Summary: The pro-UPC, pro-software patents agenda and tone of IP Kat are difficult to mask; in fact, it's time to quit pretending that IP Kat still cares about patent justice, patent quality etc.

IT was one year ago that we noted Team UPC had 'taken over' IP Kat -- a site that prior to that had covered EPO scandals. Nowadays, after the founder left, the IP Kat blog does not even produce much in terms of posts. Something just isn't right and (former) writers left after they had seen things they did not like.

"Team UPC and those standing to benefit from UPC (lots of lawsuits!) are using their heavy pockets for constant brainwash, buying politicians, etc."Nowadays, unfortunately, IP Kat is little more than a mouthpiece of Team UPC. In fact, some of the most prolific writers at IP Kat are in Team UPC. That helps explain quite a lot. Some took photo ops with Battistelli, which may help explain why the blog has no more coverage of any EPO scandals whatsoever. It's like "vendor capture"; just because the blog used to cover something doesn't mean it still will (especially with staff changes in the midst). Team UPC and those standing to benefit from UPC (lots of lawsuits!) are using their heavy pockets for constant brainwash, buying politicians, etc.

Tian Lu started writing for IP Kat not too long ago. Lu does not write much. Having already mentioned part 1 the other day, now comes part 2 about UPC lobbying in Europe by a patent extremists' front group from the US, namely IPO. Even by US standards it's pretty extreme -- somewhere near Watchtroll levels. To call them patent maximalists would be an understatement. Obviously, as is common nowadays, IP Kat amplifies it. Not too long ago it deleted comments about the UPC complaint of Ingve Stjerna and yesterday it wrote this: "He discussed the German constitutional complaint filed by German attorney Dr Ingve Stjerna which, in short, concerned the facts that it was not accepted by 2/3 majority, and there was not sufficient democratic control because of Administrative Committee’s broad powers; judges are not independent, considering that they would be chosen only for limited period; UPC is contrary to EU law, etc. The outcome of this complaint still remains uncertain."

"What's worth noting is that IP Kat keeps amplifying such nonsense."Who's "He"? "An unelected lawmaker," Benjamin Henrion explained, quoting: "Mr Willem Hoyng is also known as a member of the drafting committee of the Rules of Proceedings of the future Unified Patent Court (UPC) and member of the Advisory Committee of the UPC Preparatory Committee."

So it's the very core of Team UPC. How objective. "He recommended the audience to have a look at the Index for CII (computer-implemented invention) provided by EPO," says the latter part (there are numerous people mentioned there). As usual, promotion of UPC and software patents comes under similar umbrellas. IPO does a lot of that in the US.

"How to get software patents in the EU," Henrion added, quoting: "the 1st hurdle (Art. 52 (2) and (3) EPC) can be easily overcome by making the claimed method a computer implemented method."

He had already left this comment to say: "Technical is technical is technical is technical. So much crap to get software patents in Europe."

"That IP Kat is promoting such a ruinous (to Europe) agenda isn't new or shocking to us. The same goes for IAM, which a couple of years ago set up a UPC lobbying event in the US sponsored by the EPO's PR firm and supported by the EPO itself."Yes, these are old tricks. "Circular Technical," he called it, quoting: "it serves a technical purpose, i.e. to solve a technical problem in a technical field, and the technical purpose must be specific."

What's worth noting is that IP Kat keeps amplifying such nonsense. Software patents are not allowed in Europe, but patent lawyers profit from these.

That IP Kat is promoting such a ruinous (to Europe) agenda isn't new or shocking to us. The same goes for IAM, which a couple of years ago set up a UPC lobbying event in the US sponsored by the EPO's PR firm and supported by the EPO itself. We know to whose benefit. Yesterday IAM drew attention to an upcoming event for trolls, in which the sole "silver sponsor" is a patent troll, Finjan (a Microsoft-connected troll). As the record reveals, this troll has just paid the patent trolls' lobby, IAM, which helps explain the pro-troll bias. This sponsorship was topped only by "gold sponsor" Mintz Levin. What we're trying to say is, IP Kat is becoming not too far adrift from IAM and maybe one day Battistelli or António Campinos will rub this Kat's back like they do IAM's. Yesterday IAM published this sponsored post for Mikkel Roed Trier (AWA A/S, Denmark). Their business model revolves around propping up the legal 'industry' rather than reporting/information. Hence the support from Battistelli.

"It's far from "over" and the UPC itself might already be "over". But they don't want to admit that."It should also be noted that Team UPC in the UK (notably Bristows) is now spreading the EUROCHAMBRES lies by paying lawyers' media. They cross-post it to keep the flow of Kool-Aid going, maintaining this illusion that the UPC is coming soon. Team UPC in the UK pretends that Brexit is no barrier and at the start of May, for example, there was another example of it (only brought to our attention yesterday). "The UK's recent ratification of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement marked an important step towards a new system of unitary patent protection becoming operational," said the summary. "The process has been lengthy and complex and is not over yet."

It's far from "over" and the UPC itself might already be "over". But they don't want to admit that.

On around the same date (also start of May) it turned out that UPC cheerleading could be seen even as far as Australia. The loud proponents of software patents everywhere, Shelston IP, published this nonsense, claiming that UPC was "a step closer" (to what? Brexit?). That around the time they were also pushing very hard for software patents (we last wrote about it a month ago).

The EPO's aggressive push for software patents will be the subject of our next post. ⬆