This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2016/07/04/foley-and-lardner-on-upc/.
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Those who are trying to warp and subvert Europe’s patent system/s so as to benefit large corporations (often from abroad) are not getting their way and may simply have to give up trying
Frederic Henschel, a partner at the US law firm Foley & Lardner LLP, has just published at Science|Business this article titled “Could Brexit be a death knell for the European Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court?”
The substance of the article is about as pessimistic (if not more pessimistic) than the headline insinuates, much like yesterday's analysis from the EPO-leaning IAM. It’s not looking too good for the UPC anymore. To quote Henschel, “UK withdrawal from the EU will fundamentally change the basic scope of the Unitary Patent and the associated Unitary Patent Court. This could permanently jeopardise the launch of the European single patent” (key word here is permanently).
=> yesterday's analysis from the EPO-leaning IAM
“Not only UK applicants would be excluded as the UPC may never get off the ground at all.”Henschel also recalls the scam privately perpetrated by Team UPC (still busy trying to 'hack' the law). They advertised jobs that don’t exist and may never exist at all (in the future). We were right all along about it, so where is the responsibility or liability for wasting applicants’ time? To quote Henschel: “Applications for a position as UPC judge were being accepted until 4 July 2016 [i.e. today], but UK applicants may now be excluded from consideration. Given the prominent role the UK has historically played in patent law, removing UK citizens as potential UPC judges would be a notable loss of talent.”
=> the scam privately perpetrated | Team UPC (still busy trying to 'hack' the law)
Not only UK applicants would be excluded as the UPC may never get off the ground at all. Without the litigation capital, namely London, the whole basis of the UPC is at risk. It’s not a reconcilable problem.
There are several more articles like the above (we offered a media survey last week) and this latest one does not cover UPC aspects although it does speak of the profound impact of Brexit (whether an exit is implemented at all at the end or simply abandoned, as it increasingly seems likely to be a referendum falling on deaf political ears).
“Without the litigation capital, namely London, the whole basis of the UPC is at risk.”Earlier today MIP continued its UPC series, laying out a scenario about a (likely) dead project. That’s just what we have come to expect from patent lawyers’ Web sites, ones where the writers are associated directly (e.g. through Bristows) with Team UPC. “In the latest in our series of UPC scenarios, Laura Whiting and Inmaculada Lorenzo explore the options for a pharmaceutical patent owner faced with a potential infringer manufacturing its product in Spain,” MIP writes. Well, Spain vigorously opposes the UPC, so there’s something a little odd about this scenario. It seems like self promotion in the form of an article, much like this EPO spam from yesterday (paid ‘article’ in Reuters, titled “EPO intends to grant patent”). █
=> ↺ MIP continued its UPC series | Bristows | Spain vigorously opposes the UPC | ↺ this | ↺ EPO
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).