THE EPO, aided by IAM these days, still spreads the UPC agenda. It's also aided by IP Kat, which is now dominated by the most hardcore elements of Team UPC. The end result is a lot of misinformation from those who stand to benefit from such misinformation.

"The end result is a lot of misinformation from those who stand to benefit from such misinformation."The most hardcore elements of Team UPC are lying. They lie a lot. Routinely. Then there's Bristows. It's an element or firm which is probably falsifying UK-IPO statements and is now trying to salvage something in Estonia. It's James Boon's turn. Estonia was mentioned in relation to the UPC last year, though it's not a large stakeholder at all. It barely has a say on the matter. What about the UK or Germany? Well, they'd rather not say. What about France? The patent microcosm keeps pretending that the UPC is coming soon because of the election of Macron. See what's in this new post which says: "The focus this year is the role of patents in Standard Setting Organizations and Agreements. The upcoming European Unified Patent Court (UPC) is heaving in the background. This week’s French election signals to me that UPC will move forward and likely begin operation in 2018."

How on Earth? What does that have to do with UPC? That France isn't leaving the EU? That alone? Statements like "signals to me" are better rephrased as "I hope" ("because I would profit from it"). Battistelli's political party actually lost the election; it didn't make it past the first round even!

"The most hardcore elements of Team UPC are lying. They lie a lot. Routinely."Yesterday we found this tweet about an article whose headline is a self-serving lie. It claims that UK-IPO "confirms" a "UK ratification" of UPC, but they said "future steps", not "ratification". They confirmed nothing. This is a distrotion of words again -- one we can compare to what Managing IP and Bristows did a couple of months ago!

The relevant part says this: "A spokesperson for the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) told Out-Law.com that while some work has already been undertaken towards UK ratification, it will be for "the next government" to complete "future steps"."

But it doesn't say what the headline says. They're lobbying. They twist words again.

Watch what German elements of Team UPC are saying: "Packed house this morning for our breakfast session on #UPC and #Opt-Out. @ahaertel is giving a concise overview."

"They're lobbying. They twist words again."It looks like a room full of people in suits, not technical people like scientists and engineers, so we assume that it's just another patent microcosm echo chamber, or a 'circle-jerk' of UPC hopefuls.

A UPC critics cites this talk with "Conclusion: The UPC/UP system is moving closer to becoming a reality," but it's more of a wish than a reality. This links to Bond Dickinson LLP‏, whose post says: "The announcement on 28 November 2016 that the UK intends to ratify the Agreement suggests that the political appetite for the UPC/UP regime is still present, notwithstanding Brexit."

But that was before several serious setbacks, including the upcoming election. Why do they not mention this? Well, it's a business site, not a news site. They try to sell something!

Ultimately, the Web has been polluted with a bunch of "alternative facts" about UPC and one can easily be fooled by them, especially gullible politicians who don't understand patents, patent trolls, etc.

"The system worked more or less OK before Battistelli and his UPC fantasy came along. It's time to oust both."The system has thus far worked fine for European businesses, but probably not too well for foreign giants that want to sue European businesses (with help of European lawyers). The UPC is not needed; what is instead needed is high-quality patent examination and judges who are adjuncts to the EPO. It is a damn shame that Battistelli is killing the EPO's appeal boards, undermining the prospects of justice itself and leaving it all to ruinous, expensive litigation (magnified by UPC). As one law firm put it the other day: "The European Patent Office (EPO) appeals board has considered the standard of proof required to show that an internet disclosure had been made available to the public before the priority date of a patent, and is prior art."

Nowadays, the boards are so grossly understaffed (by design) -- and are being thoroughly weakened by the month -- that we assume little/few oppositions/appeals will happen. Instead, Battistelli is turning the EPO into a production line of low-quality patents, hoping to fuel disputes at a Unitary Patent Court. The privatisation model is, defund something, make it fail, wait for the public to get angry and then demand an alternative. This is perhaps how this French politician hopes to 'sell' the UPC to stakeholders, even at the expense of appeal boards. The system worked more or less OK before Battistelli and his UPC fantasy came along. It's time to oust both. ⬆