THIS WEEKEND we're still struggling with server issues and potential migration by month's end. We've decided to focus on the European Patent Office (EPO) today and leave aside, at least until tomorrow, all the coverage about the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). We should also note that things have quieted down on both 'fronts' (or continents or countries), presumably because of the media's decline in general, not lack of things to cover.
“Unified Patent Court lies like these are just nonchalantly thrown out there; the above shows up even in Google News (which does not seem to recognise the lack of objectivity of the source that's trying to sell something).”The Dennemeyer Group also spreads lies about the Unified Patent Court Agreement; it's now pretending that "no legal barriers are standing in the way, just some political will." This is a lie. There are constitutional barriers and corruption.
From Dennemeyer's article: "The Agreement only needs ratification by Germany and Great Britain to come into effect. When it comes to the latter, no legal barriers are standing in the way, just some political will."
Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
Then came the CIPA types, just like the above law firms. To quote the messengers' self-promotional disclosures: "European Patent Attorney, Chartered Patent Attorney (UK) with a Ph.D. and a Master Degree in Physics, Dr. Anthony Carlick entered the IP profession in 2005. Before joining Dennemeyer & Associates, he worked for a top tier IP firm in the UK and also spent four years in the Middle East as a patent consultant. In this presentation, part of our Dennemeyer Annual Meeting 2018 blog series, Dr. Carlick discusses all the different options patent owners have and the ratification of UPC."
They are just trying to sell something. Doing so by lying is detrimental to one's reputation.
Speaking of poor reputation, how about Bristows? Alan Johnson (Bristows) cites an unsourced "rumour" (lie that brings up further concerns) about UPC given a go-ahead in Germany by year's end. This is a lobbying tactic of Team UPC; it's pretty much refuted by the court itself.
Kluwer Patent Blog published it under a real name, for a change, as many of their UPC articles were recently posted anonymously (usually those seeking to discredit truth-tellers about the UPC).
“They have been saying UPC would start "real soon now" for at least 3 years and where are we now?”People like Alan Johnson are telling these lies to politicians (like Jo Johnson and his successor), who then make misleading public statements. From Alan Johnson: "What then of the UPC and unitary patent dossier? From that perspective, the important point about this draft agreement is the expected Transition Period. Union law still applies to the UK in this period including, of course, the unitary patent and translation Regulations. These Regulations require that unitary patents are litigated in the UPC, and hence the effect of the Withdrawal Agreement is implicitly to sanction the UPC Agreement coming into force with the UK as a participant. “All” then that is required is for the Bundesverfassungsgeright to deal with the Stjerna Complaint – which rumours suggest might happen this year. Hence, if this Brexit deal goes through in some form, and if the BVerfG delivers the hoped-for rejection of the Complaint, we could actually see the UPC start in 2019 – a mere 60 years since a pan-European patent court was first seriously mooted and a mere 20 years since the Paris Intergovernmental Conference of the EPC which started the latest efforts (your author attended his first meeting with the UK IPO on this topic on 18 November 1999)."
This is an incredible lie, as usual from Bristows. They have been saying UPC would start "real soon now" for at least 3 years and where are we now? Their UPC blog is pretty much dead. No blog posts in months (they used to write several times per week).
Techrights recently turned 12 and I've never in those dozen years seen such chronic lying. Team UPC takes it to a whole new level. ⬆