This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2020/02/20/upc-is-dead-hence-judge-shaming/.
Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 5:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Tweet source
Summary: More judge-shaming tactics are in the mix; Team UPC seems to feel like there’s nothing left to lose as the UPC is already dead (hope itself is next to die)
THE prospects of software patents in Europe are grim. We’re going to include some new examples in Daily Links. Basically, the European Patent Office (EPO) under António Campinos (and Battistelli) can carry on granting lots of bogus patents (see the cartoon/meme above), but actual courts will say “no” and throw these out. We see lots of these stories all the time, but we no longer cover them as often as before. Mostly because it’s somewhat repetitive…
=> ↺ software patents in Europe | ↺ EPO | ↺ António Campinos | ↺ Battistelli
Law firms (or litigation giants) across Europe aren’t happy because clients gradually realise that European Patents aren’t worth the fees. They’re being devalued.
Can the courts be bypassed and made more lenient and EPO-friendly? Well, Team UPC certainly hoped so and Thomas Adam (“UPCtracker” in Munich area) is now resorting to a sort of name-calling when he types: “German Constitutional Court publishes preview of cases to be decided in 2020 (aka “list of lies”). 8 cases assigned to Professor Huber, among them still #UPC complaint and independence of/inadequate legal protection by EPO Boards of Appeal issue. bundesverfassungsgericht.de/DE/Verfahren/J…”
=> ↺ Thomas Adam (“UPCtracker” in Munich area) is now resorting to a sort of name-calling
“Law firms (or litigation giants) across Europe aren’t happy because clients gradually realise that European Patents aren’t worth the fees.”This undiplomatic language wasn’t overlooked and it didn’t take long for Matteo Pes, a UPC sceptic (apparently one of those hard-to-find honest attorneys), to respond. He joked at the phrase “List of lies…”
“According to the association of activists #FFII,” he wrote separately, “the ratification of #UPCA (Unified #Patent Court Agreement) by Germany might open up the possibility for a second constitutional complaint, following the already pending one filed by Dr Ingve Björn Stjerna….”
“It does not appear like any more complaints are necessary,” I responded, “and some were filed and succeeded outside Germany; Team UPC tried to bury or distort that news…”
The FFII’s press release wasn’t just noticed by Pes. It has been mentioned by others, including high-profile people like Dr. Glyn Moody and in German as well, not just by the author (here’s the German version). It was also published in French although it was mostly promoted in English [1, 2] — a language most Europeans can understand.
=> ↺ high-profile people like Dr. Glyn Moody | ↺ in German | ↺ the author | ↺ German version | ↺ published in French | ↺ 1 | ↺ 2
Going back to the rudeness of Team UPC, Dr. Birgit Clark politely corrected to “List of good intentions?”
She also cited the insult here (“All happening today: #UPC #patent #Germany Well, not much really happening but still, it creates a bit of excitement…”)
=> ↺ here
“Still insulting or harassing judges,” I told her….
This would not be the first time. We covered prior examples of this.
“For now Germany cannot ratify as it is,” Benjamin Henrion responded.
=> ↺ Benjamin Henrion responded
They know it. Team UPC is aware. And it hurts them. They’re sore and bitter, just like 35 U.S.C. § 101 bashers who see USPTO-granted patents perishing in courts. Like Team UPC, they’re made attempts to use legislation to override the proper legal process (they even bribed politicians like Coons for it, but Coons failed in 2017, 2018, and then 2019; in 2020 they openly admit it’s not progressing).
=> ↺ USPTO | Coons failed in 2017, 2018, and then 2019
The similarity is stunning!
We’ve meanwhile noticed that Gregory Bacon (BaCoons?) of Bristows LLP, one of the few left at the Bristows UPC team. He continues to spread the same old lies and spin. It’s getting more pathetic by the week and now they obsess over one judge, so borderline ad hominem. Quite a few people left Bristows LLP recently. The sooner they collapse, the better. Here’s the latest spin (similar to the previous):
=> ↺ Bristows LLP | ↺ latest spin
The German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) has published here the list of major cases which it intends to decide in 2020. Each year, many cases listed are not decided and are carried over to the next year’s list, and, as would be expected, the constitutional complaint against the Unified Patent Court (UPC) legislation (case reference 2 BvR 739/17) remains on the list of cases in the Second Senate allocated to the rapporteur Justice Huber. However, although this UPC case (filed in March 2017) was on the 2018 and 2019 lists, Justice Huber expects it to be actually decided this year.
Well, the complaint mentions Brexit, so with whatever happened last month (last day of January) there might be cause for further decision delays and in any case the government in Berlin might not care about such a decision and never ratify anyway, based on what it said before Brexit.
Here comes the Kluwer spin machine, which is connected to Bristows. The tweet says: “German complaint against ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement is on the FCC decision list for 2020 (again)” and it mentions Christine Robben (a Kluwer employee and perhaps “Kluwer Patent blogger” in this case). The corresponding article says: “The UPC and EPO cases are fifth and third on the list respectively, but as Bristows reported the cases are not necessarily decided in the order listed.”
=> ↺ Kluwer spin machine | ↺ corresponding article
You use Bristows as a credible source? Seriously? How many times have they lied before and even floated fabricated ‘rumours’?
Going back to the rude person, he later added [1, 2, 3]: “Apparently, in fall 2019 the DE Bundestag opted to file a submission in the consitutional [sic] cases concerning the independence of the EPO Boards of Appeal (2 BvR 2480/10 et al.; also on Prof. Huber´s plate). In the respective official document (BT-Drks. 19/13555 of 25Sep2019; /2 [...] https://bit.ly/2SE1fHG ), part of the section “A. Problem”, it is submitted that those cases are “related” to the #UPC complaint. That part reads as follows (my translation/ed.): “The proceedings are concerned w problems of legal protection in the patent grant procedure /3 [...] under [EPC] and raise in particular the Q of the extent to which the FCC provides legal protection against acts of organisations to which sovereign rights have been transferred with the consent of the German Bundestag under Article 24(1) of the Basic Law. /4″
Last year we wrote about half a dozen articles about how Team UPC had been lobbying and pressuring Huber, hoping that to salvage his reputation and self-imposed promises/deadlines he’ll just hurriedly can the complaint. That’s not happening, is it? █
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).