A FEW days ago we wrote about Bristows interjecting UPC jingoism into the media. Even the EPO has given up on it by now; it rarely mentions the UPC anymore (not a word for weeks, until yesterday's tweet; I've told them "[t]he UPC is dead and telling people otherwise is misleading them").
"Why do they keep trying to float that pipe dream?"Max Walters wrote 3 days ago: "For those who are interested this is the committee that will scrutinise the #UPC (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2017."
"Will scrutinise something which is not even compatible with Brexit," I replied to him. Why do they keep trying to float that pipe dream? Many of them have something to gain from it and we know at whose expense.
Brexit aside, there are even more profound barriers in Germany, the epicenter of this envisioned system that comes crashing down.
"Brexit aside, there are even more profound barriers in Germany, the epicenter of this envisioned system that comes crashing down."Even the loudest UPC proponents (Twitter username "UPCtracker" in this case) can be spotted as saying: "Interesting: May DE Constitutional Ct want to decide old actions (re EPO BoA) prior to complaint on UPC due to overlapping issues (if any)?"
This was responded to by another UPC booster, Alex Robinson, who said "This would certainly seem to make sense if the EPO issues are relevant. Anyway, as they were filed first, shouldn't they be decided first?"
Either way, this can take years to be decided (just wait and watch) and EPO scandals have become part of the matters at stake.
"Do not believe the media if or when it says that the UPC is coming soon. A lot of this qualifies as what nowadays gets fashionably labeled "fake news"."Wolters Kluwer's Christine Robben has promoted the article in question. It alludes to a month-old recording which we mentioned last week and Robben asked: "When will the UPC & the Unitary Patent (UP) become available?"
Loaded question, Robben. It might never become "available" (she promotes "products" for them , so wording like this comes naturally). From the article itself:
The FCC will first have to decide whether Stjerna’s complaint will be admitted for a decision. Article 93a of the Act on the Federal Constitutional Court says a complaint must be admitted a) in so far as it has general constitutional significance, b) if it is appropriate to enforce the rights referred to in Article 90(1); (…). According to Article 90 (1): Any person claiming a violation of one of his or her fundamental rights or one of his or her rights under Article 20(4), Articles 33, 38, 101, 103 and 104 of the Basic Law by public authority may lodge a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court.
According to an FCC spokesman, ‘a date for decision has not been scheduled yet’, but it will probably be somewhere in the first half of 2018. If the FCC decides not to admit the complaint, the German ratification procedure can resume, the Bundespräsident can sign and Germany can complete all formalities by depositing its instrument of ratification with the secretariat of the EU Council. After the so-called ‘period of provisional application’ of the UPCA, during which all preparations for the UPC will be completed, the court could probably open its doors in the second half of next year.