Source: http://blog.ksnh.eu/en/author/vm/
Timestamp: 2015-05-29 01:55:46
Document Index: 11826669

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 48', 'Art 83', 'Art 83', 'Art 48', 'Art 48', 'Art 83']

Volker ‘Falk’ Metzler | ksnh::law
Posts by:	Volker 'Falk' Metzler
Tagged with: abstract idea • Comvik • non-technical features • non-technological invention • PTAB • SAP v Versata 15th UPC Draft Rules of Procedure open for Public Consultation
By Volker 'Falk' Metzler On June 26, 2013 · 3 Comments · In EPC, EU law, EU Unified Patent Court, Unitary Patent Yesterday, the much awaited website of the UPC Preparatory Committee went live under the domain www.unified-patent-court.org. A main purpose of this website is to inform the public about the Committee’s work and the UPC as such (see e.g. Q&A section). One of the most important tasks of the Committee is the preparation of the Rules of Procedure of the future Unified Patent Court.
public consultation until 1 October 2013. Written comments are to be submitted to secretariat@unified-patent-court.org. So, please, colleagues, readers, and fellow bloggers, study the official draft and make submissions to the Preparatory Committee if necessary. The further procedure after closure of the public consultation is explained as well:
The official version of the 15th draft differs form the inofficial version in a number of ways. One significant difference relates to Rule 286 governing, inter alia, the conditions under which non-lawyers (i.e. professionals that are not attorneys-at-law) may independently represent cases before the UPC. This rule has previously been criticised on this blog because of its striking lack of clarity (see here for the inofficial 15th draft version and here for the 14th draft version), as the 14th draft contained the unclear term “jurist” and the inofficial 15th draft contained an even more unclear recursive definition of the term “lawyer”. Clarified Rule 286 (1) of the 15th draft RoP now reads as follows, with the crucial sentence highlighted:
Tagged with: Art 48 UPCA • EPLC • jurist • law degree • lawyer • LL.M. • representation • Rule 286 RoP Dos and Don’ts in European Filing – in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean language
By Volker 'Falk' Metzler On June 25, 2013 · 2 Comments · In EPC, EPO, European Patent Law, International Patent Law, PCT One of our most successful presentations on business trips to Asia in recent years was the one about “Dos and Don’ts in European Filings” covering many practical hints that should be observed – possibly already at the drafting stage – upon filing direct EP applications with the EPO or entering the EP regional phase via the PCT route.
Tagged with: Chinese • EP filing • Japanese • Korean Aspects of the UPC (2): Sunrise Period and Opt-out Fee
By Volker 'Falk' Metzler On June 7, 2013 · 1 Comment · In EU law, EU Unified Patent Court, Unitary Patent In this earlier posting on the transitional scheme and opt-out options we explained that the future European patent system will provide two different routes for patent protection, (i.) the classical EP bundle patent and (ii.) the new European Patent with unitary effect but, in the long run, only one judicial system namely the Unified Patent Court as established by the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA).
During an at least seven-years long transitional period, however, proprietors/applicants of EP patents/applications can opt-out from the UPC system and ensure responsibility of the present European post-grant system with infringement and invalidity suits before national courts separately for each single nationalised EP patent, this circumventing the unitary effect of UPC proceedings (Art 83 UPCA).
We also pointed to the fact that there is a certain risk for EP patent proprietors to get stuck with the new UPC system and its unitary effect if, e.g, an invalidity suit is filed by a competitor before the proprietor can file an opt-out request for his patent(s).
Before this background, the recently published 15th Draft of the Code of Procedure (mark up version) provides a new Rule 5 (8) RoP implementing a sunrise period giving EP proprietors/applicants the option to opt-out before the UPC Agreement actually enters into force, thus preventing third parties to file legal suits by which a patent gets stuck with the UPC system:
An Application to opt out may be lodged with the European Patent Office after a date to be announced by the European Patent Office and before the coming into effect of the Agreement. [...]
At the time being, the length of the sunrise period is unknown.
Also new in comparison to the 14th draft of the Rules of Procedure are Rules 5 (3) and (6) RoP requiring fees for opt-out and withdrawal of opt-out (cf. also Rule 370 (2) RoP). The amount to be payed is not yet known, however, there are speculations that it will lie in the range of 200 to 400 EUR, which may sum up to a considerable amount of money if large portfolios are involved.
Tagged with: Art 83 UPCA • EP patents • opt-out • opt-out fee • Rule 5 RoP • sunrise period • transitional scheme Unitary Patent Court: Are lawyers different from lawyers?
By Volker 'Falk' Metzler On June 7, 2013 · 3 Comments · In EU law, EU Unified Patent Court, Unitary Patent In this earlier posting we speculated about the representation rights of national German and UK patent attorneys before the new Unified Patent Court, based on the wording of Art 48 UPCA and the somewhat odd formulation of Rule 286 of the 14th Draft of the Rules of Procedure:
Tagged with: Art 48 UPCA • lawyers • representation • Rule 286 RoP MARQUES comments on leaked European Trademark draft legislation and struggles with implementation of ‘IP Translator’
Tagged with: Administrative Committee • Art 83 UPCA • exclusive competence • opt-out • Registry • Rule 5 RoP • transitional scheme • Unified Patent Court • UPC • UPCA ← Previous Entries