This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2018/11/08/upca-tragedy/.
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) will likely never exist (ever); it’s not hard to see who stands to lose from this demise of the UPC (before it even started)
THE corrupt European Patent Office (EPO) is still not mentioning the UPC. António Campinos mentioned it only a couple of times and Battistelli will likely pass away before he gets his hands on anything resembling a tribunal.
=> ↺ EPO | ↺ António Campinos
Team UPC isn’t giving up just yet; there was that bogus (stacked) hearing that we wrote about shortly after it had taken place [1, 2] (it was aided by misleading media coverage). Now "Kluwer Patent blogger" (likely Bristows) comes out with biased coverage. Notice how Team UPC is increasingly anonymous/masked, as we last noted a week ago, especially when they try to discredit people who say the truth.
=> 1 | 2 | aided by misleading media coverage | "Kluwer Patent blogger" (likely Bristows) | ↺ biased coverage
From the introduction:
If a Brexit agreement is reached with the European Union, the UK can stay in the Unitary Patent system during the transitional period and likely be part of the system once this comes into effect. This was argued last week by Kevin Mooney of Simmons & Simmons, who is closely involved in the creation of the Unified Patent Court.
Kevin Mooney is quoted as saying: “There are people who are really quite angry because there is a severe risk that the UP project will fail if the UK – with its judges and their influence and the economic contribution towards the budget of the court, which is not inconsiderable – doesn’t participate. My personal view is that there is a real risk it won’t go ahead, and that would be a tragedy.”
Tragedy for who?
Not for British businesses, to whom the UPC itself was a tragedy in the making.
The group that’s pushing the UPC/A is a bunch of liars, professional liars. If they meddle in the court’s affairs, there will be dire consequences. As the first comment (on the above) said:
I find it remarkable that there a rumours circulating regarding not only the timing but the content of the decision of the BVerfG. This is because it can mean only one of two things.
The first option is that the rumours are well founded. That would be extremely disturbing, as it would mean either that someone from the BVerfG has been leaking information to individuals who are not party to the proceedings or it would mean that the BVerfG has been ordered to reach the “correct” conclusion at a time that is politically suitable (ie immediately after the latest sensible date by which the Withdrawal Agreement with the UK really ought to have been concluded). Both of these explanations would mean that the integrity of the judicial system has been compromised.
The second option would be that the rumours are all guesswork, based upon nothing of substance whatsoever. But would such groundless rumours really be proffered as an answer to a serious question at a hearing in Parliament? That would be highly unprofessional, would it not?
Either way, there is an unpleasant smell about all of this.
On a slightly different note, are there any rumours circulating regarding the constitutional complaints that concern the EPO? One would presume that those complaints would need to be dealt with first.
We’re keeping an eye on these affairs, but we don’t expect UPCA to suddenly make a comeback. █
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 (3851b).