They're taking turns, Alan Johnson is the latest

Summary: The latest wave of posts (typically from Bristows) which herald an arrival of UPC in Britain are not just delusional but also constitute terrible legal advice

TEAM UPC is trying to manipulate politicians into ridiculous statements like these. British politicians have no clue what's going on because they're being lied to. We've seen lots of that lately (we wrote about half a dozen responses so far this month). It almost always comes from Bristows. Comments don't tolerate Bristows' spin.

In the meantime, EPO management keeps touting a 'study' which it paid for. That too is rather disturbing, partly because it reveals the EPO's corruption of academia.

"It almost always comes from Bristows."Yesterday, the CCIA's Josh Landau (typically more focused on the US) wrote, "is there a surrender of fundamental rights to the UPC from DE? (Shades of Oil States here…) [...] Much of the challenge seems to relate to arguing that DE parliament didn’t know what they were agreeing to, which seems a difficult argument. [...] Now for coffee ground reading (his phrase, not mine): unless the court simply denies the complaint entirely as unfounded (possible!) we won’t know until late 2018, pushing UPC ratification and operations back to 2019 or 2020. [...] Another panelist thinks that the German constitutional court is taking it seriously and is expecting a longer wait to know the outcome. [...] Some discussion on what happens if the UK ultimately doesn’t join the UPC: makes the UPC less attractive. Not necessarily no interest, but definitely reduced. [...] Obvious next question: what if no Germany? Is that a showstopper? What about no UK no Germany? [...] No UK, no Germany? No UPC."

Obviously. Neither will be in the UPC, hence the UPC is a zombie.

Late on Friday night Alan Johnson (Bristows, but not disclosing it and we assume he and his colleagues were writing there anonymously lately) spouted out yet more UPC spin/lies. This firm lost -- completely and entirely -- the ability to sense any shame and no matter how much resistance/rebuttal comes its way, it carries on repeating the same lies. It has already deleted hostile comments about the UPC in this blog (we covered examples earlier this year) and here are a couple of portions from the latest:

So whilst it maybe does not really affect all of this, the way I would put it is that the agreement today to accept the CJEU jurisdiction for a post-Brexit period gives increased comfort that the UK will continue its acceptance of the CJEU’s limited role in the UPC and be very happy to be a part of the UPC post-Brexit.

[...]

So whilst some may regard Brexit as a problem for the UPC, ever since November last year I have seen it as just a complication, and we now have greater certainty than before that the UK will be in the system at the outset and post-Brexit too.

It's late on Friday, so maybe he's drunk and writing this from the pub. Just see the first comment. Says it all really... the post, as a whole, is totally detached from reality.

This is Bristows. They'd even make up stuff up if such stuff suits their agenda.

"This is Bristows. They'd even make up stuff up if such stuff suits their agenda."As a timely reminder of the dangers of UPC, watch yesterday's article about a European Patent (granted by EPO) in the UK. There's a legitimate concern about large foreign companies and patent trolls using bogus European Patents (EPs) for injunctions that are ruinous and truly far-reaching. Considering who Bristows has as clients (we'll say more about that later this weekend), it's not hard to see why it pushes so hard for a UPC-style regime.

"The EPO’s Opposition Division held that the patent is invalid," the article says. "The decision is now under appeal."

Imagine how much is being paid in legal bills over what's most likely a bogus patents that should never have been granted and will eventually be invalidated.

From the article:

The invention described in EP 822 is based on the “discovery of a new cytokine which the patent calls IL17A/F”.

Eli Lilly sells Taltz (ixekizumba), a monoclonal antibody which has a centralised European marketing authorisation to treat a form of the disease psoriasis. Taltz is described by Eli Lilly as an anti-IL17 antibody.

A number of other companies challenged the patent before the European Patent Office (EPO), but Eli Lilly is not a party to those proceedings.

The EPO’s Opposition Division held that the patent is invalid, because the main request and three auxiliary requests involve added matter contrary to article 123(2) of the European Patent Convention. The decision is now under appeal.

Eli Lilly stated that Taltz does not infringe the patent, so it brought proceedings in the UK.

Imagine thousands of cases like these in London, brought forth by a bunch of patent trolls from another country and decided on inside courts outside the UK. This is envisioned by Team UPC, which is salivating over the profit (legal bills) opportunities. ⬆