A salty taste
That the DAV is supporting the view of the chairman of its IP committee should not come as a surprise.
That all the proponents of the UPC want this claim before the FGCC to fail is not a surprise either. One can thus expect similar views to be taken by all entities having a similar interest.
Should a truly independent body come up with this kind of arguments, I would be more inclined to say the claim is not admissible. On the other hand the view of a Professor of the Ludwig Maximilian University, Mr Ansgar Ohly, does appear biased as well.
There is still a fundamental question which has been left unanswered up to now: how can a court, the UPC, which is said not be a court of member states of the EU, have the possibility to address prejudicial questions to the CJEU?
This question has never been answered, and hence as long as this question does not receive a satisfactory answer, the whole discussion about the UPC as such, and post-Brexit participation of the UK in the UPC is no more than mere gambling.
That the EPO is not part of the EU law system is one thing, but the UPC is meant to be able to address the CJEU. And if it is not part of the EU law system, it appears legitimate for the GFCC to look into the matter. When one looks at the number of references to EU law in the UPCA, one wonders how such a contradictory position can even be adopted.
Independently of the complaint of Mr Stjerna, one should not forget that there are pending complaints before the FGCC relating to the working of the EPO. They have been admitted.
I can only agree that Techrights is only good at launching tons of drivel, assorted with the weirdest theories, and can ultimately not be taken seriously, even if sometimes nuggets of correct information may emerge.
So, whether you look at the DAV paper or at Techrights, have a pot of salt next to you!