tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.comments2022-12-13T11:15:51.769+01:00DeltaPatents Unitary Patent blogJelle Hoekstrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06066000039386452752noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-3217067149666932902022-10-10T09:59:18.325+02:002022-10-10T09:59:18.325+02:00File name of the road map document indicated only ...File name of the road map document indicated only version 0.9., not yet 1.0. Is that an indication that the drafters expect it to change?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-9590010585954374982022-06-22T01:04:55.289+02:002022-06-22T01:04:55.289+02:00Appreciate this blog posstAppreciate this blog posstBobby Matthewshttps://www.bobbymatthews.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-66092411952582055872021-06-13T18:24:05.705+02:002021-06-13T18:24:05.705+02:00Internet provider netherlands A very awesome blog ...<a href="https://easynuts.nl/high-speed-internet/" rel="nofollow">Internet provider netherlands</a> A very awesome blog post. We are really grateful for your blog post. You will find a lot of approaches after visiting your post.<br />Areeba Shaikh (H)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08257999833278926361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-53522671301021868692016-07-20T12:09:40.488+02:002016-07-20T12:09:40.488+02:00Thanks for your feedback. It is greatly appreciate...Thanks for your feedback. It is greatly appreciated.<br /><br />The big question for me as well is, what is the status of the unified patent court after the UK exits? Although the agreement might nowhere say explicitly that continued EU membership is required, it certainly seems to assume that this is the case. <br /><br />If I were to enforce a UPC decision, say a decision made by the London section, can an infringer get away by saying he doesn't recognize the authority of the UPC? Ultimately, this question would end up at the CJEU, and what they will say is anyone guess. <br /><br />This is not exactly a nice prospect for unitary patent holders. On the other hand, would the CJEU really invalidate thousands of unitary patents, just like that?<br /><br />Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-55740111619234444852016-07-18T22:42:31.700+02:002016-07-18T22:42:31.700+02:00That Hoyng is in favour of a quick ratification is...That Hoyng is in favour of a quick ratification is clear. He and his firm have put a lot in the UPC. The same applies for Hogan Lovell and Mr Tilmann. Just seeing those efforts, and the expected trade going with it disappearing, it is not a perspective easy to address. So why not come up with some wishful thoughts, especially for one’s purse?<br />Whether this wishful thinking will become true is to be taken with more than a pinch of salt. <br /> <br />Do all those wanting a quick ratification by the UK want to advise their clients to go along a path which one does not known where it will lead to at the end of the Brexit? What will eventually become with rights offered by a decision of the UPC taken with the help of British judges and which will have effect in other member states of the EU once UK has left? I would not bet a penny on this. Uncertainty is not something which investors like. But such a proposal brings in an uncertainty which it difficult to top.<br /><br />That UK lawyers and litigators see a vast amount of trade coming from over the Atlantic disappear because of the Brexit is certainly hard to swallow. All those future profits will go to other countries, and first to Germany. <br /><br />The Unitary patent is a patent open to EU member states and not to non-members. The logical conclusion of the Brexit is that UK will no longer be a member state. <br /><br />I would have thought that in view of the political sensitivity involved the President of the EPO would have been more careful, rather than push forward with such a proposal. Who’s benefit is he working for? <br /><br />What is proposed by some is nothing more than a revival of EPLA. I however would think EPLA is dead as dead can be, so why give false hope. Does all those hoping for a continued participation of UK would ever have envisaged the participation of Norway and Switzerland to the Unitary patent? Let’s be honest. No way. <br /><br />It would be much better to put everything back on the table, and now come up with an agreement in which all the compromises which have been entered are reviewed. The aim should be a Unitary patent which benefits first to European SME’s, and not to industry, wherever it might be located. <br /><br />It is somehow outrageous to claim that the Unitary patent has been set up for the benefit of SMEs and at the time think of a litigation insurance for the latter, as it clear that, if they are attacked or if they want to defend their IP, they do not have the deep pockets of industry. It is also time to stop this hypocrisy.<br /><br /> Last but not least, when less than 50% of the applications at the EPO stem from Europe, what is the interest for Europe to give third states a good tool to attack Europe in one go?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-7659792938168975122016-06-29T13:37:00.562+02:002016-06-29T13:37:00.562+02:00If the UK (or GB..., as Scotland etc may return in...If the UK (or GB..., as Scotland etc may return into the EU) leaves, shouldnot the level of the renewal fees be adjusted? Will that cause a significant delay?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-21745642820742306852016-06-23T18:11:04.218+02:002016-06-23T18:11:04.218+02:00I'd say that the next country taking up the UK...I'd say that the next country taking up the UK's privilege would be The Netherlands. If brits do not want to stay in the EU and enjoy the enhanced level of harmonization in IPRs and an integrated market then I'm pretty sure The Netherlands would take a full advantage of the system. After all, the EPO filing figures of the UK aren't that dramatically impressive as there's almost no industry left in that country. [1]<br /><br />--------------<br />[1] http://www.epo.org/about-us/annual-reports-statistics/annual-report/2013/statistics-trends/patent-filings.html#tab3 Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-31534378856709580462016-06-22T21:03:58.033+02:002016-06-22T21:03:58.033+02:00Recently, Bulgaria ratified the UPC agreement as 1...Recently, Bulgaria ratified the UPC agreement as 10th country. The UPC will start 4 months after the 13th country has ratified. Currently, ratification of GB and DE is mandatory. If GB leaves, IT becomes the country which must ratify. IT is progressing to ratification. It appears that DE is waiting for GB to decide. One other country is needed to get unitary protection on the run.Cees Mulderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01141973337404792304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-7574428724895999252016-06-20T16:40:51.615+02:002016-06-20T16:40:51.615+02:00Thanks. I've corrected it.Thanks. I've corrected it.Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-15996483854968778532016-06-20T15:41:49.319+02:002016-06-20T15:41:49.319+02:00The last sentence should read: "...or if the ...The last sentence should read: "...or if the central court be located in *Paris* and Munich only".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-21568016153011660072016-02-10T19:20:29.221+01:002016-02-10T19:20:29.221+01:00The whole language regime of the UPC is complicate...The whole language regime of the UPC is complicated to say the least.<br /><br />It is not just a question of Spanish or English, there is more to it.<br /><br />Although a translation has to be provided in English or in any language of the EU, in order to obtain the unitary effect, any action before a local and/or a regional division is to be held in the language of the state in which the local division sits, or in a language prescribed by the states having a regional office, if the local or regional division decides so, cf. Art 49 AgrUPC. <br /><br />One party can request to use the language in which the patent was granted, i.e. the language of procedure before the EPO, cf. R 323UPC, but the local/regional division can decide differently. Even if both parties agree to use the language in which the patent was granted, cf. R 321UPC, the local panel can as well say no; then the parties can request that the file goes to the central division. The proposal may also come from the panel/judge-rapporteur in fairness to the parties, cf. R 322UPC. <br /><br />Even if both parties agree to use the EPO language of proceedings, then the judge-rapporteur can decide in the interest of the panel to use its “local” language in oral proceedings, cf. R 14.2(c)EPC, i.e. this is the “English limited” clause. It simply means that English cannot be the only language of proceedings before the UPC. <br /><br />Simultaneous interpretation before the UPC can be requested, but not for free like before the EPO. The costs for interpreters or translators is part of the costs which can be recouped on the loosing party, cf. <br />R 155UPC.<br /><br />Furthermore, any pleading lodged in a language other than the language of proceedings shall be returned by the Registrar, cf. R 14.4UPC. Returned means not filed, with all dire consequences in view of the rather sharp time limits provided in the Rules of Procedure before the UPC. <br /><br />One should also keep in mind that if the language is changed to the language of procedure of the EPO, translations will have to be submitted.<br /><br />Where is the simplification which is regularly heralded? <br />Raoulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-46087512303692346822015-12-29T00:13:38.042+01:002015-12-29T00:13:38.042+01:00Just by way of update: the Netherland have placed ...Just by way of update: the Netherland have placed the UPC agreement-approval and the Rijksoctrooiwet changes on a list of urgent legislation, with a planned/desired/suggested approval by parliament on 20 Sept 2016. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/publicaties/2015/12/11/lijst-spoedeisende-wetsvoorstellen-11-12-2015/tk-bijlage-spoedeisende-wetsvoorstellen-3.pdf<br />The proposals have however not been presented to parliament yet, probably because the Raad van State gave its advice on the approval act just before christmas and took thus almost half a year to do so. <br /><br />Ratification is furthermore sped up by exempting the legislation from the waiting period for a possible consultative referendum. TreatyNotifierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14781646153904815142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-90354819941677180132015-12-14T11:27:48.391+01:002015-12-14T11:27:48.391+01:00The way I understand the current draft is that you...The way I understand the current draft is that you need to be registered on the list of entitled representatives (Rule 13). There is a list of qualifications that are deemed appropriate only (?) in the first transitional year (Rule 12). This list includes:<br /><br />Queen Mary University of London, courses “Certificate in Intellectual Property Law” or “MSc Management of Intellectual Property”;<br /><br />If you are a European Patent Attorney and passed this course, then I suppose you can register for the list of entitled representatives.<br /><br /><br /><br />Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-4370608981864719102015-12-11T15:56:48.329+01:002015-12-11T15:56:48.329+01:00Can I ask a probably stupid question - if I passed...Can I ask a probably stupid question - if I passed the Queen Mary University of London, courses “Certificate in Intellectual Property Law” in 2010, will I have rights of representation before the UPC (or be able to get within a year of the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court)?<br /><br />Thanks all!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-13260991072341357542015-10-20T23:13:12.374+02:002015-10-20T23:13:12.374+02:00I was not there either, but by stating that the UP...I was not there either, but by stating that the UPC will harmonise, what is still to be seen, it does seem rather strange that a high ranking official of the EPO lets out such a statement. The decision of the BGH goes against G decisions. Unless G decisions are to be ignored, they remind valid until they are not superseded by new ones. At present the EBA has only once revised its case law. It was about the proprietor opposing his own patent. <br />For instance G 1/03 has created a fiction. What if the UPC says it does not like it, or gives other possibilities?Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-40537870778449790102015-10-20T10:06:05.925+02:002015-10-20T10:06:05.925+02:00You raise a valid point Observer. Thanks for respo...You raise a valid point Observer. Thanks for responding. <br /><br />Not only is there divergence between the different countries, there is also (some) divergence between the courts and the Board of Appeal. I have the impression that the Dutch judges regard the EPO case law as leading--at least in so far as it is settled. <br /><br />If the case law of the UPC is seen in the world as important, then it would be strange if the boards of appeal were to ignore it. At the moment though, even if the board of appeal wanted to align closer to the courts, they have consider at least a handful of legal traditions, if not more. Under the UPC it will be much clearer what the leading court is. It won't spell the 'end' of the BoA, but it will mean they have to take other jurisdictions more seriously.<br /><br />I'm not sure that Mr. Philpott necessarily took a stance against the EPO though. [but I wasn't there]<br />Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-40906125233347220922015-10-20T09:46:13.597+02:002015-10-20T09:46:13.597+02:00Whilst the UPC could bring about harmonisation, it...Whilst the UPC could bring about harmonisation, it is curious to see that a high representative of the EPO takes a stance against his own organisation. Such a plea is not surprising when one sees the disdain with which the President of the EPO looks at the BA and wants to discipline them.<br />As a unitary or not-unitary patent is granted by the EPO, it will be according to the Guidelines and the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal. <br />No mechanism has been set in case of diverging case law between the UPC and the BA. This might be a problem in the future which has been carefully avoided by the promoters of the UPC.<br />Saying that the harmonisation will come from the UPC is simply pushing the BA of the EPO in the background.<br />When one sees for instance how the difference are between decisions of the BGH and European Practice, one wonders what will happen. The same can happen between the UPC and the BA of the EPO.<br />See for instance on procedural matters X ZR 109/08-Sensoranordnung-If an independent claim is not patentable, this does not mean that automatically the dependent claims are not allowable. They should be checked. <br />On substantive matters see X ZR 161/12-Wundbehandlung- which is in clear contradiction with G 1/93. A claim containing a limiting feature which is actually added matter is to not to be considered when assessing patentability of the claim, and is only to be nullified if the added subject-matter leads to an aliud.<br />Does harmonisation means the end of the BA? That is the question to be asked.Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-76125215801355574052015-10-05T09:31:42.586+02:002015-10-05T09:31:42.586+02:00Tricky. I’d guess one has to register in the year ...Tricky. I’d guess one has to register in the year following the start of the UPC. So your plan, of quickly passing the course and registering at the end of 2017 may work. (But what do I know...)<br /><br />The regulation Rule 12 starts as follows:<br /><br />During a period of one year from the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, any of the following shall also be deemed as appropriate qualifications for a European Patent Attorney pursuant to Article 48(2) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: (...)<br /><br />Article 48(2) and (3) of the Agreement read:<br /><br />(2) Parties may alternatively be represented by European Patent Attorneys who are entitled to act as professional representatives before the European Patent Office pursuant to Article 134 of the EPC and who have appropriate qualifications such as a European Patent Litigation Certificate.<br /><br />(3) The requirements for qualifications pursuant to paragraph 2 shall be established by the Administrative Committee. A list of European Patent Attorneys entitled to represent parties before the Court shall be kept by the Registrar.<br /><br />In a literal reading Art. 48(2) defines that appropriate qualifications are required to represent. Rule 12 says that the courses in rule 12 are appropriate qualifications only in the first year. Thus according to my literal reading, in the year following UPC-start non-certificate holders on the list of Rule 12 would be tolerated, but not after the first year. <br /><br />I don’t think that that is what was intended. So I take it that you can register, as in Art. 48(3) in the first year if you have appropriate alternative qualifications, but not later. Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-37632187712449947222015-10-05T08:07:02.481+02:002015-10-05T08:07:02.481+02:00that's clear - the question is if it makes sen...that's clear - the question is if it makes sense to start the course now (or at soon as possible), or if there is no need to rush as it is anyway too late to benefit from the grandfather provisionKMKSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-84842364802240885622015-10-02T09:31:18.656+02:002015-10-02T09:31:18.656+02:00The course (ii) is required to become a German Pat...The course (ii) is required to become a German Patent AttorneyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-10181236187683125782015-09-28T10:27:28.973+02:002015-09-28T10:27:28.973+02:00Hi everybody,
let’s assume the UPC starts on 01.0...Hi everybody,<br /><br />let’s assume the UPC starts on 01.01.2017 (well, maybe a bit too optimistic, but let’s just assume). According to R48 first sentence, “during a period of one year from the entry into force”, therefore in the whole year 2017, an EPA will also qualify pursuant to A48(2) if she/he passed one the courses listed in R12(a).<br /><br />Is it enough to pass one of these courses in 2017 and then quickly register until the end of 2017? Or does one have to pass a course BEFORE entry into force of the UPC (therefore in 2016), and has a whole year to register?<br /><br />Thanks for your answer<br />KMKSKMKSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-30092028594107637742015-09-08T11:52:34.955+02:002015-09-08T11:52:34.955+02:00Thanks! The map has been updated.Thanks! The map has been updated.Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-53763103781863167002015-09-08T10:21:41.899+02:002015-09-08T10:21:41.899+02:00I can see a mistake, Czech republic have not ratif...I can see a mistake, Czech republic have not ratified the agreement yet. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-61689126572295533682015-08-09T10:39:02.377+02:002015-08-09T10:39:02.377+02:00If one realises that only 65% of EP applications s...If one realises that only 65% of EP applications stem from outside Europe, one can see to whom the Unitary Patent will benefit...... <br />Where is the so much praised incentive for European SMEs, universities, non-profit organisations and natural persons to file patent applications, if on top of it, they will be attacked much more easily?<br />What is needed for those entities is a good system of help when it comes to litigation. The reduction of fees offered to them is peanuts and will certainly not be an incentive. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-10527710054272966722015-08-09T07:24:18.896+02:002015-08-09T07:24:18.896+02:00Oops. It's corrected now.Thanks.Oops. It's corrected now.Thanks.Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com