tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29342622175550390982024-03-14T08:21:56.437+01:00DeltaPatents Unitary Patent blogLatest developments surrounding the Unitary patent and the Unified patent court. The site follows ratifications in the EU countries, draft legal documents, and decisions of the court. Jelle Hoekstrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06066000039386452752noreply@blogger.comBlogger115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-12867167270349944022023-02-21T09:36:00.007+01:002023-02-21T11:26:35.690+01:00Germany has ratified: the UPC -and the Unitary patent- kicks off per 1 June 2023!<p>The <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en" target="_blank">website of the Unified Patent Court (UPC)</a> indicates, in a <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/news/upc-agreement-ratification-breaking-news" target="_blank">News message dated 17 February 2023</a>, that:</p><p>Last week, on 17 February 2023, Germany has ratified the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.</p><p>Germany’s ratification launches the countdown as set under Article 89 of the UPC Agreement according to which the Agreement will enter into force on 1 June 2023.</p><p>The Agreement’s entry into force on 1 June 2023 will launch the Unified Patent Court as well as the Unitary Patent (European patent with unitary effect).</p><p>Also refer to the <a href="https://www.epo.org/news-events/news/2023/20230217.html" target="_blank">news message on the EPO website, "The Unitary Patent is to become a reality"</a>.</p>Roel van Woudenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-70093995944244101812022-12-21T15:53:00.002+01:002022-12-21T15:59:05.869+01:00Adjustment of the timeline: Start of the Sunrise Period on 1 March 2023 – Starting date of transitional measures of EPO remains 1 January 2023<p><i></i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgblbf1ifHRCbvoQRaFRGfX_CEizK5IVRVIHV_vr3yR9gtd283BSXOlMTvfEwUGsWDKpShRyWE6EEiGpWmfqAcaKUT2THQFacrHS7hHcGzT89waxLQhMXbf7xov8BcWEcohsA2roCD4x1yQ1VtorxnL6MdanHNxlaNkjGrafEI-tTajPtDggUEoR2-nwQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="2000" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgblbf1ifHRCbvoQRaFRGfX_CEizK5IVRVIHV_vr3yR9gtd283BSXOlMTvfEwUGsWDKpShRyWE6EEiGpWmfqAcaKUT2THQFacrHS7hHcGzT89waxLQhMXbf7xov8BcWEcohsA2roCD4x1yQ1VtorxnL6MdanHNxlaNkjGrafEI-tTajPtDggUEoR2-nwQ=w400-h200" width="400"></a></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Figure from EPO News message"</span></i><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Unitary Patent: Forms for requesting transitional measures now available</i></span></span><i><span style="font-size: xx-small;">" dd 19 December 2022</span></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: xx-small;">https://www.epo.org/news-events/news/2022/20221219a.html</span></i></div><i><br></i><i>The UPC website indicates that the start of the Sunrise Period is postponed for two months. The initial roadmap foresaw 1 January 2023 as the beginning of the Sunrise Period with an entry into force of the UPCA on 1 April 2023. The additional time is intended to allow future users to prepare themselves for the strong authentication which will be required to access the Case Management System (CMS) and to sign documents. As a consequence, the entry into force of the UPCA is now planned to be on 1 June 2023.</i><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>In a further message, t</i><i>he starting date of transitional measures of EPO was indicated to remain 1 January 2023. </i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>Also, Official forms relating to the early uptake of the Unitary Patent are now available on the EPO website.</i></div><div><span></span></div><a href="https://unitary-patent.blogspot.com/2022/12/adjustment-of-timeline-start-of-sunrise.html#more"></a>Roel van Woudenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-15197619101223334752022-10-10T08:54:00.006+02:002023-10-02T11:56:21.649+02:00Entry into force of the UPC Agreement is currently planned for 1 April 2023, <p> The latest <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/news/latest-state-play-view-launch-unified-patent-court" target="_blank">news message</a> on the <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/" target="_blank">UPC website</a> indicates (cited without changes):</p>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h1 class="page-header" style="background-color: white; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); box-sizing: border-box; color: #003366; font-family: "Open Sans", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 32px; line-height: 1.25em; margin: 0px 0px 21px; padding-bottom: 9.5px;">Latest state of play in view of the launch of the Unified Patent Court</h1>
<section class="block block-system" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="block-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><article class="node node-article article-full clearfix row" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><aside class="col-sm-4" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; float: left; font-family: Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 247.488px;"><div class="field field-name-field-publication-date field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.8em; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span class="date-display-single" style="box-sizing: border-box;">06 October 2022</span></div></aside></article></div></section>
<section class="block block-system" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="block-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><article class="node node-article article-full clearfix row" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><aside class="col-sm-4" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; float: left; font-family: Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 247.488px;"><div class="field field-name-field-attached-documents field-type-file field-label-above" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em;"><div class="field-label" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;"></div></div></aside></article></div></section></blockquote>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><section class="block block-system" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="block-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></div></section><section class="block block-system" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="block-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><article class="node node-article article-full clearfix row" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="node-content col-sm-8" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 495px;"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><span style="font-weight: 700;">Attachments: </span><a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc_-_exco_-_upc_external_roadmap-v0.9_edit.pdf" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0a7a51; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.5em; padding-bottom: 0px;" target="_blank" type="application/pdf; length=932525">Implementation roadmap</a></p></div></div></article></div></section></blockquote>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><section class="block block-system" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="block-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><article class="node node-article article-full clearfix row" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="node-content col-sm-8" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 495px;"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 1em;">The UPC Preparatory team is excited to share the implementation roadmap attached. This roadmap depicts all the key activities and milestones of the UPC in the coming months.</p></div></div></article></div></section><section class="block block-system" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="block-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><article class="node node-article article-full clearfix row" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="node-content col-sm-8" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 495px;"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 1em;">The entry into force of the UPC Agreement is currently planned for 1 April 2023, with the Court opening its doors and starting to receive cases as from that date.</p></div></div></article></div></section></blockquote><section class="block block-system" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="block-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><article class="node node-article article-full clearfix row" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="node-content col-sm-8" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 495px;"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium;">The opening notes to the </span><a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc_-_exco_-_upc_external_roadmap-v0.9_edit.pdf" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium;" target="_blank">implementation roadmap</a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium;"> provides [cited without changes, but with emhhasis added]:</span></p></div></div></article></div></section><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><section class="block block-system" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="block-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><article class="node node-article article-full clearfix row" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="node-content col-sm-8" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 495px;"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em;">The UPC Preparatory team is excited to share the implementation roadmap below. This roadmap depicts all the key activities and milestones of the UPC in the coming months.</p></div></div></article></div></section><section class="block block-system" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="block-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><article class="node node-article article-full clearfix row" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="node-content col-sm-8" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 495px;"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em;">The entry into force of the UPC Agreement is <span style="color: #990000;"><b><i>currently </i>planned for 1 April 2023,</b></span> with the Court opening its doors and starting to receive cases as from that date.</p></div></div></article></div></section><section class="block block-system" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="block-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><article class="node node-article article-full clearfix row" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="node-content col-sm-8" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 495px;"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em;">Please note that this roadmap reflect the current state of the UPC project and therefore, might be subject to change. Any such changes, impacting key deliverables and milestones will be communicated.</p></div></div></article></div></section></blockquote><section class="block block-system" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="block-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><article class="node node-article article-full clearfix row" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="node-content col-sm-8" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 495px;"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibeWOmInZNlaf5WNCT7A-IwtFzJo8aQMYMGQ99NcCpQ5DnBtSKyqm1i-uoJRVfkeoOwj3z7D8mf_j4DHSJxnZWvjMYXX8SHlTLNYBZuAENoZNeN8oiTvEPxHdhTtxyUmJIxtwFlvNOE-4CpOQXWAcEcQo2XPgyP3ze9bzG4dBZ82r5jW42q1MYvCg2nA/s1657/upcroadmap.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="730" data-original-width="1657" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibeWOmInZNlaf5WNCT7A-IwtFzJo8aQMYMGQ99NcCpQ5DnBtSKyqm1i-uoJRVfkeoOwj3z7D8mf_j4DHSJxnZWvjMYXX8SHlTLNYBZuAENoZNeN8oiTvEPxHdhTtxyUmJIxtwFlvNOE-4CpOQXWAcEcQo2XPgyP3ze9bzG4dBZ82r5jW42q1MYvCg2nA/w400-h176/upcroadmap.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: center;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Figure from UPC website (<a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc_-_exco_-_upc_external_roadmap-v0.9_edit.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc_-_exco_-_upc_external_roadmap-v0.9_edit.pdf</a>)</span></span></div><div><br /></div><div>The <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc_-_exco_-_upc_external_roadmap-v0.9_edit.pdf" target="_blank">implementation roadmap</a> provides the global milestones:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>MS call for contribution (PAP)- tbc: call for contribution request to UPC Member States for the Provisional Application Phase (PAP) if needed;</li><li><span style="color: #990000;">Germany ratification: the deposit of the UPCA ratification instrument by Germany <b>will trigger</b> the Sunrise period (first day of the following month) and the entry into force of the UPCA (3 months after the start of the Sunrise period); </span></li><li><span style="color: #990000;"><b>Start of the Sunrise: the date of the start of the Sunrise period is expected to be January 1, 2023</b></span>;</li><li>FAP budget approval & call for contribution: first accounting period (FAP) budget approval by the Budget Committee and subsequent call for contribution to UPC Member States;</li><li><span style="color: #990000;"><b>[Expected] Entry into force of the UPCA: entry into force of the UPCA and the opening of the Court from 1 April 2023.</b></span></li></ul></div><div>Refer to the <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc_-_exco_-_upc_external_roadmap-v0.9_edit.pdf" target="_blank">implementation roadmap</a> for more details on:</div></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Recruitment activities</li><li>Case Management System activities and milestones</li></ul><br /></div></div></div></article></div></section><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Roel van Woudenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-79207864548186000472022-07-19T08:38:00.001+02:002022-07-19T08:38:25.344+02:00Start of operations of the Court expected in early 2023<p>According to a <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/news/administrative-committee-takes-significant-steps-towards-setting-unified-patent-court" target="_blank">News message dated 14 July 2022</a> on the <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/" target="_blank">website of the Unified Patent Court</a>, "the timing of the start of operations of the Court can reasonably be expected to occur in early 2023".</p><p>The message is cited in full below (no changes made, except for highlighting):</p><p><b>"The Administrative Committee takes significant steps towards the setting up of the Unified Patent Court</b></p><p>14 July 2022</p><p>On 8 July 2022, the Administrative Committee of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) held its second meeting, which took place largely onsite in Luxembourg with the participation of all Contracting Member States and observers. In addition to those observers already admitted in the context of the Administrative Committee’s inaugural meeting on 22 February 2022, a number of observer organisations have now also been admitted pursuant Article 5(7) of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, namely: epi, EPLAW, EPLIT and BusinessEurope.</p><p>As a follow-up to the oral requests of the Contracting Member States during the Administrative Committee’s inaugural meeting, the Committee confirmed the setting-up of local and regional divisions of the Court of First Instance. These divisions will be located in Austria (Vienna), Belgium (Brussels), Demark (Copenhagen), Finland (Helsinki), France (Paris), Germany (Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Mannheim, Munich), Italy (Milan), the Netherlands (The Hague), Slovenia (Ljubljana) and Portugal (Lisbon). The regional Nordic-Baltic division will be mainly located in Sweden (Stockholm). As to the UPC’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration centre, the Committee adopted the Organisational Rules of this Centre, to be set up with seats in Ljubljana and Lisbon.</p><p>As to the legal framework of the Court, a major step was taken by the Committee towards ensuring the efficient functioning of the UPC by <span style="color: #990000;">adopting the Court’s Rules of Procedure and its Table of Fees</span>. Both will enter into force on 1 September 2022. In addition, in the framework of the operational activities of the UPC, the Committee adopted the UPC’s Rules on duty travel, which include incentives for low-carbon emission modes of transport.</p><p>From an HR perspective, the Committee also paved the way towards a future recruitment of staff and officials of the Court, by adopting its Medical and social security plan, the Pension scheme and the Internal tax of the UPC.</p><p>Last but not least, in accordance with Article 14 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, t<span style="color: #990000;">he Chair of the Advisory Committee presented to the Administrative Committee the recommended list of the most suitable candidates to be appointed as judges of the Unified Patent Court. This list is expected to be adopted any time soon before the summer break</span>, following the conclusion of a written procedure.</p><p><span style="color: #990000;"><b>Thanks to these key decisions taken by the Administrative Committee on 8 July 2022, the timing of the start of operations of the Court can reasonably be expected to occur in early 2023.</b></span></p><p>Please note that all non-confidential adopted documents will be <span style="color: #990000;">made available this week on the Website of the Court </span>[note from the blog editor: they are available <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/content/official-documents-2nd-meeting-upc-administrative-committee-8-july-2022" target="_blank">here</a>]. As to a <span style="color: #990000;">consolidated version of the Rules of Procedure, following legal scrubbing, they will be published during the course of the summer, before their entry into force on 1 September 2022</span>."</p><p>Also refer to an <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/news/provisional-application-phase-and-upcs-expected-timeline" target="_blank">earlier News message dd 6 April 2022, "The Provisional Application Phase and the UPC’s expected timeline''</a> and the <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/news/austria-closes-loop-protocol-provisional-application-upc-agreement-has-entered-force" target="_blank">News message dd 19 January 2022, "Austria closes the loop – the Protocol on Provisional Application of the UPC Agreement has entered into force"</a></p>Roel van Woudenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-71861548391708284372020-03-28T09:54:00.006+01:002020-03-28T09:55:37.601+01:00Surprise (?): German government continues its support for the Unitary Patent system<i>The German government announced that it continues its support for the introduction of the Unitary Patent system in Europe.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>On 26 March 202, the German Federal Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection issued the following statement (see <a href="https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2020/032620_Patentreform.html">here for original</a>):</i><br />
<br />
<h1 class="isFirstInSlot" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; font-family: bundesserifweb, Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif, "Droid Serif"; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;">
<span class="category" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; display: block; font-family: "bundessansweb" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif , "droid sans"; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.3; text-transform: uppercase;"><span style="font-size: small;">PRESSEMITTEILUNG | </span><span class="aural" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: normal; left: -2000px; line-height: 0; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; position: absolute; width: 0px;"></span><span style="font-size: small;">26. MÄRZ 2020</span></span><span class="category" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; display: block; font-family: "bundessansweb" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif , "droid sans"; font-size: 1.3rem; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.3; text-transform: uppercase;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 26px;">Europäische Patentreform soll fortgesetzt werden</span></h1>
<div class="subheadline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: bundessansweb, Arial, helvetica, sans-serif, "Droid Sans"; font-size: 10px; font-weight: bold;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px;">
Das Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz hält auch nach der Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 20. März 2020 an der Europäischen Patentreform fest.</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: bundessansweb, Arial, helvetica, sans-serif, "Droid Sans"; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px;">
Mit dem Übereinkommen über ein Einheitliches Patentgericht (EPGÜ) soll ein für alle Vertragsstaaten zuständiges Einheitliches Patentgericht geschaffen werden, das für Rechtstreitigkeiten über europäische Patente nach dem Europäischen Patentübereinkommen sowie dem zukünftigen <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px dotted black; box-sizing: border-box;" title="Europäische Union">EU</abbr>-Einheitspatent zuständig ist.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: bundessansweb, Arial, helvetica, sans-serif, "Droid Sans"; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Die Bundesministerin der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz Christine Lambrecht erklärte dazu:</strong><br />
„Ich werde mich auch weiterhin dafür einsetzen, dass wir der europäischen innovativen Industrie ein einheitliches europäisches Patent mit einem europäischen Patentgericht zur Verfügung stellen können. Die Bundesregierung wird die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts sorgfältig auswerten und Möglichkeiten prüfen, um den festgestellten Formmangel noch in dieser Legislaturperiode zu beheben.“</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: bundessansweb, Arial, helvetica, sans-serif, "Droid Sans"; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px;">
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat am 20. März 2020 entschieden, dass das Zustimmungsgesetz zum Übereinkommen über ein Einheitliches Patentgericht aus dem Jahr 2013 nicht verfassungsgemäß und daher nichtig ist (Entscheidung im Verfahren 2 BvR 739/17). Damit kann Deutschland das Übereinkommen derzeit nicht ratifizieren. Das Übereinkommen ist bislang von 16 Vertragsstaaten gebilligt worden.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: bundessansweb, Arial, helvetica, sans-serif, "Droid Sans"; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px;">
Für das Zustimmungsgesetz wäre nach Auffassung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts eine verfassungsändernde Mehrheit erforderlich gewesen. Die vorgesehene Übertragung von Hoheitsrechten an eine internationale Einrichtung gehe über die vorhandenen Ermächtigungen hinaus. Die Übertragung würde daher ihrem Inhalt nach zu einer Änderung der Verfassung führen. Das angegriffene Zustimmungsgesetz war einstimmig im Bundestag von den in der Sitzung anwesenden Abgeordneten beschlossen worden, jedoch nicht mit der nach Auffassung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts für das Gesetz notwendigen Zweidrittelmehrheit aller Mitglieder des Bundestages.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: bundessansweb, Arial, helvetica, sans-serif, "Droid Sans"; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 20px;">
Das Einheitliche Patentgericht soll künftig in einem einheitlichen Verfahren mit <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px dotted black; box-sizing: border-box;" title="Europäische Union">EU</abbr>-weiter Wirkung über die Verletzung und Gültigkeit von Patenten nach dem Europäischen Patentübereinkommen sowie dem zukünftigen <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px dotted black; box-sizing: border-box;" title="Europäische Union">EU</abbr>-Einheitspatent entscheiden. In Deutschland sollen an den Standorten Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Mannheim und München jeweils erstinstanzliche Kammern des Gerichts eingerichtet werden. Das Berufungsgericht soll seinen Sitz in Luxemburg haben.</div>
<div class="sectionRelated" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: bundessansweb, Arial, helvetica, sans-serif, "Droid Sans"; font-size: 10px;">
</div>
<div class="sectionButtonsDate row" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: bundessansweb, Arial, helvetica, sans-serif, "Droid Sans"; font-size: 10px; margin: 0px -0.5em; max-width: none; width: auto;">
<br />
<div class="sectionDate columns small-12 medium-12 large-6" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: right; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em; position: relative; width: 323.328px;">
<div class="docDataBottom basepage" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px; overflow: hidden; text-align: right;">
<span class="label" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.5;">Stand: </span><span class="value" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5;">26. März 2020</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>The EPO President Campinos reacted to this statement with a <a href="https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2020/20200327a.html">news message on the EPO website</a> “Now is the time to make the UPP a reality”, posted on 27 March 2020, reading:</i><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #0b2a43; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 32px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #0b2a43; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 32px;">EPO President Campinos: “Now is the time to make the UPP a reality”</span><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="Content" style="background-color: white; background-image: url("../images/icon_sprite.gif"); background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0b2a43; cursor: pointer; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;"></a><span style="background-color: white; color: #0b2a43; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px;"></span><br />
<div id="body" lang="en" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0b2a43; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;">
<div class="alternative" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; line-height: 23px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px;">
27 March 2020</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 23px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px;">
The European Patent Office (EPO) strongly welcomes the announcement of the German government to continue its support for the introduction of the Unitary Patent system in Europe.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 23px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px;">
In a statement made yesterday on the country's ratification of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement, German Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection Christine Lambrecht expressed her intention to "<i style="box-sizing: border-box;">carefully evaluate the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court and examine possibilities to remedy the identified lack of form still in the current legislative period</i>."</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 23px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px;">
Commentating on the statement, EPO President António Campinos said, "IP-intensive industries contribute 45% of GDP in the EU annually and 39% of all jobs. But sadly, we know that employment and growth are predicted to suffer badly In the aftermath of the Coronavirus. So it's important that now, more than ever before, measures are taken to support our industries. And we know that the UP and UPC can indeed provide that support, with reduced costs, simplified administration and greater legal certainty.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 23px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px;">
He added "The statement by the German government makes it clear that approval of the UPC Agreement with the required parliamentary majority is still possible. So it is time to act. It is time to make the long-awaited UPP a reality, for the good of our innovation sector, for the good of our businesses and industries, and for the good of our economy."</div>
<h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 18px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 23px; margin: 1.4em 0px 10px; padding: 0px;">
Further information</h3>
<ul class="noBullets" style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;" type="disc">
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 23px; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: unset; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; position: relative;"><a class="ext" href="https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2020/032620_Patentreform.html" style="background-image: url("../images/icon_sprite.gif"); background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0b2a43; cursor: pointer; font-weight: 700; padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 0.6em; position: relative; text-decoration-line: none;">Statement of the German Federal Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection (26 March 2020)</a></li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 23px; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: unset; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; position: relative;"><a class="ext" href="https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2020/bvg20-020.html" style="background-image: url("../images/icon_sprite.gif"); background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0b2a43; cursor: pointer; font-weight: 700; padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 0.6em; position: relative; text-decoration-line: none;">Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court (20 March 2020</a>)</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 23px; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: unset; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; position: relative;">Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 23px; list-style-position: outside; list-style-type: unset; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; position: relative;"><a class="ext" href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/" style="background-image: url("../images/icon_sprite.gif"); background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0b2a43; cursor: pointer; font-weight: 700; padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 0.6em; position: relative; text-decoration-line: none;">A single patent covering 25 countries</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Roel van Woudenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-32694279180506936152020-03-20T10:29:00.001+01:002020-03-20T10:29:29.484+01:00Bundesverfassungsgericht: Act of Approval to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is void<i>The German Bundesverfassungsgericht ruled that the Act of Approval to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is void.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The press release can be found <a href="https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2020/bvg20-020.html">here</a>, and is cited in full below with some emphasis added:</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<h1 style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: droid_serifweb, Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 23.0251px; font-weight: normal; hyphens: none; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB">Act of Approval to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is void</span></h1>
<div style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
Press Release No. 20/2020 of 20 March 2020</div>
<div class="entscheidung" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77;">
Order of 13 February 2020<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><a href="https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/02/rs20200213_2bvr073917.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #ca2129; text-decoration-line: none;">2 BvR 739/17</a></div>
<div class="abstract" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">The Act of Approval to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (“the Act of Approval”) to confer sovereign powers on the Unified Patent Court is void.</span><span style="color: #990000;"><b> In its outcome, it amends the Constitution in substantive terms, though it has not been approved by the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bundestag</em> with the required two-thirds majority</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">. This is what the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court decided on a constitutional complaint in an order published today. In its reasoning, the Senate stated that, in order to safeguard their right to influence the process of European integration by democratic means, this, in principle, also entails the right of citizens that sovereign powers be conferred only in the ways provided for by the Basic Law. </span><b><span style="color: #990000;">An act of approval to an international treaty that has been adopted in violation thereof cannot provide democratic legitimation for the exercise of public authority by the EU or any other international institution supplementary to or otherwise closely tied to the EU</span></b><span style="color: #333333;">.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB">Facts of the case:</span></strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">The purpose of the Act of Approval is to establish the preconditions for the ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court of 19 February 2013 (“the Agreement”). As an international treaty, the Agreement is part of a regulatory package on patents at the core of which lies the introduction of a European patent with unitary effect at EU level by way of enhanced cooperation. The “European patent with unitary effect” provides unitary protection in all participating Member States. The Agreement provides for the establishment of a Unified Patent Court as a court common to most Member States for disputes concerning European patents and European patents with unitary effect. In relation to European patents and European patents with unitary effect, </span><b><span style="color: #990000;">exclusive competence for an extensive catalogue of disputes is to be conferred on the European Patent Court</span></b><span style="color: #333333;">. This catalogue comprises primarily actions for patent infringements, disputes on the validity of patents and certain actions against decisions of the European Patent Office. </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>The draft of the challenged Act of Approval was adopted unanimously by the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bundestag</em> in the third reading but only by about 35 members of the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bundestag</em> present. Neither was the presence of the required quorum determined, nor did the President of the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bundestag</em> declare that the Act of Approval had been adopted by a qualified majority</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB">Key considerations of the Senate:</span></strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">I. An act of approval to an international treaty that is supplementary to or otherwise closely tied to the European Union´s integration agenda (</span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333;">Integrationsprogramm</em><span style="color: #333333;">) must be measured against Art. 23(1) of the Basic Law (</span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333;">Grundgesetz</em><span style="color: #333333;"> – GG).</span><b><span style="color: #990000;"> Insofar as such an act amends or supplements the Basic Law in substantive terms, or makes such amendments or supplements possible, it requires a two-thirds majority in the legislative bodies</span></b><span style="color: #333333;"> pursuant to Art. 23(1) third sentence in conjunction with Art. 79(2) GG. An obligation under international law, assumed in violation of these requirements, that </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>exposes German citizens to the influence of a supranational public authority, violates their right equivalent to a fundamental right derived from Art. 38(1) first sentence and Art. 20(1) and (2) in conjunction with Art. 79(3) GG.</b></span><span style="color: #333333;"> In order to safeguard their rights to influence the process of European integration, citizens, in principle, can also claim that sovereign powers be conferred only in the ways provided for by the Basic Law in Art. 23(1) second and third sentence in conjunction with, Art. 79(2) GG (review of the formal aspects of conferral – </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333;">formelle Übertragungskontrolle</em><span style="color: #333333;">). This is because competences conferred on another entity under international law are usually “lost” and cannot easily be regained by the legislator. However, w</span><b><span style="color: #990000;">ithout an effective conferral of sovereign powers, each subsequent measure issued by the EU or a supranational organisation would lack democratic legitimation</span></b><span style="color: #333333;">. Furthermore, </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>the substantive limits to the conferral of sovereign powers that follow from Art. 79(3) GG must always be adhered t</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">o.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">II. Pursuant to these standards, Art. 1(1) first sentence of the Act of Approval </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>violates the complainant’s right to democratic self-determination </b></span><span style="color: #333333;">derived from Art. 38(1) first sentence, Art. 20(1) and (2) and Art. 79(3) in conjunction with Art. 23(1) third sentence and Art. 79(2) GG, as the Act of Approval was not passed by two thirds of the members of the </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333;">Bundestag.</em></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">1. The Act of Approval confers judicial functions on </span><b><span style="color: #990000;">a supranational court</span></b><span style="color: #333333;"> and sets out that this court has </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>exclusive competence</b></span><span style="color: #333333;"> to decide on certain legal disputes. Additionally, the Agreement </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>makes decisions and orders of the Unified Patent Court enforceable</b></span><span style="color: #333333;"> in any Contracting Member State.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">2. The Agreement is </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>supplementary to or otherwise closely tied</b></span><span style="color: #333333;"> to the European Union’s integration agenda (</span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333;">Integrationsprogramm</em><span style="color: #333333;">) and effectively </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>replaces provisions that did not achieve the majorities necessary to be adopted as EU law</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">a) The direct primary law basis of the Agreement is Art. 262 TFEU. It provides for the conferral of jurisdiction on the CJEU in disputes relating to European intellectual property rights, p</span><span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">rovided there is a unanimous decision of the Council and ratification by the Member States. </span>Until now,<span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;"> the political will has been lacking in this respect</span><span style="color: #333333;">.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">b) In addition, the Agreement is very closely enmeshed with secondary law enacted on the basis of Art. 118 TFEU. An essential part of the judicial functions of the Unified Patent Court will relate to</span><span style="color: #990000;"><b> rights and claims based on EU law the unitary effect </b></span><span style="color: #333333;">of which can </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>only be guaranteed by the provisions laid down in the Agreement.</b></span><span style="color: #333333;"> Furthermore, the Unified Patent Court is </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>directly bound by EU law</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">c) The Agreement was also </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>pushed forward by EU organs</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">. Since at least the turn of the millennium, the European Commission has </span><b><span style="color: #990000;">insisted on the centralisation of judicial protection</span></b><span style="color: #333333;"> in this field. The European Parliament also strongly supported the “European Patent Package”.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">The Agreement is o</span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>pen exclusively to EU Member States</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">. The fact that not all EU Member States are also Contracting Member States does not call into question the </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>particularly close ties to the European Union’s integration agenda</b></span><span style="color: #333333;"> (</span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333;">Integrationsprogramm</em><span style="color: #333333;">). On the contrary, </span><b><span style="color: #990000;">it is expressly legitimated by the concept of enhanced cooperation </span></b><span style="color: #333333;">and it underlines the </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>close enmeshment with the institutional system of the EU</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">3. The Act of Approval is subject to the requirements in Art. 23(1) third sentence in conjunction with Art. 79(2) GG, since</span><span style="color: #990000;"><b> it effectively amends the Constitution in substantive terms</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">a) The Agreement relates to the Constitution and is a comparable regulation within the meaning of Art. 23(1) third sentence GG g</span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>iven that it contains a provision, which, in its function, is equivalent to an amendment of the Treaties pursuant to Art. 48 TEU</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">. Effectively, the Agreement is an amendment or replacement of Art. 262 TFEU. In Art. 262 TFEU, the Treaty not only calls for </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>a special legislative procedure and a unanimous decision of the Council</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">, but </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>also </b></span><span style="color: #333333;">sets out that provisions conferring jurisdiction shall enter into force only after their </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>approval by the Members States</b></span><span style="color: #333333;"> in accordance with t</span><b><span style="color: #990000;">heir respective constitutional requirements</span></b><span style="color: #333333;">. Thus, Member States considered the creation of novel jurisdiction for the CJEU over industrial property law to be </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>a severe interference with national jurisdiction and designed it as a process requiring ratification</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">. The German legislature classified the process set out in Art. 262 TFEU as a special process of amending the Treaties. By way of the Agreement, the Contracting Members States changed the European Union’s integration agenda (</span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333;">Integrationsprogramm</em><span style="color: #333333;">) of the Lisbon Treaty, </span><b><span style="color: #990000;">factually removed the basis of the process provided for in Art. 262 TFEU and rendered a new, EU-inspired type of unified court system for industrial property possible</span></b><span style="color: #333333;">. This is because t</span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>he necessary unanimity could neither be achieved for the way outlined in the Treaties by Art. 262 TFEU nor for an amendment pursuant to Art. 48 TEU</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">b) Regardless of the specific set-up of the patent court system, </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>conferring judicial functions while superseding German courts results in a substantive amendment of the Basic Law</b></span><span style="color: #333333;"> within the meaning of Art. 23(1) third sentence GG. Pursuant to Art. 92 GG, judicial power in Germany is exercised by the Federal Constitutional Court, the federal courts and the courts of the </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333;">Länder</em><span style="color: #333333;">. </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>Any conferral of judicial functions on international courts modifies this comprehensive allocation of jurisdiction and, in this respect, constitutes an amendment of the Constitution in substantive terms</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">. The conferral not only affects the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Basic Law, given that </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>German courts can no longer ensure the protection of these rights</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">, but also t</span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>he specific design of the separation of powers</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">. A significant part of the Member States’ jurisdiction over private and administrative legal matters of economic significance is conferred to the </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>exclusive jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court </b></span><span style="color: #333333;">by Art. 32 of the Agreement. Under the Agreement,</span><b><span style="color: #990000;"> the structure of the German court system set out in the Constitution is modified and supplemented by another court with its own hierarchy</span></b><span style="color: #333333;">.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #333333;">4. The Act of Approval had to be adopted by a qualified majority pursuant to Art. 79(2) GG. In view of the particular importance of the majority requirement for the integrity of the Constitution and the democratic legitimation of interferences with the constitutional order, </span><span style="color: #990000;"><b>a law cannot be enacted when it does not achieve this majority. Thus, the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bundestag</em> did not effectively pass the Act of Approval. It is void</b></span><span style="color: #333333;">. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color: #990000;">Dissenting Opinion </span><span style="color: #333333;">of Justices König, Langenfeld and Maidowski</span></span></strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB">The “right to democracy” does not give rise to a right that formal requirements for the conferral of sovereign powers be adhered to, which can be relied on before the Federal Constitutional Court. This would lead to an extension of the right derived from Art. 38(1) first sentence GG that fails to recognise its substance and limits. There is no scope for a violation of the substance of the right to vote and be elected in a case that only concerns the failure to adhere to formal requirements for an act of approval. This is because this right shall now apparently also be affected in situations in which the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bundestag</em> does indeed seek to establish democratic legitimation for a conferral of sovereign powers, which is permissible in principle, by way of legislation and in which the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bundestag</em> thus performs its responsibility with respect to European integration (<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Integrationsverantwortung</em>). When the “right to democracy” is extended to cover the adherence to formal requirements for an effective conferral of sovereign powers, it loses its specific substance, which aims to enable and safeguard democratic self-determination. Beyond <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">ultra-vires</em> situations, Art. 38(1) first sentence GG grants such a right only to the extent that an act affects democratic principles that, pursuant to Art. 79(3) GG, are even beyond the reach of the Constitution-amending legislature. Not adhering to the requirement of a majority capable of amending the constitution or other formal requirements when conferring sovereign powers is neither a previously recognised <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">ultra-vires</em> situation nor does it affect those foundations of the principle of democracy that cannot be changed. Consequently, allowing a conferral to be challenged on formal grounds completely blurs the scope of protection of Art. 38(1) first sentence GG in the context of European integration.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: open_sansweb, Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.0142px; line-height: 1.77; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="box-sizing: border-box;" xml:lang="EN-GB">Furthermore, a review of the formal aspects of conferral could ultimately – and contrary to the intentions of the Second Senate’s majority – obstruct and narrow the political process in the context of European integration. It can be expected that this further extension of access to the Federal Constitutional Court in almost any case of conferral of jurisdiction within the scope of application of Art. 23(1) GG will prompt the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bundestag</em> and the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bundesrat</em> to seek a two-thirds majority in order to avoid the risk of a review of the formal aspects of conferral. Thus, it will factually become the rule that a two-thirds majority will be necessary not only for conferring additional sovereign powers on the EU, but also for establishing institutions under international law that have close ties to the EU. This is neither the Constitution-amending legislature’s intention nor is it necessary or beneficial for facilitating the democratic process, since decision-making with narrow majorities must also be possible. Granting broad access to the Federal Constitutional Court could prejudice the democratic process in the future and could, if not prevent, at least significantly delay further steps towards integration. The requirement of a two-thirds majority is extended significantly into an area that was previously covered by Art. 24(1) GG. According to this constitutional provision, only ordinary federal law is required for the conferral of sovereign powers. Permitting a review of the formal aspects of conferral opens up further areas to dispute before the Constitutional Court. This will result in the narrowing of Parliament’s necessary political leeway in the context of European integration and the protection of the democratic process intended by Art. 38(1) first sentence GG may thus be turned into its opposite.</span></div>
DeltaPatents EQE Blogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13926591520841144736noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-63837262008747003102018-04-30T13:37:00.000+02:002018-04-30T13:37:02.718+02:00United Kingdom ratifies unitary patent<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ItHlIR3xWgo/Wub_QJtzy_I/AAAAAAAAUX8/-VgLF63oP4ouhr1g03FkhZ0Yci1pbvYXwCLcBGAs/s1600/2018.04.30%2Babstract-1239439_1920.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1049" data-original-width="1600" height="261" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ItHlIR3xWgo/Wub_QJtzy_I/AAAAAAAAUX8/-VgLF63oP4ouhr1g03FkhZ0Yci1pbvYXwCLcBGAs/s400/2018.04.30%2Babstract-1239439_1920.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
On 26 april 2018 the United Kingdom has ratified the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. This is one other step towards making the UPC a reality. Ratification of the UK was one of two remaining requirements. The last ratification that is still required is that of Germany. Ratification in Germany awaits the resolution of a <a href="http://unitary-patent.blogspot.nl/2017/06/new-delay-for-unitary-patent.html">court case</a> that has been pending for about 10 months now before the constitutional court of Germany.<br />
<br />
Assuming Germany ratifies before the Brexit is complete, the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court will go into force. One question is what will happen to the position of the UK after it leaves the EU. I'm assuming that the UK considers it likely that they will remain a member; otherwise what is the point of ratifying it. Some legal confirmation of this would be interesting.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Photo</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">by </span></i><a href="https://pixabay.com/es/users/Meditations-2077322/" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12pt;">Meditations</a> <i style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">obtained via <a href="https://pixabay.com/es/resumen-difuminar-gran-breta%C3%B1a-1239439/">Pixabay </a></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">under <a href="https://pixabay.com/es/service/terms/#usage">CC0 license</a> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">(no changes made).</span></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-84580692887597210992017-08-22T15:25:00.001+02:002017-08-22T15:25:21.451+02:00EPO publishes unitary patent guide<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ebvdZ958Jr0/WZwwjgBhlbI/AAAAAAAASRY/yrlzImzOAicI0Vzmk0FJpupwN5oNtwh2wCLcBGAs/s1600/2017.08.22%2Bcurrant-1560383_1920.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1155" data-original-width="1600" height="287" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ebvdZ958Jr0/WZwwjgBhlbI/AAAAAAAASRY/yrlzImzOAicI0Vzmk0FJpupwN5oNtwh2wCLcBGAs/s400/2017.08.22%2Bcurrant-1560383_1920.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
The EPO has published the "Unitary Patent Guide. Obtaining, maintaining and managing Unitary Patents". The document tells how to obtain a unitary patent, e.g., how to apply for unitary effect, and what the requirements are. The document also discusses a number of other topics that are relevant for unitary patent proprietors, including the compensation scheme for translations costs and the registering of transfers or licenses.<br />
<br />
The document can be <a href="http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/C3ED1E790D5E75E0C125818000325A9B/$File/Unitary_Patent_guide_en.pdf" target="_blank">downloaded</a> at the <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/unitary/unitary-patent/unitary-patent-guide.html" target="_blank">EPO</a>. The document looks nice, is well written and seems to be truly useful. Unfortunately, it will only be really useful once the difficulties surrounding the entry into force have been resolved (see <a href="http://unitary-patent.blogspot.nl/2017/06/new-delay-for-unitary-patent.html" target="_blank">New delay for unitary patent</a>).<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;"><i>Photo by <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/users/klimkin-1298145/">Klimkin</a> from <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/currant-grade-glass-red-black-1560383/" target="_blank">Pixabay</a> under a CC0 license (no changes made).</i></span><br />
<br />
<br />Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-68606945322207330402017-07-19T09:58:00.001+02:002017-07-19T09:59:08.515+02:00Is the unitary patent pulled into Brexit negotiations?<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Efzn0rJIJng/WW8PwwQ-qJI/AAAAAAAARsY/4Mi1wFhNKss1bFJiw-z_Xujkcam5fQQ4QCLcBGAs/s1600/2017.07.19%2BBarnier%2BP034940001201-227480.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1067" data-original-width="1600" height="266" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Efzn0rJIJng/WW8PwwQ-qJI/AAAAAAAARsY/4Mi1wFhNKss1bFJiw-z_Xujkcam5fQQ4QCLcBGAs/s400/2017.07.19%2BBarnier%2BP034940001201-227480.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Michel Barnier during the 12/07/2017 press conference in Brussels</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
At a <span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">press conference by Michel Barnier, Chief Negotiator for the EU, some comments were made about the unified patent court. On the one hand, he mentions that the location of the unified patent court is not part of his negotiating mandate. On the other hand, he also indicates that the location of UPC is being considered, and that it may have to move as a result of the UK's decision to leave the EU. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">I find it difficult to gauge what this could mean for the UPC's prospects. If it is not formally part of the Bexit negotiation, then this might mean that political agreement is needed at some other level? WIPR has an interesting <a href="https://www.blogger.com/The%20http://www.worldipreview.com/news/eu-reviewing-whether-upc-can-stay-in-london-14336">article </a>about it. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">The press conference can be viewed <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I141351&sitelang=en&videolang=EN">here</a> at the EU <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations_en">website</a> about the brexit </span><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">negotiations. </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> The question leading up to the comments about the unified patent court start at 14:00, Barnier's answer about the Unified patent courts starts at 15:35. The link points to the English translation, but other languages are </span><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">available</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/photo/photoDetails.cfm?sitelang=en&ref=034940#10">Photo</a> is taken from the </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">European Commission Audiovisual Services</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-88560207852673131452017-06-20T10:57:00.000+02:002017-06-20T10:57:20.299+02:00Battistelli: “nobody knows today” (what will happen to the London court)<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AA0Slhcm5Ac/WUjdX2gc4-I/AAAAAAAARLo/yTZZn_fHCMYdfKhNCYGhYx-Dp1JDxKboQCLcBGAs/s1600/Remmal_Popular_Prize_winner_EIA2017_EE_Y7A0089_88297C34984D4B438716F1EE8213BD3A.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1500" height="266" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AA0Slhcm5Ac/WUjdX2gc4-I/AAAAAAAARLo/yTZZn_fHCMYdfKhNCYGhYx-Dp1JDxKboQCLcBGAs/s400/Remmal_Popular_Prize_winner_EIA2017_EE_Y7A0089_88297C34984D4B438716F1EE8213BD3A.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Battistelli speaks to award winner Adnane Remmal<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />At the occasion of the <a href="https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2017/20170615.html">European Inventor Award 2017</a> (15 June 2017 in Venice), Benoît Battistelli, president of the European Patent Office (EPO) spoke to reporters about the unitary patent (<a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/eu-patent-court-to-remain-in-london-despite-brexit-for-now/">Euractive</a> reports).<br />
<br />
According to him the Unified Patent Court is “is not an EU agency”,and so the London location of the court's central division would not have to be relocated to an EU member state after Brexit is complete. Whether that would be politically acceptable “would be another issue” and “It will depend on the outcome of the negotiations”. He conceded that “nobody knows today” what will happen with the court.<br />
<br />
According to the article we do have a new start date though: early 2018.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure I'd bet on that. Let's say that early 2018 means March 2018, and assuming an 8-month lead time between ratification and start, this would mean that by August 2017 the UK and Germany have each ratified the UPC agreement. Given the politically sensitive issue for the UK and the requested delay of the <a href="http://unitary-patent.blogspot.nl/2017/06/new-delay-for-unitary-patent.html">German constitutional court</a>, it seems a bit optimistic that both will be resolved in two months time.<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Photo from the <a href="https://www.epo.org/news-issues/press/european-inventor-award/2017/ceremony-gallery.html">Award ceremony photo gallery</a> at EPO. </span></div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="height: 0px;">
<br /></div>
Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-46788443035313688312017-06-14T09:42:00.001+02:002017-06-14T11:57:45.687+02:00New delay for unitary patent<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F0GRjJ-C_bo/WUDnRZPXPsI/AAAAAAAAREk/SrMDqKMe-nICwCZXllJ1hT9qJZwQqD53wCLcBGAs/s1600/2017.06.14%2Bdespaired-2261021_1920%2B%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1068" data-original-width="1600" height="266" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F0GRjJ-C_bo/WUDnRZPXPsI/AAAAAAAAREk/SrMDqKMe-nICwCZXllJ1hT9qJZwQqD53wCLcBGAs/s400/2017.06.14%2Bdespaired-2261021_1920%2B%25281%2529.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The start of the unitary patent system has a few further setbacks: one less surprising (the United Kingdom), one more surprising (Germany). <br />
<br />
Up to now, the goal was to have the system up and running by December this year. That date relied on the timely ratification of the required states. In particular, the United Kingdom ought to have ratified the agreement last May. As that did not happen, the start date of the unitary patent system has also been delayed. The unified patent court has published an <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/news/upc-timetable-update-june-2017">update</a> to their timeline, confirming that December 2017 will not be met.<br />
<br />
Apart from the ratification of the UK which is not forthcoming, another ratification problem is caused by the Protocol on Provisional Application. This lesser known protocol arranges the starting-up period of the court. Up to now, there are only 11 <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/agreements-conventions/agreement/?aid=2015056">signatures</a> which is not enough. Interestingly, the United Kingdom <u>has</u> signed the protocol, so no problems there.<br />
<br />
The unified patent court has not yet set a new date.<br />
<br />
The other setback comes from Germany. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Germany's constitutional court) has asked the President not to ratify the UPC agreement yet (here is the German <a href="http://plus.faz.net/evr-editions/2017-06-13/wvnZZlYct8AzybAx8AYwchlA?GEPC=s3">article</a>, an English source is <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.nl/2017/06/breaking-german-constitutional-court.html">here</a>). Someone has brought a constitutional complaint which needs to be settled before ratifying. <a href="http://kluwerpatentblog.com/2017/06/13/breaking-news-germanys-federal-constitutional-court-pulls-emergency-break-upc-agreement/">Kluwer</a> has interesting speculations, that the problem could be more substantial than just the unified patent court. I haven't found confirmation at the website of the <a href="http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/DE/Homepage/homepage_node.html">Bundesverfassungsgericht</a> yet.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Photo by <span style="font-family: "calibri";"><a href="https://pixabay.com/en/users/slon_dot_pics-5203613/">slon_dot_pics</a> (<a href="http://slon.piccs/">slon.piccs</a>) via <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/despaired-businessman-business-2261021/">Pixabay</a> under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en">CC0 license</a>.</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-38196582622728582062017-01-30T10:32:00.001+01:002017-01-30T10:33:06.099+01:00New minister for Intellectual Property on Unified patent court<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KkcrDgNirfI/WI8FeG-PhzI/AAAAAAAAO-Y/bN1s2JS-KmcPgN8gs9MkjnztjxYrrZTOQCLcB/s1600/2017.01.30%2Bice-cubes-1914351_1920.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="251" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KkcrDgNirfI/WI8FeG-PhzI/AAAAAAAAO-Y/bN1s2JS-KmcPgN8gs9MkjnztjxYrrZTOQCLcB/s400/2017.01.30%2Bice-cubes-1914351_1920.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">There is a new minister for <span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">Intellectual Property in the UK, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/jo-johnson" style="color: #0c5390; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jo Johnson</a></span>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The previous minister, <span style="background-color: white;">Baroness Neville Rolfe, made some promising <a href="http://unitary-patent.blogspot.nl/2016/11/uk-still-proceeding-with-preparations.html">statements</a> about the UK's intentions to ratify the agreement on a unified patent court (UPC). She said on the one hand that </span>the UK government is proceeding with preparations to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement, but on the other hand that "(...) the decision to proceed with ratification should not be seen as pre-empting the UK’s objectives or position in the forthcoming negotiations with the EU".</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">New minister Jo Johnson has confirmed these sentiments and strikes perhaps a slightly more positive note. I</span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">n a </span><span style="color: #333333;">a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
session on 11-Jan-2017, he said "</span><span style="text-align: justify;">We have taken a decision to proceed with preparations to ratify the UPC Agreement. We believe it is important that we participate in this framework. It has value to UK inventors and businesses and we want to be there at its creation.” He declined to answer how the Brexit might influence this decision though: </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">“These are
questions that will form part of the greater discussion of the Brexit
negotiations.” (Quotes copied from <a href="http://www.ippropatents.com/ippropatentsnews/article.php?article_id=5224#.WI7-hfArIUG">IP Pro Patents</a>.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
About a week later, Mr. Johnson submitted an <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584443/EM_EU_1.2017.pdf">explanatory memorandum</a> to Parliament. The document is an interesting read and stresses the benefits of the unitary patent system. One section to note (section 3.) is the following:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="text-align: justify;">The UPCA establishes a specialised, non-EU patent court under international law with jurisdiction for disputes relating to European patents in 25 European countries. The Agreement is between 25 EU countries (not Spain, Croatia or Poland), the EU is not a signatory, and establishes a court common to the 25 participating countries as an international Organisation with legal personality in each. The UPC is part of the judicial systems of the participating countries in so far as it has jurisdiction over patents valid in their territories. However, the UPC forms a separate jurisdiction to the national court systems and it will not be part of the UK Court system.</span></blockquote>
<br />
This is true, as far as it goes. The unified patent court indeed is not an EU institution. However, it is also the case that the unified patent agreement repeatedly refers to EU law and the EU court of justice. If and how the UK can stay in the UPC after a Brexit is a current debate, and perhaps these are the questions that are <span style="text-align: justify;">part of the greater discussion of the Brexit negotiations </span>that Mr. Johnson ment<span style="text-align: justify;">.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Photo by <span style="font-family: "calibri";"><a href="https://pixabay.com/en/users/Myriams-Fotos-1627417/">Myriams-Fotos</a> </span>via <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/ice-cubes-fire-flame-burn-hot-1914351/"><span id="goog_592088003"></span>Pixabay</a>, under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en" style="font-family: Calibri;">Creative
Commons CC0</a> license. No changes were made.</span>Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-40290186421066040712016-11-29T09:56:00.003+01:002016-11-29T09:56:47.939+01:00UK still proceeding with preparations to ratify Unified Patent Court<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EhhMQ-NMEP0/WD1CBpPndsI/AAAAAAAANkw/2u4QVtedy8wx4zrlsdSAS-ixq2Hxug9cACLcB/s1600/2016.11.29%2BGreeen%2Blight%2B16643793324_f0e68d670f_k.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EhhMQ-NMEP0/WD1CBpPndsI/AAAAAAAANkw/2u4QVtedy8wx4zrlsdSAS-ixq2Hxug9cACLcB/s320/2016.11.29%2BGreeen%2Blight%2B16643793324_f0e68d670f_k.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
In a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-signals-green-light-to-unified-patent-court-agreement">press release</a> the UK intellectual property office states that they are still proceeding with preparations to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement. The press release is optimistically titled "UK signals green light to Unified Patent Court Agreement". <br />
<br />
It is not all green lights in the press release though. Baroness Neville Rolfe (Minister for Intellectual Property) links the ratification to access to the free market. Is this press release offering ratification of the unitary patent in exchange for access to the free market? Despite the optimistic language, I still do not expect a quick ratification. If the Article 50 exit negotiations will include negotiating the Unified Patent Court Agreement, it will take at least two more years. Assuming of course, the unitary patent does not fall by the wayside in the process.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Photo "Good to go" by <span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/blondinrikard/">Blondinrikard</a></span><span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/blondinrikard/"> </a></span><span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/blondinrikard/">Fröberg</a> </span>via <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/blondinrikard/16643793324/in/photostream/">Flickr</a> under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">CC-BY 2.0 license</a>.</span><br />
<br />
<br />Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-53160292158487514362016-11-22T10:09:00.000+01:002016-11-22T10:09:24.766+01:00EPO ready for unitary patent<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4Scc5cya0Cg/WDQJ3BzGCUI/AAAAAAAANbM/RBR8njpXfbQ8-yRh0nlB0Geaffq8RkOLACLcB/s1600/2016.11.22%2BWaiting%2Btube-1209419_1920.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4Scc5cya0Cg/WDQJ3BzGCUI/AAAAAAAANbM/RBR8njpXfbQ8-yRh0nlB0Geaffq8RkOLACLcB/s400/2016.11.22%2BWaiting%2Btube-1209419_1920.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Waiting for the UK</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
According to a <a href="http://www.epo.org/about-us/organisation/communiques.html#a28">statement</a> of the select committee the EPO has completed the legal preparations for the Unitary Patent. In particular, they have approved how the fees coming from the unitary patent are to be distributed among the participating member states.<br />
<br />
At present, it doesn't look like many fees will be rolling in any time soon though. When the select committee will have their next meeting will depend on 'the development of the question of the entry into force of the UPP/UPC at the political level, within the framework of the European Union'. As long as the UK does not ratify the Agreement on a unified patent court, the unitary patent cannot start. The UK may or may not do so, but no news is forthcoming from that front. At the latest the select committee will reconvene in March 2017.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Photo by <span style="font-family: "calibri";"><a href="https://pixabay.com/en/users/Unsplash-242387/">Unsplash</a> via <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/tube-london-underground-station-1209419/">Pixabay</a>, under a </span><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en">CC0</a></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> license; no changes were made to the photo.</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-2977203095228778082016-10-14T13:57:00.000+02:002016-10-14T13:57:02.603+02:00Labour asks about UK's intentions for unitary patent<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fkGroX2azqY/WADHffi0iyI/AAAAAAAAMwM/MJcSgI-q5XoIhJFoBw1bEpcVDVt894dwwCLcB/s1600/2016.10.14%2Bquestion-1262378_1920.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fkGroX2azqY/WADHffi0iyI/AAAAAAAAMwM/MJcSgI-q5XoIhJFoBw1bEpcVDVt894dwwCLcB/s400/2016.10.14%2Bquestion-1262378_1920.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<br /></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<br /></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
The UK Labour party has sent a list of <a href="http://labourlist.org/2016/10/labours-170-questions-for-david-davis-on-brexit/">170 questions</a> to David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The list includes two questions on the unitary patent: questions 110 and 111. Also view WIPR's discussion <a href="http://www.worldipreview.com/news/lawyers-pour-cold-water-on-labour-s-upc-brexit-questions-12400">here</a>. </div>
<br />
<blockquote>
110. Does the government intend to proceed with ratification of the EU agreement to establish a Unified Patent Court, in the agreement’s present form; and if not, what steps is the government taking to negotiate an alternative agreement to which it would be willing to sign up? </blockquote>
<blockquote>
111. If the Unified Patent Court (UPC) goes ahead, will the Human Necessities seat of its Central Division continue to be located in London, as prescribed in Article 7(2) of the UPC agreement?</blockquote>
<br />
The first questions reflects the basic choice the UK now has to make. Does it want to make an effort to stay in the unitary patent, and if not is it worth the trouble to ratify just to leave later on?<br />
<br />
If the UK wants to stay in the unitary patent system after Brexit, it seems likely to me that some kind of agreement is needed. If not a new agreement outright the users will need to see something on paper to restore confidence that their unitary patents will be valid in the UK. <br />
<br />
Prime Minister Theresa May has said that she does not want to jeopardize her negotiation strategy. So I don't expect too much of the answers. Who wants the unitary patent more: the continent or the UK? Could the unitary patent become a bargaining chip?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Photo by <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/users/geralt-9301/" style="font-family: Calibri;">geralt</a> via <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/question-board-chalk-school-1262378/">Pixabay</a> under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en">CC0</a> license (no changes).</span>Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-60344976358956372142016-09-15T17:24:00.001+02:002016-09-15T17:24:40.039+02:00The Netherlands ratify unified patent court agreement<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BDkNmB0mRr8/V9q4BHRFBVI/AAAAAAAAMRs/qjdAKwI5W0YvCSYV2DX9V7IuYqoAcl6mACLcB/s1600/2016.09.16%2BTulips%2Bin%2Bthe%2Brain%2B4973013261_a09ac75690_b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BDkNmB0mRr8/V9q4BHRFBVI/AAAAAAAAMRs/qjdAKwI5W0YvCSYV2DX9V7IuYqoAcl6mACLcB/s400/2016.09.16%2BTulips%2Bin%2Bthe%2Brain%2B4973013261_a09ac75690_b.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The Netherlands have <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/agreements-conventions/agreement/?aid=2013001">deposited</a> their instrument of ratification. This makes it the 11th country to do so.<br />
<br />
This marks an important milestone since if we add the remaining required countries--the United Kingdom and Germany--we reach 13 ratified countries which is sufficient to start the unitary patent system.<br />
<br />
The Dutch government <a href="https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ministerie-van-economische-zaken/nieuws/2016/09/14/nederland-akkoord-met-modernisering-europees-octrooi">adds</a> that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Germany is likely to follow shortly. In addition, also approval by the United Kingdom is required. What the exact consequences of the announced 'Brexit' are for when the agreement enters into force, is still unclear.</blockquote>
The latter point is of course the problem. Only if the United Kingdom were to ratify can the agreement enter into force. They are legally fully allowed to do so, but personally I consider it unlikely that they at present will want to take this step.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
In all other scenarios, the entry into force will be delayed. Even if the United Kingdom ratifies now, it is unclear what should happen if they leave the EU, but try to stay in the unified patent agreement.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Photo "Tullips in the rain" by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/53343503@N05/" style="font-family: Calibri; font-weight: bold;">Cicely Miller</a> via <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/53343503@N05/4973013261/">Flickr</a> under a CC-By 2.0 license (no changes made).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-81477785891198551502016-08-04T09:56:00.000+02:002016-08-04T09:57:35.803+02:00UK Intellectual Property Office makes statement on UPC: no immediate changes<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uZL0Pb9ZiZ0/V6L026wPJ-I/AAAAAAAALjI/BKfgqEdWy4E_IcIQUgAC0V3IWz7oJ_yMACLcB/s1600/2016.08.04%2Begg-1510449_1920.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uZL0Pb9ZiZ0/V6L026wPJ-I/AAAAAAAALjI/BKfgqEdWy4E_IcIQUgAC0V3IWz7oJ_yMACLcB/s400/2016.08.04%2Begg-1510449_1920.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office">intellectual property office</a> of the UK has made a brief <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ip-and-brexit-the-facts">statement</a> on the unitary patent after the Brexit. According to IPO:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The UK remains a Contracting Member State of the Unified Patent Court at present. We will continue to attend and participate in UPC meetings in that capacity. There will be no immediate changes.</blockquote>
<div>
This is the <i>full</i> statement regarding the unitary patent. I can imagine what those UPC meetings will be about, as the unitary patent's future is really murky right now. Different options are on the table, but all of them have downsides. Could the UK live with a UPC agreement that is full of references to EU law? Could the EU live with a UPC member that is not an EU member? There are many more questions than answers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
The statement also mentions other IE rights. If the IE right is not based on EU law, there is no problem (EPC, Madrid system), but what should happen to EU trademarks, and EU designs?<br />
<br />
<br />
Photo by <span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="https://pixabay.com/en/users/Couleur-1195798/">Couleur</a> </span>via <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/egg-chicken-eggs-raw-eggs-eggshell-1510449/">Pixabay</a> under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en">CC0 license</a> (no changes made).Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-78361692983412280942016-07-18T10:25:00.001+02:002016-07-18T10:25:23.244+02:00Battistelli considers unitary patent with UK a 'best case scenario'<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wQZNp5KnMIA/V4yN3Ge1cgI/AAAAAAAALNs/QmX6jHrtcuoV_u1Awdj5QzsFcnomI0rJACLcB/s1600/2016.07.18%2BUk%2BDart%2Bdart-38220.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="298" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wQZNp5KnMIA/V4yN3Ge1cgI/AAAAAAAALNs/QmX6jHrtcuoV_u1Awdj5QzsFcnomI0rJACLcB/s400/2016.07.18%2BUk%2BDart%2Bdart-38220.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Battistelli, the EPO President, discusses two possible scenario's for the future of the unitary patent after the UK voted to leave the EU in the Brexit referendum, in his Blog '<a href="http://blog.epo.org/unitary-patent-2/future-unitary-patent-package/">The future of the Unitary Patent package</a>'.<br />
<br />
According to Battistelli, "In the best case scenario, the UK could go ahead as soon as possible
with the ratification of the UPC Agreement. This would allow the UK
afterwards, in its EU exit negotiations, to obtain its continuous
participation both in the Unified Patent Court and the Unitary Patent." This option follows the scenario proposed by <a href="http://unitary-patent.blogspot.nl/2016/06/brexit-what-brexit.htmlhttp://unitary-patent.blogspot.nl/2016/06/brexit-what-brexit.html">Hoyng</a>, that we discussed earlier on this Blog. <a href="http://eplit.eu/">Eplit</a>, the European patent litigator association, has <a href="http://eplit.eu/index.php/details/eplit-urges-uk-government-to-ratify-upc-agreement-as-soon-as-possible.html">sent</a> a <a href="http://eplit.eu/files/downloads/Letter%20EPLIT%20to%20Baroness%20Neville-Rolfe%20final%203.pdf">letter</a> to Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Minister for Intellectual Property, urging here to take this route and ratify the Agreement.<br />
<br />
The advantages are clear, the unitary patent can go ahead as planned, and the UK buys time at least until their formal exit out of the EU on how to proceed. In the meantime a solution can be found that finds a place for the UK in the unitary patent. Either through a creative interpretation of the Agreement on a unified patent court (namely, you should be a EU member to <i>become</i> a participant not not to <i>stay </i>participant) or in the form of an amendment or side-agreement. The latter options would have my preference, as they give more legal certainty. <br />
<br />
In an article at <a href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2016/july/brexit-uk-ratification-of-the-unified-patent-court-agreement-soon-seems-politically-unrealistic-says-expert/">Out-Law, </a><a href="http://www.pinsentmasons.com/en/people/partnersconsultants/deborah-bould/">Deborah Bould</a> considers this approach unlikely. "It seems politically unrealistic to suggest that the UK ratifies the
UPC Agreement now, to help get the unitary patent system off the ground,
and then tries to negotiate to stay in as part of the UK’s exit terms,"
Bould said. At first glance, it does indeed seems illogical to ratify an agreement that further limits national sovereignty in favor of a pan-European court just after a brexit vote. On the other hand, a UK in the unitary patent fits nicely in the '<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/14/whats-the-best-brexit-theresa-may-could-get-for-britain">soft brexit</a>' model, in which a close relationship with the rest of the EU is maintained. <br />
<br />
The alternative considered by Battistelli is to amend the Agreement and continue without the UK. This would give a unitary patent in which the UK is absent, but which still has countries like Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands, that hopefully will make this 'unitary patent light' sufficiently attractive to be a viable option.<br />
<br />
Bould offers yet a further alternative in which the Agreement on a unified patent court is renegotiated and opened up to all EPC member states who are not EU states. I presume Battisteli's option would be easier to obtain, but Bould's suggestion has the advantage that states like Norway, Switzerland and Turkey could also join the unitary patent. I'm not sure though if it is necessary to codify access to the unitary patent to all EPO states. If the UK can be included in the unitary patent through a kind of extension agreement, then I do not see why a similar agreement can't be made with other EPO member states. <br />
<br />
In any case, any tampering with the Agreement would take time, and delay the unitary patent, but that is a reality that seems inevitable in any scenario. <br />
<br />
<div style="direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Photo by <span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;"><a href="https://pixabay.com/en/users/Clker-Free-Vector-Images-3736/">Clker</a></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;"><a href="https://pixabay.com/en/users/Clker-Free-Vector-Images-3736/">-Free-Vector-Images</a> via <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/dart-arrow-target-sport-throw-38220/">Pixabay</a> under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en">CC0 license</a> (no changes made). </span></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-US; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12.0pt; language: en-US; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: +mn-cs; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-color-index: 1; mso-fareast-font-family: +mn-ea; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 12.0pt; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: black; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: text1; mso-style-textfill-type: solid;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-40661900853582843452016-07-15T13:51:00.001+02:002016-07-15T13:51:57.122+02:00Ratification news: Bulgaria fully ratified, Netherlands moves forward<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RKvRFWSalaA/V4jNHFwCswI/AAAAAAAALKY/bLwH16B1cMEJY2X-KPGB_JcbxVPiFK4mACLcB/s1600/2016.07.16%2BBulgaria%2Bcourthouse-898237_1280.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RKvRFWSalaA/V4jNHFwCswI/AAAAAAAALKY/bLwH16B1cMEJY2X-KPGB_JcbxVPiFK4mACLcB/s400/2016.07.16%2BBulgaria%2Bcourthouse-898237_1280.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">An EU flag waving in front of a Bulgarian courthouse</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
With all the commotion surrounding the brexit we neglected news of the countries that made progress towards ratification. First of all, Bulgaria has <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/agreements-conventions/agreement/?aid=2013001">deposited</a> its <span class="highlight selected">instrument of</span> ratification and is the tenth state to do so.<br />
<br />
In the Netherlands the parliament has <a href="https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/dossier/34411/h-ek-20152016-36-3">accepted</a> the Agreement on a unified patent court. The Netherlands can now proceed to deposit their instrument of ratification. They have not done so yet.<br />
<br />
When the Netherlands completes this final part of their ratification they will be the 11th country. At that point an important milestone will be reached. Only the required countries Germany and the United Kingdom are then sufficient to reach 13 countries and make the unitary patent a reality. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, all eyes are on the United Kingdom. Will they continue to ratify the Agreement even though they voted to leave the EU? I have not yet heard of any positive indication, that the United Kingdom is continuing their ratification process. Feel free to mail me any news about it.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Photo by <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/users/Wengen-1309988/">Wengen</a> via <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/courthouse-sofia-court-prosecution-898237/">Pixabay</a> under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/">CC0 </a>license (no changes made)
</span>Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-44168285388079609232016-06-29T10:53:00.001+02:002016-06-29T10:53:40.381+02:00Brexit? What brexit?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UC9wL3yoZp0/V3OL_DBOZoI/AAAAAAAAKwI/IOB7NFOMEDcKTkjE4SUstgKH66xaYKqwACLcB/s1600/2016.06.29_flower_brexit_sprout-1147803_1920.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="312" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UC9wL3yoZp0/V3OL_DBOZoI/AAAAAAAAKwI/IOB7NFOMEDcKTkjE4SUstgKH66xaYKqwACLcB/s400/2016.06.29_flower_brexit_sprout-1147803_1920.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The UK should ratify the agreement on a unified patent court, get the unitary patent started and <i>continue to be a member even after the Brexit is formalized</i>.<br /><br />This is the position taken by <a href="http://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/people/willem-hoyng" target="_blank">Willem Hoyng</a> (member of the drafting committee of the UPC Rules of Proceedings and well known litigator) over at <a href="http://eplaw.org/upc-does-brexit-mean-the-end-of-the-upc/" target="_blank">EPLAW</a>.<br /><br />This
means the unitary patent system should soon come into effect as if no
Brexit ever happened. London would keep its court, the EU would have its
unitary patents, and everybody would be happy. Unitary patents would
not necessarily be valid in the UK, but even this might be arranged with
a separate international “Extension Agreement”.<br /><br />According
to Hoyng this is possible because the agreement on a unified patent
court is an international treaty not an EU regulation, just like the
European Patent Convention. Although, the<br />
agreement does not allow
the participation of non-EU Member States, it is not required to leave
the unified patent court should a country become a non-Member State.<br /><br />Among
the respondents at EPLAW is Leo Steenbeek (Principal IP Counsel of
Philips), and he does not agree. Apart from the question whether it
would make sense for country to engage in further international
cooperation when it wishes to retreat from EU, there is also a question
if the Court of Justice would allow this.<br />
<br />
The position of the UK would be a bit like the one originally envisioned
for Italy, part of the UPC but not (yet) of the unitary patent. If
Hoyng says it's possible I'm willing to listen, but some confirmation on
the legality of all this would be good. For example, an opinion of the
Court of Justice on this would give the legal certainty needed for this
venture. Moreover, whether there is the political will to make this
happen? I'm not so sure. <br />
<br />
In any case, whether or not the UK can stay in after the Brexit, in any
scenario it would be best if the UK would continue to ratify the
agreement without delay. At least this would allow a unitary patent
without the UK, and who knows, perhaps a bit more. <br /><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">Photo by <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/users/skeeze-272447/" target="_blank">skeeze</a> via <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/sprout-plant-growing-asphalt-crack-1147803/" target="_blank">Pixabay</a> under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en" target="_blank">CC0</a> license (no changes made).</span>Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-17829819190351670352016-06-24T10:58:00.000+02:002016-06-24T10:58:16.290+02:00A new Unitary patent after UK leave-vote?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bm-kiCXgPA0/V2zdlO1SlRI/AAAAAAAAKqQ/vb4axic1q7MSeqxfnt7_YsfmXlk0C502ACLcB/s1600/2016.06.24_sunflowers_14266917699_4522efa01c_k.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="233" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bm-kiCXgPA0/V2zdlO1SlRI/AAAAAAAAKqQ/vb4axic1q7MSeqxfnt7_YsfmXlk0C502ACLcB/s400/2016.06.24_sunflowers_14266917699_4522efa01c_k.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Yesterday the UK voted to leave the European Union. I find it really sad that they have decided that they're better off without us. Anyway, that is how it is.<br />
<br />
So what will this mean for the unitary patent?<br />
<br />
With the options that are <a href="http://unitary-patent.blogspot.nl/2016/06/brexit-and-unitary-patent.html">currently</a> on the table, either the UK ratifies as planned in which case there needs to be no delay at all, or the UK does not ratify. In the latter case, the unitary patent could still come into effect, but only after the UK formally ceases to be an EU member. This will take years.<br />
<br />
Another option is that the unitary patent is abandoned in its present form, and renegotiated. Participating in the unitary patent is at present restricted to EU member states. A new unitary patent could be open to, say, EPO member states.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, the Agreement on a unitary patent court is not an EU regulation but an international agreement. So the door is already cracked open for a broader membership. On the other hand, the Agreement in its present wording is explicitly restricted to EU members, and makes numerous references to union law. In fact, the primacy of European <span class="highlight selected">Union law is explicitly recognized in the Agreement. Although, a full renegotiation of the unitary patent is possible, this option would certainly take many years as well.</span><br />
<span class="highlight selected"><br /></span>
<span class="highlight selected">They only option I can see which does not significantly delay the unitary patent is that the UK ratify the agreement. </span>Rationally a case can be made for ratifying even while leaving. It is in everyone's interest to get a cheaper and easier patent system, even if only on the mainland. However, I'm not sure how high on the political agenda this topic will remain in the UK, given the numerous other issues that need to be sorted out. Moreover, this option would transfer further sovereignty, even if only temporarily. We'll have to wait and see.<br />
<br />
<div style="direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Photo "<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;">Storm Chasing May 2014" by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/craigoneal/">Craig </a></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/craigoneal/">ONeal</a></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;"></span> via <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/craigoneal/14266917699/">Flickr</a> under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">CC-By 2.0</a> license (no changes made)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><div style="direction: ltr; language: en-US; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-US; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12.0pt; language: en-US; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: +mn-cs; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-color-index: 1; mso-fareast-font-family: +mn-ea; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 12.0pt; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: black; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: text1; mso-style-textfill-type: solid;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-US; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12.0pt; language: en-US; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: +mn-cs; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-color-index: 1; mso-fareast-font-family: +mn-ea; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 12.0pt; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: black; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: text1; mso-style-textfill-type: solid;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<br /><br />Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-35501961321415483982016-06-20T14:45:00.000+02:002016-06-21T11:27:19.434+02:00Brexit and unitary patent<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZRpkH_0TLA4/V2fgDHoG2wI/AAAAAAAAKmI/MJZdii7lvFIStdxC0AwP7OqPDTa44yyzgCLcB/s1600/2016.06.20_dinner_choices_8213246763_9a5c0678af_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZRpkH_0TLA4/V2fgDHoG2wI/AAAAAAAAKmI/MJZdii7lvFIStdxC0AwP7OqPDTa44yyzgCLcB/s400/2016.06.20_dinner_choices_8213246763_9a5c0678af_o.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” that is the <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-brexit-vote-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-referendum-2016-06-07">question</a> facing the United Kingdom coming Thursday, June 23. As Benoît Battistelli <a href="http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/brexit-unitary-patent-plan-epo-president/">said</a>, “If the ‘out’ vote wins then we have a big question mark—nobody knows what will happen”. We can make a few speculations though on the consequences of a 'leave' vote for the unitary patent.<br />
<br />
<u>Can the unitary patent system still get started?</u> <br />
<br />
There are basically two scenarios in which the unitary patent system can still get started if the UK were to leave the EU.<br />
<br />
The first possibility is that after a leave vote, the UK will remain a member of the EU for several years to come. During that time the UK could ratify the agreement on a unified patent court. If that happens, and the unified patent picks up two further ratifications (which seems likely), the unitary patent is on its way. After that the UK can leave the EU, but the unitary patent will continue. An upside for the UK is that it would get a more cost-efficient way to get patent protection on the continent. A downside, is that they would have to leave the agreement on a unified patent court, right after ratifying it.<br />
<br />
In this way, the unitary patent system could theoretically come into force without delay. However, I can't imagine that unitary patents will be high on the political agenda in the turmoil following a leave-vote. So at least some delay may still happen.<br />
<br />
The other possibility is that the UK will not ratify the agreement. After the UK has formally left the EU, the next largest patent country after Germany and France could ratify the agreement and make the agreement enter into force. The agreement does not explicitly refer to the UK when it discusses the requirements for entry into force. Article 89 (entry into force) refers to "the three Member States in which the highest number of European patents had effect in the year preceding the year in which the signature of the Agreement takes place". So if the UK leaves, some other country may take its place.<br />
<br />
A problem with this scenario is that it can only take place if the UK has formally left the EU, which may take years. A significant delay will be the result. Probably, this will set back the unitary patent by years.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, the required ratifications may happen before the UK leaves. This would mean that the unitary patent would come into force <i>because</i> the UK left the EU. This option could transpire, if three more counties beside the UK ratify.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<u>If the unitary patent does enter into force, but the UK leaves, what would be different?</u><br />
First of all, a unitary patent would not be valid in the UK. The unified patent court would not be competent in the UK.<br />
<br />
It would still be possible to obtain patent protection in the UK. As the EPO is not an EU institute, a brexit would have no impact on EPO membership. Once a patent is granted at the EPO, the patent can be validated in the UK, just like in, say, Spain and Poland, while other countries may be covered by a unitary patent. National UK patents remain also a possibility.<br />
<br />
Besides, the UK would lose its seat in the central division of the unified patent court. The UK had negotiated that part of the central court would go to London. If the UK is no longer an EU member, it cannot stay in the unitary patent either, and would have to give up this court. This also means that the agreement on a unified patent court probably needs amendment, as it refers explicitly to London. It is not known, if the London seat would go to another country, or if the central court be located in Paris and Munich only.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London" title=""></a> <br />
<div style="direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Photo "<span style="color: black;">Bury St Edmunds 9th Annual
Christmas Fayre 23-11-2012", by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/karen_roe/">Karen Roe</a> via <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/karen_roe/8213246763/">Flickr</a> under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">CC-By</a> license, no changes made.</span><span style="color: black;"></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span><br />
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-US; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "calibri"; font-size: 12.0pt; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<br />Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-7660854237813799642016-06-08T11:26:00.000+02:002016-06-08T11:26:35.238+02:00EPO produces unitary effect simulation tool<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eRYx-ngx3Ds/V1fjKVKPEmI/AAAAAAAAKJA/6pN7Wgqm6kY_gM9dRENuDiS_KyHrI5GKACLcB/s1600/2016.06.08%2BTraining%2Bwheels_cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eRYx-ngx3Ds/V1fjKVKPEmI/AAAAAAAAKJA/6pN7Wgqm6kY_gM9dRENuDiS_KyHrI5GKACLcB/s320/2016.06.08%2BTraining%2Bwheels_cropped.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The EPO has created a <a href="http://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2016/20160518a.html">plug-in</a> for their online filing software that simulates the acts you would take to request unitary effect.<br />
<br />
The procedure to get a unitary patent is almost the same as the current procedure to get a 'classical' European patent. Only after the decision to grant will the two procedures differ. Whereas a classical European patent needs validation in each country in which it is to remain valid, a unitary patent requires that the applicant request unitary effect with the EPO. <br />
<br />
Requesting unitary effect will be possible using the online filing software that are currently used by most patent firms to interact with the EPO. As the time limit on requesting unitary effect is quite short, it is important that the requesting is easy to do and will not often go wrong. This should be possible as requesting unitary effect does not require a fee, and has few formalities.<br />
<br />
Using the demo software, a user can simulate the acts for requesting unitary effect. Of course any action in the demo software will have no legal effect. Only when the unitary effect has come into effect will the operational version of the software be made available. <br />
<br />
<br />
The unitary patent demo software can be downloaded <a href="http://www.epo.org/applying/online-services/online-filing/download.html#more">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<div style="direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Photo '<span style="color: black;">free </span><span style="color: black;">wheelin</span><span style="color: black;">' by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/markittleman/">Mark
</a></span><span style="color: black;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/markittleman/">Ittleman</a></span><span style="color: black;"></span> via <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/markittleman/15656017202/">Flickr</a> under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">CC-By</a> license; image was cropped and edited.</span></span></div>
<br />Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-39931618606927546672016-05-13T17:35:00.001+02:002016-05-13T17:35:20.149+02:00Italy start ratification process of Unitary Patent<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6RqmsC_o_6Q/VzXzk9GeNMI/AAAAAAAAJLg/O1CDL_RrTakGTTOvyF7YpijP0yvjtKHsACLcB/s1600/2016.05.13%2BItaly%2B2261159870_0e5f4c770e_b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6RqmsC_o_6Q/VzXzk9GeNMI/AAAAAAAAJLg/O1CDL_RrTakGTTOvyF7YpijP0yvjtKHsACLcB/s320/2016.05.13%2BItaly%2B2261159870_0e5f4c770e_b.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
There are positive developments in Italy. According to this <a href="http://www.governo.it/articolo/comunicato-stampa-del-consiglio-dei-ministri-n-115/4604">website</a> of the Italian Government a proposal for ratification of the Agreement of a Unified Patent court has been approved (scroll down to 'UN TRIBUNALE UNIFICATO PER I BREVETTI'). The law has not yet been finalized, and could still be rejected, but this is another step on the way of Italian ratification. I would expect that the ratification will proceed according to plan. Last year, Italy made a <a href="http://unitary-patent.blogspot.nl/2015/10/eu-accepts-italy-in-unitary-patent.html">turn around</a> and embraced the unitary patent, while at first they were outside the enhanced cooperation. <br />
<br />
Below is our translation of the news: <br /> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Unified patent court</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Ratification and execution of the agreement on the Unified patent court (law’s proposal)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br />The Council of Ministers has approved a law proposal of ratification and execution of the agreement on the Unified patent court stipulated in Bruxelles on 19/02/2013<br /><br />A fast ratification of the agreement will allow to complete the participation of Italy in the European Unified Patent system.<br /><br />This will allow Italian innovators to use a patent right valid in all Europe. Moreover, protection against counterfeit products entering EU will be strengthened.<br /><br />When the agreement on the Unified Patent Court will be enforced, it will be possible to have in Italy a local division of the Unified Patent Court: a project that could potentially enhance Italian resources and provides a signal on the willingness of Italian Government to protect and promote Italian language in Europe.</blockquote>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-US; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Photo by <span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/yozza/">Ewan
Topping</a></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12.0pt; language: en-US; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: +mn-cs; mso-color-index: 1; mso-fareast-font-family: +mn-ea; mso-font-kerning: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> via <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/yozza/2261159870/">Flickr</a> under CC-By 2.0</span></span></div>
<br />
<br />Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934262217555039098.post-69873261449844095252016-03-09T11:51:00.000+01:002016-03-09T13:37:44.437+01:00UK passes legislation for unitary patent, no ratification yet<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>NL</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-92Rpuki62ok/Vt_-zIhjZgI/AAAAAAAAHJ0/Ql_iAbtsaqs/s1600/2016.03.09%2BUnion%2BJack%2B15721284629_692b3e0846_k.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-92Rpuki62ok/Vt_-zIhjZgI/AAAAAAAAHJ0/Ql_iAbtsaqs/s320/2016.03.09%2BUnion%2BJack%2B15721284629_692b3e0846_k.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A good month after publishing the </span><a href="http://unitary-patent.blogspot.nl/2016/01/united-kingdom-publishes-draft.html">draft legislation</a> to amend the UK Patents Act, the<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
UK parliament has now passed it (</span>House of Commons on 1 March and the House of
Lords on 2 March). A<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">mending the Patent Act was necessary to adopt the unitary patent. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">During the <a href="https://hansard.digiminster.com/Commons/2016-03-01/debates/a2577eb5-4e22-491f-a955-391016a3a673/DraftPatents%28EuropeanPatentWithUnitaryEffectAndUnifiedPatentCourt%29Order2016">debate</a>, <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Mr. Edward Vaizey (</span>The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy) notes that "</span>We think that the new court and patent will be ready for business in early 2017." Indeed, the mandatory three participants have now ratified the agreement or are about to. Two more ratifying countries are needed after Germany and the UK ratified, but this will likely not be a problem.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">We are still waiting for the UK to formally ratify the Agreement on a Unified patent court. Will this happen before or after the EU referendum of 23 June? I suppose passing this legislation means that the UK government could ratify the agreement if they wanted to. I'm not sure that this is going to happen though. It may mean a hasty retreat if the referendum goes sour, after just a few months in the new system. For the UK it may be preferable to avoid this. On the other hand, even outside the EU, it is preferable for UK to have an easier option to obtain a patent in the continent. So who know what will happen.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: nl; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Photo<span style="color: black;"> "'</span><span style="color: black;">Belinda</span><span style="color: black;">' </span><span style="color: black;">Flying</span><span style="color: black;"> the </span><span style="color: black;">Flag</span><span style="color: black;"></span>", by <span style="color: black;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/peter-trimming/">Peter
</a></span><span style="color: black;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/peter-trimming/">Trimming</a></span><span style="color: black;"></span> via <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/peter-trimming/15721284629/">Flickr</a> under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">CC BY 2.0</a> license.</span></span></div>
Sander van Rijnswouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com0