Source: http://www.worldipreview.com/contributed-article/uk-and-upc-a-test-of-compatibility
Timestamp: 2017-03-23 18:34:33
Document Index: 397172668

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

Leaders	Subscribe	UK and UPC: a test of compatibility
28-02-2017John Pegram
Nerthuz / iStockphoto.com
UPC committee says it’s too early to assess potential ‘Brexit’ fallout06-07-2016Brexit: 20 law firms back opinion on UK’s UPC membership29-09-2016WIPR survey: UPC won’t be operational by December 201727-02-2017	Despite views to the contrary, it appears highly probable that the UK can and will stay in the Unified Patent Court system after Brexit, argues John Pegram of Fish & Richardson.
This article argues that it is highly probable that the UK can and will stay in the UPC following Brexit. It outlines the limited role of the CJEU under the UPC Agreement, recent views about how the UK can stay in the UPC, and positive signs for the UK’s continuing participation in the UPC Agreement. Role of the CJEU In the author’s opinion there is no inconsistency between staying in the UPC and May’s Brexit statement about bringing an end to the jurisdiction of the CJEU in Britain.
The CJEU has been given only a very limited role regarding the UPC. Its role is directed to EU law, not national law. Therefore, if—as a result of Brexit—the UK is no longer subject to EU law, the decisions of the CJEU, even in connection with the UPC, should not affect UK national laws. In particular, article 20 of the UPC Agreement states that “the court shall apply union law in its entirety and shall respect its primacy”. Article 21, regarding preliminary rulings, requires the UPC to “cooperate with the CJEU to ensure the correct application and uniform interpretation of union law”. That “union law”, however, would not be applicable to the UK after Brexit, except to the extent it might be made applicable by agreement between the UK and the EU.
“The UK parliament is moving ahead with the necessary legislation. The UPC preparatory committee has resumed its preparations, apparently with full UK participation.” Article 24 provides that decisions by the UPC shall be based on: (a) EU law, including the unitary patent regulations; (b) the UPC Agreement itself; (c) the European Patent Convention (EPC); (d) other international agreements applicable to patents and binding on all the contracting member states; and (e) national law.
Can the UK stay in the UPC? Legal specialists have opined that a path for the UK to stay in the UPC can be found. Barristers Richard Gordon and Tom Pascoe gave their opinion to that effect in September 2016. More recently, with less publicity, professors Ansgar Ohly and Rudolf Streinz published an optimistic opinion in the January 2017 issue of GRUR International. Ohly and Streinz concluded that the UK can continue to be a party to the UPC Agreement after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has become effective. Following a detailed analysis, they do not believe that the member states would infringe EU law if they continued their cooperation with the UK in the framework of the UPC Agreement. While there is a remote possibility that the agreement could be terminated in relation to the UK if the continuing membership of the UK was inconsistent with EU law, in the author’s opinion no-one has offered persuasive reasons why the CJEU should oppose the desire of the member states to include the UK in the UPC.
Positive signs Sceptics were surprised when Baroness Neville-Rolfe, then IP minister, announced in November 2016 that the UK would ratify the UPC Agreement. Others, including this author, were unsurprised because ratifying the UPC Agreement would be a good sign of interest in European cooperation outside the EU institutions.
Therefore, it appears highly probable that the UK can and will stay in the UPC after Brexit. John Pegram is a senior principal at Fish & Richardson. He can be contacted at: pegram@fr.com John Pegram, Fish & Richardson, Unified Patent Court, Theresa May, Brexit, patent, European Patent Convention, unitary patent, CJEU, Jo Johnson,
Fish & Richardson PC	Go to the Company Directory	Editor's Picks	Most read	Kylie Minogue backs down in Jenner trademark clashJudge rejects McAfee injunction against IntelEnergizer settles IP infringement suit with SpectrumCopyright and Brexit: what lies aheadHerbert Smith conference: Relinquishing trademark rights needs careful considerationJimi Hendrix estate sues brother for trademark infringementLed Zeppelin ‘Stairway to Heaven’ copyright suit appealedImpression v Lexmark: SCOTUS questions patent exhaustion rulesTM registered after Sports Direct opposition failsSCOTUS laches ruling won’t have ‘monumental’ impact, say lawyers