away from that of the courts in Germany. So, if your story to the UPC, when the patent is asserted against you, is that the patent should never have issued, the court might ask why you never opposed it when you had the chance. It is not only The Lord who helps those who help themselves. If you cannot convince the EPO that the issued patent is too broad, why should you suppose you will fare any better at the UPC. Look what's happening now, in the USA. These days, if you want a US patent struck down, go and ask the USPTO to oblige. The USPTO is overwhelmed with petitions to revoke.

Incidentally, I baulked at your word "policy" when it comes to the President of the EPO declining to present to the AC any names for filling the ever more numerous gaps in the staffing of the Boards of Appeal at the EPO. For all I know, he is doing it capriciously, in a fit of pique, because the AC still won't give him what he is demanding. I cannot understand why the AC goes for so long, negligently tolerating such nonsense from the President. Mere hand-wringing is not enough to deal with such a man. He (like any self-respecting CEO) just laughs at that.


Speaking of the USPTO, there is now something in the US called (or alluded to as) ITC reform [EN|ES] and MIP's Michael Loney in New York writes about it as follows: "A bill aimed at protecting US companies at the International Trade Commission (ITC) from abusive litigation from patent trolls has been reintroduced in the House of Representatives. Representatives Tony Cárdenas, a Democrat from California, and Blake Farenthold, a Republican from Texas, are sponsoring the "Trade Protection Not Troll Protection Act."

Not only Europe but also the US is trying to reshape patent laws. As we shall show in our next post, just like in Europe, heads and former heads of patent offices intervene in the process, which is unacceptable. It's supposed to be a process for courts and governments to decide on, not for-profit entities and greedy opportunists.

Recent Techrights' Posts

Writing and Coding Isn't Always Enough
Last year we had to assume a role we didn't have before: litigants
Autumn Has Come
Autumn should be exciting in all sorts of ways; it'll also mark our anniversary
IBM Has Taken Control of GNOME
Don't expect a successor to be found any time soon
 
Links 01/09/2025: Fresh Backlash Against Slop and "Norway’s Electricity Crisis is About to Hit Britain"
Links for the day
Links 01/09/2025: Catching Up (Mostly via Deutsche Welle), "Windows TCO" Effect in UK
Links for the day
Gemini Links 01/09/2025: Linguistic Barriers and "Web 1.0 Hosting"
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, August 31, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, August 31, 2025
The UEFI 9/11 - Part IV - External Interference
They all seem to be playing a role in crushing Software Freedom and self-determination for users
Links 31/08/2025: Baggage Claim Scams, an Insurrectionist’s War on Culture, and a Sudden Robotics Hype
Links for the day
Gemini Links 31/08/2025: Reviewing Netsurf and Slightly Less Historic Ada Design
Links for the day
Links 31/08/2025: Google Gmail Data Breach and LF Puff Pieces for Pay
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, August 30, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, August 30, 2025
This is What Google News Has Become
Moments ago
The Slopfarm WebProNews Has Turned Google News Into a Laughing Stock Full of Plagiarism by Slop
If Google News dies of neglect, that's one thing. It's starting to seem like active neglect by Google is a form of participation.
Do What is Moral, as What's Legal Isn't Always Moral
Do what's objectively moral, no matter the costs and the risks
Slopwatch: Google News Assisting Plagiarism and Anti-Linux FUD, Serial Slopper Rips Off Linux-Centric Journalists
This makes the Web a much worse place and lessens the incentive to do journalism
Links 30/08/2025: NVIDIA Fakes Results to Hide a Bubble Already in Implosion Phase, Data Breaches Galore, Important Win for Workers' Union in Canada
Links for the day
Representing and Speaking for Animals
If I ever choose to take this matter to tribunal with animals-centric NGOs on my side, it'll get some press coverage for sure
The UEFI 9/11 - Part II - Campaign of Censorship and Defamation Against Critics
In dictatorships, humour serves an important role. It's tragic.
In Kazakhstan, Yandex Estimated to be 20 Times Bigger Than Microsoft
Bing is measured as down this month
Shutterstock Not Enough? The Register MS Uses Slop Images in Articles (Seemingly More and More Over Time)
Cost-saving trajectory amid office shutdown?
Gemini Links 30/08/2025: Games, PostmarketOS, and Slop
Links for the day
Links 30/08/2025: Imgur Uproar and Many Ukraine Updates (Mediazona Reports Over 200,000 Russians Died for Putin)
Links for the day
How Not to Build Software
code forges that need a Web browser perhaps fill some 'niche' demand
GAFAM and "MATA"
The use of dark humour there hopefully helps illuminate what a lot of "modern" technology became like and how it interacts with human civilisation (to what ends and whose gain)
Birds Are Not "Pests and Vermin", Privacy is Not a Crime, and GNU/Linux is Not 'Hacking Platform'
I could not help but think of Free software analogies
The Sites Should Be Very Fast Again
That issue is now resolved
Flying in 2025
worse than ever before
Activists, Including Technical Activists, Need Not Pursue Affirmation
Techrights doesn't play or participate in a "popularity contest"
The UEFI 9/11 - Part III - Chaos is Scheduled to Happen Second Thursday of September (No Matter What the Microsofters Tell You)
The clock is ticking
Downplaying the Impact of "UEFI 9/11" is a Losing Strategy
we won't publish much whilst on holiday
Government Sites Should Run Free Software
Not proprietary bloatware with buzzwords
LLM Slopfarms Take No Breaks
When people run sites by bots they don't need to worry about "breaks"
GNOME Having a Meltdown Again
Thanks and farewell to Steven Deobald
Gemini Links 30/08/2025: Low Tech and Hunchbin 1.0.6
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, August 29, 2025
IRC logs for Friday, August 29, 2025