Is the Unitary Patent system worthwhile without the UK?

"all of the European industry [...] were in favour of the Unitary Patent system" Software industry opposed the UPC: http://www.nounitarysoftwarepatents.uk/uk-software-companies-oppose-unitary-patent-ratification

No chance, Kevin. Sorry. As a UK patent attorney in Germany, my sense is that the UPC was only seen as useful for as long as all three of the EU's "Big Three" were committed to it. The ideal number for a committee is three. With only two members, how can a committee cope with any difference of opinion amongst its members? The BREXIT crowd doesn't see it, or accept it, but the UK, within the EU, had an incredibly powerful role, mediating between Germany and France, never more prominent and crucial than in the field of law-making. All now thrown away, like so many other good things, and so much soft power, by the selfish, greedy and anti-social people driving BREXIT.

As far as I understand the legal situation, is there at all a possibility for the German government to stop the UPC?The parliament has agreed with the UPC and in case the constitutional court agrees with the UPC and the way of the parliament approval, the UPC agreement only requires the signature of the Federal President which is a mere formality?

It does not come as the surprise that Mr Mooney is disappointed. For him and all the British members who sat in the co-opted Committee drafting as a closed party the Rules of Procedure, the result on investment is nil, and this is always hard to accept. The non-British members of this committee can still hope that their result on investment not to be nil, but without UK, it will certainly be lower than expected should the UPC come to life, which anything but certain. Europe might have "needed a new patent system for 50 years", but certainly not something like the UPC. That European Industry needs the UPC is only the opinion of people like Mr Mooney, but certainly not of those having had a look at what is really needed in Europe. The birth defect of the UPCA is that it is not binding for all member states of the EU. Some countries might have signed, but will never ratify. Some have or will ratify, but they have been lured in with the promise of some function located there, e.g. arbitration chambers. No wonder why some countries will not ratify as it will be detrimental to their industry. Poland and the Czech Republic might not be the only ones. What might be needed in Europe is a treaty which does not grossly favours big countries, with big industries having very deep pockets, but which is also useful for smaller ones. Only then a true IP cooperation within the EU could be achieved. But the number of true supranational cases is so little that the necessity of such a monster like the UPC is only for those thinking of filling their pockets with lawyer fees and squeezing out SMEs. It is good that the complaint before the FCC has put the progress of the UPC to a halt. It has given the opportunity to look at it very carefully, and to realise how badly it has been conceived beside for those who intended to profit from it. How can a judge at the UPC be independent if he can be removed from office by a mere decision of the Presidium of the UPC, but at the same time no means of redress are opened to him? The same applies to the re-appointment of judges. What will be the criterion applied? Those are a real constitutional problems and it is to be hoped that the FCC will look into it them. Rather than dwelling on the UPCA, it would be much better if the FCC would look at the complaints about the independence of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO. There are no less than four complaints about this topic before the FCC. It might be the best moment to care for the true independence of the Boards, and not just merely look at improving the perception of their independence... This would certainly be more of a benefit for European industry and European SMEs than a monster like the UPC. It is also high time to bring life into Art 4a EPC2000. Now or never. And should any president of the EPO not like such a conference, he should simply go back where he came from. It should not be forgotten that after all EPC members states, that is also member states of the EU, have the same IP law, as it is based on the UPC. One good way to bring in harmonisation with respect to the validity is to bring IP judges from all over Europe together regularly. Such meetings are already taking place and they should be pursued and reinforced. On the other hand, subsidiarity is also something which should be kept in mind within the EU, and if a few decisions of national courts are at odds with decisions of the Boards of Appeal, does this really harm and bring about legal uncertainty? Not in my humble opinion. But adding an extra layer of case law in the hope that it will be valid for all, even the EPO, is truly increasing legal uncertainty. One way of deciding in a uniform way over all member states of the EPC is to keep open the possibility of filing an opposition for the whole life of the patent, and not merely for nine months after grant. But for this we need truly independent Boards of Appeal and certainly not examining and opposition divisions just focused on figures and a quick turnover of files. Infringement could remain national, and there is no need to have one system to fit all. There are very few truly supranational litigation cases, and the companies involved in them have deep enough pockets to afford the extra costs. Telling that the UPC is cheaper than existing ways is only correct should one need a patent in all contracting states of the EU. When looking at the average number of validations, the UPC is anything but necessary. There are other cheaper ways to create a new patent system for Europe than the UPC should such a system be really needed, what appears highly doubtful! Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!! No need to explain!

I think that now time has finally come to implement a unitary EU patent with ENGLISH as the ONLY language. With the UK gone, what almost all of us who are remaining have in common is ENGLISH as our SECOND LANGUAGE. SO LET’S BE PRACTICAL!