Source: http://techrights.org/2017/04/02/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:58:17+00:00

Document:
IT IS not news to us that the Chamber of Commerce (essentially an influence/pressure group) is with the litigation lobby, as a lot of litigation or threats thereof might come from large companies against their minuscule competitors. CoC — as it’s often referred to (almost derogatorily) — stands for large multinational corporations, so the “commerce” part isn’t exactly frank.
Here in Europe we have similar problem because Battistelli demolishes patent quality whilst EPO management and Team UPC are lobbying aggressively for UPC. Cui bono? Certainly not scientists. They would be the ones to lose money to a bunch of non-producing (or unproductive) parasites.
WE GENERALLY do not disclose who we speak to (nationality, gender, affiliation) and how many people we speak to regarding the EPO as that would only help the horrific, Nazi era-esque Investigative Unit (I.U.) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], which seems to be the only thing that is growing at the EPO.
“Some don’t believe that there is a future to the EPO and Battistelli as an “agent of change” (so-called ‘reforms’) is more like an angel of death.”People whom we speak to have been concerned about the EPO for quite some time. Some don’t believe that there is a future to the EPO and Battistelli as an “agent of change” (so-called ‘reforms’) is more like an angel of death. If his goal is total destruction of the Office and the Organisation too, then he is doing a terrific job. Bravo, Bennie! But such destruction would in no way serve Europe’s interests; instead, it would devastate the continent’s economy for decades to come.
In the last post about the EPO from pseudonym "Merpel" (several different people use this name) it was acknowledged that things had gotten worse. There was a glimmer of optimism over intervention, but as one who covered this closely for nearly 3 years I know that the biggest battle — if battle is a suitable word in this context — is still ahead. Information is crucial in this battle because the EPO lies so routinely that it’s embarrassing to Europe. It’s the standard I expect when traveling somewhere like Turkey (not that I would travel there any longer).
“Information is crucial in this battle because the EPO lies so routinely that it’s embarrassing to Europe”As EPO insiders have already explained, the writings are on the wall and layoffs can be expected as early as next year. Not a few layoffs here and there but a massive avalanche of redundancies. What would then happen to examiners with their highly restrictive contracts? What would happen to EPs? Who would be left to properly examine applications rather than package and dispatch them like hot crème patissière? While calling these ‘products’ and arrival of applications ‘demand’ (as if these are invoiced in some ordinary business or production line)?
Now, after this tremendous call for the “war front line” , when we have almost all man-power devoted to the core-business, what does the management decide?
Would a car factory wanting to stay in business refund the money for ordered cars? Do you believe that the stakeholders of this factory would be happy to return the money even though the factory C.E.O. argued that there was/is a backlog? Wouldn’t you as a stakeholder investigate what’s happening? Wouldn’t a worker question what the hell is going on? … and if something is really “going on” wouldn’t the C.E.O. do anything possible to quiet all contradicting voices?
You bet the EPO is heading for the closure of its expertise as we know it. Now, if examiners are digging their own grave, isn’t the whole IP world just washing their hands? perhaps in a couple of years the EPO won’t be around and there won’t be Search reports and examinations by this office. My question is: does this suit the european industry? Is it fine with the attorneys with the EQE? Are the countries happy with this? You see, examiners do digg their own graves, but we are so used to make a good job and wish to keep always the inventors happy, that if you want to give as a hand, just stand quiet and watch us go down.
Maybe SIPO Europe is a better analogy. Or another INPI, where examination is barely in the lexicon. It’s almost mortifying to see what the EPO has become. As a software professional I worry that the EPO is granting software patents by the thousands each year and when/if the EPO goes under, the trolls will cross the Atlantic ‘bridge’ and come knocking on our doors, with or without a UPC-like regime. It is a real possibility — one that we have warned about for a decade.
Staff representatives have already explained that it's against the EPC, but who is going to enforce the EPC? Certainly not this chinchilla of a man.
Well, security was sent to chase away a bailiff, so the above sounds almost believable.
This gross kind of abuse can happen because nobody is left to supervise Battistelli and his clique. 0% of stakeholders support Battistelli, yet somehow — miraculously — he keeps his job.
Speaking to some EPO insiders, we must conclude that at least some of them seem to believe that Battistelli won’t necessarily leave his job but instead he will bury the office under him (in his seventies), or sink with the ship that he is actively sinking. It’s quite scary a thought. It’s like a movie plot about a Mafia. The EPO is embroiled in many legal disputes and in many of them the EPO simply disregards the rulings of judges (ILO for example), then lies about it.
That’s just one case of many we are aware of. We have a lot of documents and sooner or later all that ‘dirty laundry’ of the EPO is bound to be smelled. But will there be any EPO left by then? Something to actually salvage?
“We have a lot of documents and sooner or later all that ‘dirty laundry’ of the EPO is bound to be smelled.”It’s no secret that Battistelli holds as ransom/hostage people’s pensions, so even employees who are unjustly dismissed are afraid to talk. That’s the strategy of tyrants, along with collective accountability, collective punishment, harassment of spouses (yes, Battistelli’s office has done that too), and so much more.
The reason protections (such as ILO) exist in the first place is prevention of such scenarios, which allow a tyrant to simply 'take over' (entryism or coup) in a destructive and irreversible fashion. But these protections too are being abolished, ignored, etc.
One day, perhaps after the regime of Battistelli is toppled, a lot of shocking stories are likely to come out. Given the nature of the regime at the moment (like the Battle of Berlin) we reluctantly agree that the time is not right for publishing any of the personal accounts (unless anonymity can be preserved). I keep my complete notes on various cases for some form of publication in the future, as soon as it seems safe enough a thing to do.
“Is Battistelli willing to totally crash the EPO in order to make the UPC a reality? We certainly think so.”Many people think that big changes may be coming to the EPO (like dismissals of managements), but UPC progress — if any is made — may help determine the outcome. If Battistelli fails to deliver the UPC this year (even with the UK excluded, necessitating a massive rewrite), then his big business buddies (almost like bosses) will be upset and he will have lost popularity in these circles too. The only reason we believe Battistelli can survive right now is a bunch of low-profile billionaires who view Battistelli as the man to forcibly feed Europe the UPC, granting them all sorts of powers to bully their competitors (something like a ‘micro’ ISDS, wherein companies are collectively sued instead of states).
“MERPEL” (a pseudonym of various people at IP Kat) no longer covers EPO scandals, which leaves more room for Team UPC to push its agenda that worryingly enough overlaps Battistelli’s agenda. It’s sad to see, but that’s what IP Kat recently became.
For those who have not been paying attention, following the Article 50 news IP Kat published not one but two puff pieces about the UPC. The articles attracted over a dozen comments and all the comments are negative, disagreeing as usual with the original posts. And rightly so. We have, for quite some time, complained about this and we happen to know that even some former ‘Kats’ are not entirely happy with this bias.
“In this post we wish to focus on rational responses rather than pure marketing from Team UPC.”What has the IP Kat been reduced to?
In this post we wish to focus on rational responses rather than pure marketing from Team UPC. Typically, in most sites, articles are a lot saner than the comments, but in IP Kat — at least as far as UPC goes — it’s exactly the opposite.
Who is taking whom for a ride?
If UK wants to kill the UPC, this is the best way to behave.
One thing is clear: the lobbying of some circles, not to say U.K. law firms shows that what reasonable people consider stupid and foolish, might nevertheless become true.
Which reasonable legal adviser can suggest to his client to go for the UP, when it is not sure what will be the fate of the UPC.
I am still waiting for somebody to explain in a clear and concise matter how UK can stay in the UP after Brexit, and how enforcement will take place in the U.K. or in the other states for a decision taken by a local court or the section of the central court in UK.
The UPC is nothing more than a Trojan Horse coming to put European industry under pressure. Remember the proportion of applications coming from EU member states at the EPO? At best a third! And how many SMEs among those?
It is time to stop the ongoing hypocrisy.
One of the comments above made it clear who will be the beneficiary of the UPC: the US, Japanese and Chinese companies. Where is the benefit for European industries and especially European SMEs? Being generous, may be a good third comes from Europe. And where does the rest come from?
The problem with the judges is not only of procedural nature. Interpreting the EPC is also at stake. When one sees that how decisions of the the boards of appeal are superbly ignored by national courts (and vice versa), why should this change under the UPC? Remember that in the big countries there will be two national judges in a panel, hence conclusions are easy to draw. Any idea how to resolve the necessarily upcoming of conflicting case law between the BA and the UPC? May be by not just sending the BA to Haar, but in orbit, as once Mr Pedrick suggested to do for the search documentation…..
As for Max Drei, what he says is exactly confirming what I have just said. Let’s do it the British way, which is the only right one! And that should represent a unified legal system? Please do not abuse the credulity of the reader. And on top of it there are so many unresolved legal issues following the Brexit, that any legal adviser suggesting his client not to opt out should be struck of the list of qualified representatives be it before the EPO or the UPC. The only thing such a representative does is to insure that his purse is well filled and that is it.
Hypocrisy has to stop. The UPC is so laden with errors of conception, that the Brexit is the opportunity to see how thing could be made better, and really to the benefit of European industry and SMEs. Already now the share value of companies depends on the litigation started. Do we really want this in Europe?
Observer, you suggest that pan-European benefits litigants from outside Europe more than domestic industry. The EU Registered Design Right was also supposed to help domestic industry against competitors from outside Europe. You know: nobody ever files for design registration outside their home country, that logic.
Yet my feeling is that EU Design Registrations are mainly used by non-European claimants against European defendants.
Compare jurisdictions outside Europe: US, JP, CN. Who can deny that litigants in those jurisdictions go on enjoying huge “home advantage” by playing at home, in their own courts?
But this is why I cherish my European heritage. More fairness, and less nationalism and protectionism than in other jurisdictions. At least, in the recent past that is.
When one sees the sudden increase of grants, but without loss of quality…., and the way the boards of appeal are ill treated, with the fees having to go up, and the posts being only sparingly filled, one wonders if we do not have here the secret agenda of the president of the EPO. Let everything go down the drain, so that the only place to litigate will be the UPC. And this is a good forum for companies having deep pockets. But no it is just for the SMEs. Convenient, n’est-ce pas?
It was a bad idea from the start, irrespective of Brexit. Pushed for by the litigation community in complete ignorance of the realities of the industries they purport to represent. Further evidence, if it were ever needed, of the self-serving bubble of ignorance and incompetence in which such lawyers reside.
Well, Bristows is lying, not joking. There is a profound difference between those two actions.
The UK is busy gathering cards to play in its negotiations with the 27. Hinting at weakened co-operation on security against terrorism is just one dirty example. Ratifying the UPC is just another card in the hand.
That’s a very loaded statement which doesn’t really belong at IP Kat. Smyth wants us to wrongly assume that the UPC is about to start irrespective of the UK. Nothing is true about certainty at all (even outside the UK) and pretending that it’s inevitable is part of the brainwash we’ve repeatedly complained about.
“They’re like a political party, the “UPC Party”.”Remember MIP’s UPC lobbying events — the ones without any critics of the UPC in them? Darren Smyth personally participates in such events, in his capacity at a law firm; no actual producers are invited, attending etc. (it’s super expensive and designed to exclude some views, just like RNC and DNC). They’re like a political party, the “UPC Party”.
Thankfully, the responses are all pretty much dissenting, in the sense that they don’t share the same optimism as the original writers’ (as is common in IP Kat these days). Bristows' views in particular received a lot of flak.
I remember 1978 when the PCT and EPC got started. Applicants were very cautious, but the economics of filing PCT/EPC were so much more attractive than continuing to file national. The EPO did nothing to dent confidence in its procedures or in the way it examined substantive patentability. So then, after a few years of caution, and of keenly monitoring EPO performance on thousands of cases, everybody simply piled in.
That was the level of cautiousness then. I cannot imagine it is much different today.
But think about when the deciders ask: Unitary patent? Why should I?
Is there any persuasive answer why they should? we are always being told that industry hates uncertainty. Is saving on annuities enough of a reason to switch to unitary? In Big Pharma, who is going to volunteer to go first?
For most major patent filers, and thus most major litigants, and thus most of the (potential) major users of the court, the UK is indeed peripheral to the operations of the company (emphasis on company).
However, for the patent litigation system, both: (i) as it stands at the moment; and (ii) as projected under the UPC, the UK is a very important component. The UK has been a significant contributor to the design of the UPC system, and is also significant in terms of the contributions from judges, the patent jurisprudence, and (to be honest) the lawyers.
How is the circle going to be squared?
Comment #2 [above] asks how the circle will be squared.
It seems to me that England is an extremely important jurisdiction for high value patent litigation where fact-finding is key to the outcome. Mainland Europe doesn’t understand equity, disclosure, cross-examination. Time and again, business people in civil law jurisdictions get burned by English law fact-finding. The arrogant assertion “That’s for me to know, and you to find out” doesn’t end the matter if you litigate in England (or the USA).
So unitary patent or not, I see England having on ongoing important role to play, when patents get litigated in Europe.
I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind who would put their Crown Jewels into the Unitary Patent system.
The UPC is a different question entirely. However, it will be several years before those who can afford to opt their cases out take a look at whether they should revisit their decision.
With all “important” cases opted out by all those with deep pockets, what will there be left for the UPC to work with in the early years? There will of course be some cases where the proprietors can afford to lose their patent. But there will not be too many of those. There is only one group of operators for whom the UPC will be very attractive from the off: non-practising entities.
So, the UPC will be a troll’s paradise. With not many cases to go around, what is the betting that the various local divisions will end up “competing” against one another for the biggest source of “work”? And so what is to stop the UPC creating a European outpost of the Eastern District of Texas?
It’s not looking good. The only crumb of comfort that I can cling on to is that the Unitary Patent Package appears to contravene general principles of EU law, and so there is a faint chance that it could end up being struck down by the CJEU.
I still fail to understand how the UK government, while trumpeting loudly about being freed from the shackles of the ECJ, can boldy come along and ratify a treaty of which it knows full well it will be stepping out in 2 years time…could someone please explain the rationale behind this, other than some cynical attempt to gain negociating points with regard to the EU – after all, if the UK does ratify, and the whole thing kicks off, how long is the UK going to hold the system in a suspended state of animation pending negotiation of some kind of acceptable exit deal ? Listening to Theresa May in parliament at PMQs on March 29th, and David Davis yesterday, one gets the impression the UK government is going to do what it jolly well pleases legislatively as and when the time comes. Irrespective of the legal arguments presented in support of a Brexited-UK still being able to be a member of the UPC, what happens to the supremacy of the ECJ over UK law in this so bright and rosy independent future ?
Proof of th epudding is very sceptical about the success of the UPC. Where I can understand that from a European point of view, things are regarded differently at the other side of the ocean(s). For non-Europeans the scattering in Europe (the capital of Denmark is Amsterdam, right? And something terrible is happening in Sweden. Sweden, by all means!) is gruesome and should be ended as soon as possible.
I thus expect that many American, Japanese and Chinese companies would welcome this one court fits all principle.
It has been announced that the court will have experienced judges: most of the leading patent jaudges in the UK, Germany, France and The Netherlands will appear as UPC-judges. Thus, quality of teh court will not be a problem.
A problem in the first years of the existence of the court will be the harmonisation of the procedures, where local habits may tend to be persistent.
The fear for NPEs as mentioned by Proof seems to be justified. At this moment already the number of NPE cases in Germany is rising steeply and the NPEs more and more tend to litigate outside of the USA (and thus in Europe). On the other hand: is the attitude of NPEs objectionable? I do not see that you should be a producer yourself in order to be allowed to stop others producing.
So, I do not share the bleak view of Proof of the Pudding and I share Max Drei’s comparison with the start of the PCT and EPC: in the long run (which hopefully may not be that long) the UP and UPC will be a success.
Finally we see better and broader realisation of the trolls problem in Germany. People are catching up with the latest. These trolls are already coming to the UK, too. Cautionary tale about the UPC? Only lawyers in London would profit from this.
I do not object to NPEs. I object to “trolls”. There is a subtle difference between the two. A troll engages in abusive (threats of) litigation in order to extract income from a patent of highly dubious validity (or from patent claims that cannot validly be “stretched” to cover the activities complained of).
I say that the UPC will be a troll’s paradise because of two main factors. Firstly, the ridiculously high fee for filing a counterclaim for revocation. For the victim of abusive litigation, that’s effectively a tax on defending yourself. Secondly, there is still no functioning market for (patent) litigation insurance. This will leave SMEs in Europe as “easy pickings” for trolls… no doubt heavily backed by investment groups that will view all of this as a wonderful wheeze.
Upon reflection, I take issue with your assertion that you would “expect that many American, Japanese and Chinese companies would welcome this one court fits all principle”.
The problem that I have with your assertion is not that such companies won’t perceive the potential advantages to the UPC. Of course they will. Instead, my issue is that all such companies will surely have European advisors… who will no doubt be pointing out to them that it is a complete no-brainer to opt out all of their important patents and applications (at least for the time being). And if their European advisors are not doing that, then I would question why not.
On a totally separate theme, Max is of course correct to point out that users were initially hesitant to utilise the EPO. No doubt the same theme will play out with the UPC. However, there is a crucial difference between the EPC and the UPCA. For the former, it has taken over 40 years for fundamental flaws in the governance structure set out in the EPC to be exposed (by a ruthless and self-serving borderline psychopath). For the latter, anyone who cares to consider in detail how unitary patents and the UPC can be made to work will realise that the system is already horribly broken before it has even started… not to mention that is also has similar flaws as the EPC in terms of governance.
I should point out that I am all for a well-designed, fully functional “unitary” patent system for Europe. I just haven’t seen one yet.
How convenient it was for the EPO President (on secondment from Paris) to skewer the EPO’s patent law-making Appeals Directorate DG3. Not only did it wreak revenge on his troublesome judges in Munich, but it has also helped the Paris Seat of the UPC to get up and running with an enhanced flow of pan-European patent disputes.
The CJEU always did have French as its working language so the “seat” of pan-European patent law in Munich always was an affront to La Grande Nation. Till now, that is.
SOFTWARE patents are the biggest problem for GNU/Linux right now. A lot of people don’t know it because patents don’t have any physical presence and they are typically silent in the background, e.g. back room deals and settlements. Trolls like to work in the dark, keeping their victims isolated and helpless.
“Should listen to this Episode BEFORE signing @TheLOTNET Targeted by patent trolls,” says this new tweet about a new podcast from IP Wire — an episode that touches OIN and Microsoft. We recently wrote about software patents aspects of OIN and inability to do anything about Microsoft’s trolls who are the company’s latest patent strategy against GNU/Linux [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. Sadly, though many Free software proponents prefer to overlook the problem, patent blackmail persists and it harms the ability to freely distribute Free software such as GNU/Linux.
“Sadly, though many Free software proponents prefer to overlook the problem, patent blackmail persists and it harms the ability to freely distribute Free software such as GNU/Linux.”Thankfully, the US has been cracking down on software patents — a development we are profoundly thankful for. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), together with PTAB, is smashing a lot of software patents to pieces. Patent maximalists like Crouch are trying to use CAFC to slow PTAB down, but they have not been successful. They also try to cause a stir for the removal of the Director of the USPTO, who has been partly responsible for various key reforms.
Suffice to say, law firms are not particularly happy about it. Some of them try to figure out ways around CAFC and writing to other law firms (behind paywall) they say: “Several recent decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have untangled crucial uncertainties plaguing software patent applicants following the outcome of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).” (the headline is somewhat misleading and gives unnecessary optimism with, “Federal Circuit Cases Clarify What Makes a Valid Software Patent”).
After the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the very same issue and patent, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reached a split decision, finding the claims to be patent eligible under § 101 despite new characterizations of the abstract idea and new arguments from the patent owner. IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc., Case No. CBM2015-00182 (PTAB, Feb. 28, 2017) (Plenzler, APJ) (Petravick, APJ, dissenting in part).
The patent at issue is directed to a user interface for an electronic trading system that allows a remote trader to view trends for an item. The patent owner asserted this patent against several defendants, who in turn sought covered business method (CBM) patent reviews in America Invents Act proceedings at the PTAB. One of the earlier cases resulted in a determination by the PTAB that the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101. On appeal of that earlier case, the Federal Circuit reversed and issued a non-precedential decision finding the claims patent eligible. In view of the Federal Circuit’s decision, the PTAB in the instant case allowed further briefing on the impact the Federal Circuit’s decision.
Addressing issues of obviousness and anticipation in the context of an inter partes review, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two decisions with respect to the same patent, vacating and remanding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision finding the claims invalid as obvious in the first case, and affirming the PTAB’s finding that the claims were not anticipated in the second case. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center v. Eli Lilly and Co., Case No. 16-1518 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 28, 2017) (Bryson, J) (Newman, J, concurring in part, dissenting from the judgment); Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Case No. 16-1547 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 28, 2017) (Bryson, J).
The Federal Circuit agreed with LAB’s contention that the PTAB’s findings were insufficient to establish obviousness under the correct claim construction. Specifically, the Court found that, while the PTAB concluded that the prior art references rendered obvious the treatment of erectile dysfunction via the claimed method, it did not make factual findings to determine whether those references showed it would have been obvious to use long-term continuous treatment with a PDE5 inhibitor to treat individuals with penile fibrosis and to achieve the arrest or regression of that condition. The Court noted that the correct construction of the pertinent claim language required more than simply treating erectile dysfunction. The Court also noted that the PTAB failed to consider the possibility that, even if the combination of prior art references taught long-term treatment with a PDE inhibitor of individuals with some forms of erectile dysfunction, a person of skill in the art may not have been motivated to combine those same references to treat individuals with fibrosis-related erectile dysfunction, for whom, LAB argued, the results would have been expected to be detrimental.
EARLIER this year we wrote numerous posts that mentioned SCOTUS looking into laches [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. In simple terms, the recent SCOTUS ruling sided with patent trolls in the sense that Justices let them use the clock against their victim/s. There have just been two new examples of analyses from legal firms 1, 2], reaffirming our concern that patent trolls got somewhat of a boost from the ‘Supremes’ (Justices). But having said that, this case is of far lower impact than TC Heartland — another SCOTUS case which will be decided some time soon.
“In simple terms, the recent SCOTUS ruling sided with patent trolls in the sense that Justices let them use the clock against their victim/s.”There is a lot of press coverage about it (in recent days we found [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]), but it’s mostly dominated by patent law firms, i.e. patent microcosm as opposed to industry, academics, journalists etc. We don’t have time to comment on each article individually (we last wrote about the subject a few days ago), but the overall message seems positive. It certainly looks like the end of patent trolls (at least in Texas) is imminent. Based on our readings, the oral arguments (e.g. questions) suggest an inclination to overturn the decision, i.e. ban venue shifting.
To take TC Heartland as an example, the defendant corporation in the case, an Indiana-based manufacturer of zero-calorie sweeteners, was sued in Delaware even though it has no regular or established place of business in Delaware and is not even registered to do business in the state. Despite the defendant’s lack of connections, the court found that Delaware was a proper venue for the suit because a small percentage of the defendant’s sales—approximately 2 percent—were purchased by a customer in Arkansas and shipped to Delaware.
Savvy plaintiffs know that current rules allow them to bring suits virtually anywhere they want, so they seek out forums where they know judges are likely to give them an easier shake. One federal court in east Texas in particular has become infamous as a magnet for patent litigation because of its plaintiff-friendly rules and sympathetic juries.
In 2015, nearly 45 percent of all patent cases nationwide were filed in that one court. Nearly one-third of all patent cases nationwide were handled by a single judge on that court. This is forum-shopping in the extreme.
Perhaps truth simply does not matter when truth is detrimental to one’s wallet?
TODAY we would like to tackle some of the latest UPC deception. The EPO has (still is!) been silent since this PR charade, not saying anything about Brexit and the missed deadline for UPC ratification (now they say May, having said March 7th and then just March).
Yes, it is not at all certain that any of this will ever happen. Even UPC proponents might sometimes admit the truth and openly acknowledge that the UPC can be ignored for now.

References: CJEU 
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v.