UPC isn't compatible with the UK's current policy and UPC cannot happen without the UK

Summary: The German challenge to the UPC is only one among several big barriers to the UPC; media affiliated/associated/manned by Team UPC, however, would have us believe otherwise

THE EPO NEVER MENTIONS the UPC any longer. It's like a policy; it's like they prefer to say nothing about it. António Campinos has not mentioned it for over three months. The officials at the USPTO don't mention it and neither do patent maximalists in the US (Watchtroll used to mention/advertise it, but not anymore).

"Media coverage about the UPC has always been a sham and that’s a shame. Nothing has changed."Anyone who is honest to oneself would accept that UPC is a dead end. But following the release of a statement/document from the British government (there was a portion in a larger advisory publication about the UPC) we saw about a couple dozen articles about it, almost exclusively from patent law firms with stakes in the outcome. We wrote almost a half dozen rebuttals since that time and it stopped last week or several days ago (maybe 5 days ago). It's curious that after almost a week of silence on this matter Managing IP brought it up again (the day before yesterday). Why does Managing IP only speak to the patent microcosm ("in-house and private practice lawyers")? It's behind a paywall, but we can imagine that Patrick Wingrove spoke to Team UPC in the UK (where he's located) rather than technical companies with much at stake, e.g. fear of being sued by patent trolls. They speak of a recent paper that came out only to be smeared and belittled by Team UPC. As Wingrove put it:

A new paper has concluded that the UK cannot stay in the UPC after Brexit. Managing IP speaks to the author and in-house and private practice lawyers to unpack the important points of the research

Imagine this scenario. Next month, the German Constitutional Court considers the complaint against ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement and throws it out.

Why?

Wingrove repeats two misconceptions (or lies) again -- ones that we keep seeing a lot. The first is that the UPC will happen and the only unknown is the UK's participation in it; the second is that the German Constitutional Court will no doubt "OK" the UPCA and the only question is when. We won't assume malicious intent from Wingrove because he's surrounded by liars. These lawyers lie to him, giving him a false impression. Maybe Wingrove should consider speaking to the 99 percent or more in the UK who aren't lawyers. Perspective might then vary widely. Having said that, the employer, Managing IP, is more like a think tank of the litigation industry -- one that sets up UPC advocacy events in collaboration with Team UPC/EPO.

Yesterday IP Kat brought up the above paper as well:

Kat friends Matthias Lamping and Hanns Ullrich of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, have recently published two articles on the impact of Brexit on the unitary patent system and the unified patent judiciary: "The European Union’s Patent System after Brexit: Disunited, but Unified?" and "The Unified Patent Court, and How Brexit Breaks It". A potentially sobering read. See here for IPKat commentary on the recent guidance note from the UK government on a impact of a no-deal brexit on the UPC.

Why did IP Kat not write about this paper but did write about "the recent guidance note from the UK government"?

Lies by omission? The typical pro-UPC bias of IP Kat, connected to CIPA and Bristows?

Media coverage about the UPC has always been a sham and that's a shame. Nothing has changed. ⬆