It took more than 3 years for ILO to 'resolve' a simple/trivial (as per EPC) dispute, as we shall show in our next post

Geneva failed to 'oversee' the EPO, so why UPC?

Summary: Seeing systematic misuse and abuse of justice at the EPO, people come to realise that Europe cannot afford to create a structure like the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

Team UPC and EPO management know that the UPC is quite likely a lost cause. It's not going to happen, but they keep fighting against all the odds. Their writings are extremely generous with words; they would have us believe that everything is on track.

Hours ago Bristows repeated itself regarding something pretty minor which had happened in the UK, conveniently neglecting to say that the UK neither can ratify nor intends to ratify (Jo Johnson implicitly acknowledged last week that they were not in a position to ratify).

"Expect Team UPC to keep screaming and shouting from rooftops about the UPC."Team UPC has also just published this rubbish anonymously (we are guessing that it's a Bristows smokescreen/cloak/dissimulation).

"PR stunts gone wrong, UPC. Try again," Dennis E. Mungai told me about it.

And responding to spin from Bristows staff (at IP Kat), another approved new comment said yesterday that the "more one looks into the UPC, the more one discovers problems."

Here is the full comment, which relates to the ongoing discussion about dispute resolution and appeals:

In all likelihood it will be the administrative tribunal of the international labour organisation -ILOAT- in Geneva.

It is a well known fact that this "court" is by no means up to the expectations, as it only looks whether the letter of the law and the procedure have been respected. There should be internal mechanisms in the UPC administrative system to look at complaints from staff internally before a member of staff can complain at the ILOAT. The ILOAT does not have the capacity to deal with direct complaints

But before this is possible, staff regulations for the employees of the UPC will have to be decided. Nothing has apparently be published on this topic.

As national judges could be seconded to the UPC, they could de facto remain in their national statute. As it is intended that at least at the beginning the work at the UPC is only part-time, such a situation would not be uncommon. What then about their independence?

The more one looks into the UPC, the more one discovers problems. May be this was a reason to push it through as quickly as possible, so that the problems could be hidden. Once discovered, it would be too late to go back. In one of the official languages of the EPO it is called "fait accompli". But no doubt it is understandable in lots of languages.

Expect Team UPC to keep screaming and shouting from rooftops about the UPC. Quite frankly, their dishonesty and highly abusive tactics would result only in alienation. They're already regarded (within their own sector) as a bunch of self-deluding cuckoos. ⬆