Brexit too is a problem, not just some piece of paper which the government has said for 1.5 years that it would sigh

Summary: While deliberately ignoring Brexit, which legal professionals have said for nearly 2 years makes the UPC untenable, Team UPC pretends there's a rosy future for a system that's stuck in the middle of nowhere because it is neither constitutional nor desirable

We have, by now, seen some responses to last night's response/rebuttal to the Unified Patent Court (UPC) news, noting that British participation would not be compatible with Brexit and there are other very major barriers, including serious EPO abuses. To suggest that the UPC would happen is wishful thinking or lobbying. We mean false prophecy lobbying style.

Team UPC is not happy with what I wrote about the UPC last night. I've evidently struck a nerve. Someone who blocked me is now heckling me. Notice the lack of substance in these people's responses. Darren Smyth (IP Kat UPC booster) claims that I said something that I never even said! First of all, I did not say they would not ratify but that it would make no sense at all even if they did (as they had said they would). Secondly, I said there would be many practical barriers. None of these have changed.

Ratification is "work in progress" or "still in the process" actually; as the relevant individual put it: "And here are the files we lodged today with @EUCouncil - the UK ratifying the agreement on the Unified Patent Court..."

"To suggest that the UPC would happen is wishful thinking or lobbying."As expected, people who are an inherent part of law firms and/or Team UPC are boosting it -- all this while avoiding even the mere mention of Brexit and other issues. Those have not been addressed at all! This was mentioned by Francisco Moreno‏, who wrote in Spanish something which roughly means: "And Boris took his pen, ratified the unitary patent, and his instrument was deposited in Brussels. Now it all depends on the judges of Karlsruhe."

Found via this tweet was the official page (not some junk "tweets"). "Our ratification brings the international court one step closer to reality," it says. They wish. "The unique nature of the proposed court means that the UK’s future relationship with the Unified Patent Court will be subject to negotiation with European partners as we leave the EU," they added. Well, if they leave the EU, then they cannot participate in a UPC-type system.

Team UPC links to CIPA. To quote: "Note that they are sticking to the line that the UPCA is "international treaty" but acknowledge UK’s future relationship "will be subject to negotiation". Suitably non-committal - no strong hint in either direction!"

"As expected, people who are an inherent part of law firms and/or Team UPC are boosting it -- all this while avoiding even the mere mention of Brexit and other issues."So it's hardly final at all. Just like we said all along. CIPA's tweet said: “Ratification...demonstrates that internationally, as well as at home, the UK is committed to strong intellectual property protections” - IP Minister Sam Gyimah announcing UK ratification of the UPC #UnifiedPatentCourt #upc pic.twitter.com/7HdTzLrDqc – At Houses of Parliament"

Dr. Glyn Moody joked at this when he wrote: "it also means a European court will tell UK companies what to do, and they must obey - that "taking back control" thing that #brexiters so love..."

Surprisingly, IAM, which had done a lot to promote the UPC for Battistelli, also acted quite cynical when it wrote: "The UK’s Brexit-backing press did try to make the UPC an issue, but it turns out that patents are just too obscure for even the most committed Europhobes!! [...] UPC scenario - a court in Germany deciding in favour of a French patent holder against a British defendant and issuing an injunction preventing the British company selling or distributing its product in the UK. How is that taking back control?"

That's why it can't quite happen.

Over in Germany, JUVE's main person wrote:

UK ratifies UPC Agreement. What does it mean for the UPC implementation and some more details about the German constitutional claim. Our report https://juve.de/?p=338164

The cited article is in German.

"...Team UPC wants the patent system to be administered by somewhere that blatantly disregards the rule of law, Eponia (the EPO)."Managing IP, which was instrumental in UPC lobbying (it even set up lobbying events for the EPO), wrote: "The big uncertainty now is a German constitutional complaint against the UPC..."

Brexit also, as it can force undoing everything, like people have said since 2016 when Lucy predicted the move (eventually if not inevitably taken by Sam Gyimah).

"...don't expect to see much dissent in comments on such articles/posts; they 'sanitise' these to silence their perceived 'opposition', even if it's just legal professionals pointing out factual errors."As IP Watch put it some hours ago: "The system is administered by the European Patent Office, and the UK's ratification leaves Germany outstanding."

Well, Team UPC wants the patent system to be administered by somewhere that blatantly disregards the rule of law, Eponia (the EPO). And a tyrant like Battistelli; to them he's a 'good' tyrant because he supports their maximalist agenda; lawyers don't quite like laws, they just love money and if they can twist or break the law in order to make money, then so be it! That's the 'Battistelli way'...

Mind this new comment in IP Kat. A very frequent poster wrote:

If you want Bristows "take" on this, go to the Kluwer patent blog, to read the piece contributed by Alan Johnson. There's a comments thread there too. Sorry for the absence of a Link. My IT skills don't run to it, on the device I'm using now.

Alan Johnson wrote yet another post about it (maybe fourth), their second in just over a day in their blog in addition to at least two in Kluwer. In one blog there's no ability to comment, in the latter they're heavily censored. Earlier this year Team UPC basically decided to start deleting comments more aggressively; it had already censored comments for years, but months ago it took it up a notch and also openly admitted such censorship (previously Bristows staff attempted to deny it, i.e. it lied). Anyway, don't expect to see much dissent in comments on such articles/posts; they 'sanitise' these to silence their perceived 'opposition', even if it's just legal professionals pointing out factual errors. ⬆