Source: http://blog.ksnh.eu/en/category/unitary-patent-2/
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 01:23:06
Document Index: 414951875

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 83', 'Art 48', 'Art 5', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'Art 267', '§ 3', 'Art 267', 'Art 5', 'Art. 118', 'CJEU ', 'Art. 59', 'Art. 118', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

Currently viewing the category: "Unitary Patent"
Aspects of the UPC (1): Transitional Scheme and Opt-Out
Tagged with: Administrative Committee • Art 83 UPCA • exclusive competence • opt-out • Registry • Rule 5 RoP • transitional scheme • Unified Patent Court • UPC • UPCA Representation before the UPC: Are some Patent Attorneys authorised without Patent Litigation Certificate?
Tagged with: Art 48 UPCA • certificate • EPLC • European Patent Attorney • representation • Rule 286 RoP • rules of procedure Does Art 5 UPP Regulation enable CJEU Jurisdiction over Substantive Patent Law?
By Volker 'Falk' Metzler On January 13, 2013 · 4 Comments · In CJEU, EU law, EU Unified Patent Court, European Patent Law, TFEU, Unitary Patent Will this sky-reaching architecture host substantive patent law one day?
The short answer is … we don’t know yet!
A slightly longer answer is: It will, in the end, depend on the CJEU’s own interpretation of Article 5 of the Unitary Patent Protection Regulation (UPPR) and its understanding of the nature of the Unitary Patent Court Agreement (UPCR).
And a straightforward answer may be: Only very rarely, if at all, because of three reasons:
The CJEU is not a regular third instance above the two instances of the Unified Patent Court.
The centralised structure of the Unified Patent Court – involving a Central Division in the first instance and a sole Court of Appeal as the second instance – will largely ensure uniform interpretation of substantive patent law anyway.
As substantive patent law is largely harmonised in Europe already and thus falls under the acte-clair-doctrine, there are only very limited substantive patent law issues left that are in risk of being interpreted differently in different countries (or by different local/regional UPC divisions) and would thus need to be decided by a preliminary ruling according to Art 267 TFEU.
The more detailed answer. While all this may or may not be true, it still makes sense to (again) look closer into Article 5 UPPR, which has been introduced as Article 5a into the draft Regulation on the EU Council meeting of 28/29 June 2012 in exchange of former Articles 6 to 8 draftUPPR that caused so much headaches to (parts of) the profession and industry (see e.g. here and here), especially in the UK (see here). The removed UPPR articles have been introduced into the UPCA as new Articles 14f to 14i. New Article 5 UPPR and its crucial § 3 reads:
Article 5 (Uniform protection)
1. The European patent with unitary effect shall confer on its proprietor the right to prevent any third party from committing acts against which that patent provides protection throughout the territories of the participating Member States in which it has unitary effect, subject to applicable limitations.
3. The acts against which the patent provides protection referred to in paragraph 1 and the applicable limitations shall be those defined by the law applied to European patents with unitary effect in the participating Member State whose national law is applicable to the European patent with unitary effect as an object of property in accordance with Article 7.
Tagged with: Art 267 TFEU • Art 5 UPPR • Art. 118 TFEU • European Court of Justice • Monsanto • Opinion 1/09 • preliminary ruling • substantive patent law • UPCA • UPPR The Prospect of the Unitary Patent in 2013 – Some Thoughts on Ratification (update)
By Volker 'Falk' Metzler On January 1, 2013 · Leave a Comment · In EU law, EU Unified Patent Court, IP politics, Unitary Patent Campaign poster in Dublin during the Lisbon treaty referendum in 2009
As recently reported on this blog, the Unitary Patent Project of the European Union has been driven some big steps forward during December last year. The crucial dates were:
10 Dec 2012: The European Council endorses the EU Unitary Patent Package.
11 Dec 2012: The Advocate General of the CJEU hands down his opinion to dismiss the appeals of Spain (C-274/11) and Italy (IC-295/11) against enhanced cooperation in the field of unitary patent protection.
11 Dec 2012: The European Parliament approves the EU Unitary Patent Package.
17 Dec 2012: The European Council approves the EU Unitary Patent Package.
The texts finally adopted and approved by the competent EU institutions are the following:
Proposal for a regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, Regulation EU 1257/2012 (cf. consolidated text of 17/12/12 (PE-CONS 72/1/11); texts adopted on 11/12/12; cf decision-making monitor and procedure file),
Proposal for a regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements, Regulation EU 1260/2012 (cf. consolidated text of 12/12/12 (18855/2/11 REV 2); texts adopted on 11/12/12; cf. decision-making monitor and procedure file),
Resolution on jurisdictional system for patent disputes (cf. latest draft agreement of 14/11/12; texts adopted on 11/12/12; cf. procedure file).
While the political class is celebrating its ultimate success (e.g. Commissioner Michel Barnier, the Council Presidency, the EU Parliament, and the EPO with its President Benoît Battistelli), the political driving forces predict (and expect) even more ambitious progress on the final meters of implementing the new post-grant patent infrastructure in (some parts of) Europe:
18 Feb 2013 – Signature of the UPC Agreement and start of the ratification process (UPC will enter into force upon 13 ratifications, including mandatory ratifications in UK, France and Germany, cf. Art. 59 UPC Agrmnt),
01 Nov 2013 – Full ratification of UPC Agreement expected,
01 Apr 2014 – Issuance of first unitary patents by EPO and Unified Patent Court ready to receive first cases.
The project, however, is not at all cut and dried and there certainly is no automatism leading to its implementation within the 25 EU member states that originally supported enhanced cooperation. In fact, there are more challenges ahead than one may expect, especially with respect to the national ratification processes, which are required as the UPC Agreement, as an international treaty, will transfer statutory legal rights (i.e. national patent jurisdiction) to the European level.
Tagged with: eurosceptics • ratification • referendum • referendum lock • UPC Agreement JURI Committee considers Council version of Unitary Patent Regulation infringing EU Primary Law and leaves for Summer Break
By Volker 'Falk' Metzler On July 10, 2012 · 1 Comment · In CJEU, EU law, EU Unified Patent Court, IP politics, Patents, Unitary Patent After the last-minute amendments of the Unitary Patent Regulation (UPR) by the European Council on 28/29 June, who suggested
that Articles 6 to 8 of the Regulation [...] to be adopted by the Council and the European Parliament be deleted
lead to a removal of this matter from the EU Parliament’s agenda and unleashed a wave of revulsion among members of the EU Parliament in general and those of its legal committee (JURI) in particular (see here and here), the direction in which today’s JURI meeting would go was not utterly hard to predict.
And in fact, today’s press release confirmed what could have been expected anyway:
The European Council’s move to change the draft law to create an EU patent would “infringe EU law” and make the rules “not effective at all“, Bernhard Rapkay (S&D, DE), who is responsible for the draft legislation, told the Legal Affairs Committee on Tuesday. Most MEPs strongly criticised the European Council’s move and agreed to resume the discussion in September.
Apparently, this opinion is backed by the Parliament’s legal service, assuming that deleting Articles 6 to 8 UPR would “affect the essence of the regulation” thus be incompatible with EU law.
Tagged with: Art. 118 TFEU • David Cameron • EU membership • EU Parliament • European Council • JURI Unitary Patent: Political Struggle and Shift of Competence towards Central Division
By Volker 'Falk' Metzler On July 3, 2012 · 2 Comments · In EU law, EU Unified Patent Court, Litigation, Unitary Patent Was it like this as the European Council decided on the Unified Patent Court? As reported here and elsewhere [1, 2, 3], the European Council agreed on the EU Unitary Patent and a EU Unified Patent Court at last week’s Brussels EU summit after volatile negotiations – by ‘suggesting’ two significant amendments (see summit conclusion, page 2, item 3) as compared to what was know from the latest available draft text of the Unitary Patent Regulation dated 23 June 2011 (see here and here).
EU Court of Justice: The more severe one of those amendments that apparently was pushed through by UK Prime Minister David Cameron to please his eurosceptics allies at home, demands
essentially meaning that substantive EU patent law will not any more be subject to legal order of the Union highest court, the European Court of Justice (CJEU). I share my colleague’s view that this is nothing less than “an open declaration of deep mistrust, if not political warfare of significant parts of the UK conservatives against the CJEU and thus the European Union as a whole.
This move, however, could not escape the eyes of the European Parliament, which originally wanted to nod through this matter tomorrow (4 July 2012) whereas meanwhile the item was removed from the agenda under the harsh critics of rapporteurs Bernard Rapkay (S&D, DE) and Klaus-Heiner Lehne (EPP, DE): “scandalous breach of procedure“, “oriental bazaar” (did they read this item?), ”case would go straight to the European Court of Justice“. Due to the Council’s amendments, the first reading is thus rendered null and void.
It appears that the proudness of the Danish Presidency as well as the official cries of joy of e.g. EPO President Benoît Battistelli (“historic breakthrough“) and EU Commissioner Michel Barnier (“decisive step“) came far too early while stakeholders ask themselves if this mess could not have been prevented by a more transparent process, more cooperation with the potential system users, less political tactics, and less national egoisms and horse trading. It is depressive to say, but if the implementation of a reasonable EU patent system was the litmus test for Europe’s capacity for efficient policy-making, the conclusion can only be that the striking deficiencies of the EU’s political management appear to be insurmountable.
Tagged with: Central Division • competence • EU Commission • EU Parliament • European Council • infringement • JURI • local division • regional division • revocation Next Steps and further Problems ahead for EU Patent Package
By Volker 'Falk' Metzler On July 1, 2012 · 5 Comments · In CJEU, EU law, EU Unified Patent Court, European Patent Law, IP politics, Unitary Patent As reported, last week’s European Council summit has reached an agreement on the EU Unified Patent and a EU Unified Patent Court after volatile negotiations on 29 June 2012.
Tagged with: CJEU • EU Council • EU Court of Justice • EU Parliament • EU Summit • European Union • eurosceptics Is the Implementation of a reasonable EU Patent System the Litmus test for Europe’s capacity for efficient Policy-making? (UPDATE)
By Volker 'Falk' Metzler On June 8, 2012 · 2 Comments · In EU law, EU Unified Patent Court, IP politics, Unitary Patent To answer the above question right away, I do not hope so because otherwise the future of the European Community/Union, the great idealistic and visionary European project, would lie in ruins already. As a patent professional and keen enthusiast of the European idea, please allow me to share some personal comments based on the findings of my earlier posting on the Deficiencies of the EU Legislative Process for Implementing a Unified Patent Infrastructure, namely
Tagged with: Angela Merkel • democracy • Europe • European policy-making • Martin Schulz • Staffan Nilson • transparence Striking Deficiencies of the EU Legislative Process for Implementing a Unified Patent Infrastructure
By Volker 'Falk' Metzler On June 6, 2012 · 3 Comments · In EU law, EU Unified Patent Court, European Patent Law, Unitary Patent While some understand the 'Berlaymont' façade as symbol for a spirit of transparency, openness, and citizen involvement of EU policy making, others only recognise a good business for window wipers. The epic and painful process of drafting and implementing a unified European patent infrastructure, which got stuck again on the latest Competitiveness Council meeting of 31 May/1 June 2012 (see our reports here and here as well as further coverage [1], [2]) discloses frightening mechanisms and structural deficiencies of the European policy-making process that may endanger stability and acceptance of and confidence in the European Union as a whole, particularly before the background of the current severe financial and depths crisis that shakes the Union like nothing else before.
Tagged with: EU Council • EU information policy • EU legislation • horse trading • Seat Central Division • transparancy Anti-Patent Campaigners put their trust in François Hollande as EU Council attends to Unitary Patent Court again
Tagged with: April • Competitiveness Council • FFII • Francois Hollande • Piratenpartei • software patents ← Previous Entries