Talking among themselves, lying to reinforce illusions

Summary: Law firms just cannot get themselves to openly admit that the fate of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is very grim; instead they mislead potential clients and discredit themselves (to save face in the short term)

THE previous post mentioned some of the latest patent maximalism of D Young & Co LLP, whose staff published and promoted loads of stuff the day before Christmas Eve. A couple of articles that caught our attention didn't sweeten the holiday because it was a pile or 'document dump' of nonsense. Promoted in Lexology was this article which is a load of lies -- the famous two lies -- from Team UPC boosters of D Young & Co LLP, or Rachel Bateman in this case. It fabricates 'facts' to make it seem like UPC has actual progress. It's only them who perpetuate this lie about the UPC, but it's as dead as last year. To quote some bits:

After months of silence on the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and unitary patent (UP), we have seen some interesting news and developments in recent weeks.

[...]

More likely is that the UK will leave the EU, and there will then need to be a decision on whether the UPC and UP can come into effect when/if Germany ratifies. The European Parliament analysis explains how the UPCA will need to be amended (and approved by all parties) to remove the mention of one of the UPC Central Divisions being in London, but if the UK voluntarily withdraws from the agreement, it could be possible for the UPC and UP to come into effect because the three remaining member states with the highest number of patents (France, Germany, and The Netherlands) would have ratified.

A lot of this seems to be based on some interview with a person whose job is -- by his own admission -- promoting the fiction of progress. And then there's this: "The second development relates to the German constitutional challenge. On 20 November 2019, the judge overseeing this challenge denied any rumours that the court has been delaying the decision until the outcome of Brexit is clear. The judge also confirmed that he intends to decide the case in the first quarter of 2020. Given that Brexit is currently scheduled for the end of January 2020, the start of 2020 should be an interesting one for those awaiting more information on the UPC and UP."

Well, other judges (or Justices) have not spoken about it and the court itself sought to distance itself from that statement [1, 2, 3]. If anything, UPC 'success' probability only decreased this year because of the British election. They don't fancy talking about that, do they?

Bateman's colleague, D Young & Co LLP's Laura Jennings, has meanwhile added to this misinformation in Lexology and her original. The last paragraph here rehashes old lies from Team UPC or is basically lobbying based upon lies. The UPC is dead, but watch what she says:

If the Unified Patent Court (UPC) comes into force, it will hear cases relating to European patents and SPCs, and unitary patents (UPs). In the event that the UPC comes into force and the UK needs to withdraw from the UPC and the unitary patent, UK and EU businesses will be able to use the UPC and unitary patents to protect inventions in the EU. Accordingly, UK businesses will also be open to litigation within the UPC based on their actions in the EU. However, UK and EU businesses would not be able to use the UPC and unitary patents to protect inventions in the UK. Instead, they must use national rights obtained via the UKIPO or the EPO.

That's complete and utter nonsense. If the UK leaves the EU, then that dooms the UPC in any form. It's really that simple and working to 'ameliorate' or reduce the damage means directly and probably consciously lying. Well, these people are lawyers, not judges, rights? Their job is to serve clients, not justice. ⬆