Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry does not represent Europe (ignore the misuse of EU-themed colours); it's a malicious, self-serving lobbying body

Summary: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) lobby shows no signs of abatement; it now relies on closed doors sessions that are stacked by UPC proponents (i.e. those who stand to benefit from a torrent of frivolous patent lawsuits)

THE EPO barely mentions the UPC because there's not much to say anymore. The FCC can take several years to decide on it and the likely outcome, especially in light of political corruption, is that the UPCA (agreement) needs to be buried, not ratified.

"The FCC can take several years to decide on it and the likely outcome, especially in light of political corruption, is that the UPCA (agreement) needs to be buried, not ratified."Team UPC -- like Team Battistelli -- is resistant to facts. Some of these people are literal thugs/bullies. Some of them would not only delete comments but also send legal threats. This is in line with what they do for a living...

A few days ago, as scheduled, there was an almost secret meeting/debate about the UPC; as we pointed out a few days prior, the EU Competitiveness Council made it a closed session (Battistelli's hallmark). No dissenting voices were allowed and EUROCHAMBRES later boasted: "UK ratification of the #UPC agreement should be a trigger for swift realisation of the #UnitaryPatent after decades of negotiations, we tell @EU2018BG chair prior to today's EU Competitiveness Council discussion @EU_Growth @EBienkowskaEU @EPOorg pic.twitter.com/q9fZllz3cA"

"Who were EUROCHAMBRES speaking for and why? Why was this a closed session? Why was it stacked by UPC proponents?"Notice who's there. It's an echo chamber. Team UPC and UPC proponents galore. What sort of debate is that?

"You lied to the Council for the advancement of a coup by patent lawyers," I told them, and "law has been repeatedly broken. This is why FCC stopped it."

Bristows (Team UPC) then amplified EUROCHAMBRES. Edward Nodder quoted them as follows:

“We welcome last month’s ratification of the UPC Agreement by the UK as a significant step towards completion of the overall ratification process. We encourage those EU member states that still need to complete measures at national level in order to allow the entry into force of the UPC Agreement to do so swiftly. I urge you to ensure that this message is conveyed and recognized during the 28-29 May Competitiveness Council that you will chair.”

Who were EUROCHAMBRES speaking for and why? Why was this a closed session? Why was it stacked by UPC proponents?

Considering law firms' spin at the start of this month (we still find new examples, e.g. [1, 2]), we're aware that there's a massive lobby, but should the EU (as in EU Competitiveness Council) become an extension of this lobby? That only serves to associate the EU with corruption. It's not even about the EPO anymore but about the EU and EC (which was also present there).

"rumours still persist that Battistelli wants to become the chief of the UPC (it has already been decided that it needs to be a French person), in which case he basically prepares to take back his throne having burned the EPO to the ground and issued lots of low-quality patents -- just what patent trolls need and can now buy."Yesterday we saw Novagraaf writing: "This last step will also be crucial in light of possible changes to trademarks, patents and designs in the EU in the future. For example, when the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) is finally introduced and when Brexit occurs."

Never. Stop spreading the lie that the UPC is a matter of time and 'unitary' patents are Brexit-compatible. They're not. Moreover, the UPC promises nothing but an insurgence of patent trolls in Europe. Only yesterday, for instance, the patent trolls' lobby (IAM) published this blog post titled "German pharma patent troll claims EPC loophole paves a path to gold" (remember that this is the same IAM which 1) denies patent trolls are a thing and 2) denies there's an issue as such in Europe). To quote:

A company described as a new-style European patent troll has told IAM that it believes a deal with a large pharma company is likely at some point this year. The organisation, which has used a provision in the European Patent Convention to make applications for inventions highly similar to those developed by large life sciences innovators, also confirmed that it has been in discussion with potential investors – including well-known US patent monetisation entities – to help bolster its litigation capabilities. IP Gesellschaft für Management (IPGM) first received attention in late 2016, when a newsletter published by German patent law outfit Michalski...

As we noted here before, the UPC is also a Trojan horse for extending patent scope in the whole of Europe in one fell swoop (overriding national laws in enforcement).

Jan Zillies's short post on FPC (not FCC) recalls an older case. From yesterday:

The Federal Patent Court (FPC) ruled on the interplay between limitation proceedings before the EPO and a national nullity action, and the circumstances in which a request for a declaratory judgment concerning (partial) termination of proceedings in relation to the limited part of the patent is admissible and well-founded.

If the UPC plot ever materialised (which we strongly doubt), then not only would that make parts of the EPO obsolete; rumours still persist that Battistelli wants to become the chief of the UPC (it has already been decided that it needs to be a French person), in which case he basically prepares to take back his throne having burned the EPO to the ground and issued lots of low-quality patents -- just what patent trolls need and can now buy. ⬆