EPO (nearly) adopts rules for unitary patent

EPO has announced in a Communiqué that the Select Committee of EPO has adopted 'in principle' the Draft Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection. The communiqué does not link to a copy of the draft. However, a copy is hosted by Bristows

A full decision on the rules for the unitary patent could not yet be taken as no agreement was found on a number of topics. The communiqué only reveals that these topics concern 'some technical aspects' and a 'one rule relating to financial aspects'.


The  rule relating to financial aspects may refer to Rule 25. Rule 25 details who is going to pay for the unitary patent work of the EPO if the renewal fees don't cover it. Also the renewal fees will be further discussed in October.



Denmark joins unitary patent

Denmark has deposited its instrument of ratification with the Council of the European Union. 
That makes it the fifth state to fully ratify the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. Previously, Austria, Belgium, France, and Sweden had also ratified the agreement.

The unitary patent system will become operation when 13 states including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany have ratified the agreement. At this point we can tell that a unitary patent (if it happens) will be valid at least in: Austria, Belgium, France, Sweden, Denmark, United Kingdom, and Germany.

Ratification of Denmark was uncertain for a while, as the country had to organize a referendum to clear to the way for ratification.

For some reason the ratification of Denmark has not appeared on the EU ratification page.

Is Hungary getting cold feet for unitary patent?

Although, Hungary has not yet ratified the critical Agreement on the Unified Patent Court, they were on course for it. Hungary has signed the agreement, is part of the EU unitary patent regulations, and will host one of the unified patent court's institutions, the Training Centre for Judges in Budapest. But now, Hungary apparently has some reservation about joining the unitary patent system, at least for just now.

Mr. Mihály Ficso, the Vice President for Legal Affairs of the IP office of Hungary, has given a presentation at the Premier Cercle's Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court 2014. According to a report of Mark Richardson at Ipcopy, Hungary has a number of reservations:

- Ratification of Hungary will increase the number of valid patents in Hungary,
- Hungary may benefit from the unitary patent system without taking part in it,
- There are concerns about machine translations
- Renewal and court fees are not yet known


Mr. Ficso added that there is still a political will in Hungary to ratify the agreement. If I am not representing the Hungarian position fairly, I do apologize. Anybody who was actually at the presentation should feel free to correct me in the comments.


In part I can sympathize with the comments made by Mr. Ficso. All four reservations are true, yet I do not think they should block joining the unitary patent system.

The number of patent rights valid in Hungary will surely increase if the unitary patent is a success. This will hold for all participating countries though (perhaps excluding Germany). I'm not sure I agree with the underlying assumption that having a patent system that encourages not to protect your innovations would be an advantage for an economy.

Indeed, Hungary would benefit from the unitary patent system, even if it didn't take part in it. In fact the whole world will benefit from an improved European patent system. Also Hungarian companies could protect their innovation in a large part of Europe at low cost. Nevertheless, it would be even better for Hungarian companies if they could also protect their home market at the same time.

The concerns about machine translations are also valid. On the other hand, working with many languages is a reality of the patent profession. Machine translations have made life a lot easier. Although a human translation is (almost) always better, machine translations have advantages though. They are less costly, and are immediately available when needed. Should controversy arise, a human translation can always be made.

After the introduction of the London Agreement (of which Hungary is a member), translation requirements were greatly reduced. For example, a few years ago Hungary abolished the requirement that a full translation was needed. At present only the claims of a European patent need to be translation into Hungarian for validation.

As to the renewal fees. That we do not know their level is annoying. We only have Battistelli's enigmatic "They will be higher than many would hope, but lower than some might fear." On the other hand, Hungary takes part in the discussions regarding the level of these fees. If there are concerns as to their level, Hungary can influence the discussion.

I wish Mr. Ficso good luck in addressing these concerns, and I hope that in future I will be able to offer protection in Hungary to my clients as part of the unitary patent.

What happens to the Unitary patent if the UK exits the EU?

A commenter to a previous post on this blog asked the question: what if the UK would decide to leave the EU? 

The current British Prime Minister David Cameron promised a referendum to decide whether or not the United Kingdom should stay in the EU or exit it, the so-called brexit. The referendum would take place after the elections, somewhere in 2015.

Should an EU referendum really happen, than the outcome would be a gamble.  A referendum on the EU does not necessarily do well. I remember the 2005 referendum on a European Constitution in the Netherlands, for example. On the other hand, Denmark recently showed that an EU related referendum could work positive for the EU.

It is no question that should the UK leave the European Union that would be a great loss for the European economy.

Likewise, for the unitary patent, I would venture to say that a UK exit would be disastrous. That Spain and Italy, the fourth and fifth economy of the EU (by GDP according to Wikipedia), are not joining the unitary patent is bad enough. If the United Kingdom would be absent that would mean that a traditional minimal validation of the big three (Germany, France, United Kingdom) would no longer be covered by a unitary patent.

So it would be bad news for the unitary patent, if the UK would leave the EU. But could the unitary patent still enter into force?


I'm not sure if an UK exit would necessarily blow up the whole system. In fact, if the UK would stay in the EU, but not ratify the agreement, that would be worse, since that would imply that the unitary system would certainly not come into force. (Article 89 of the Agreement)

Below I'll assume for simplicity that an UK exit would be before the unitary patent system is in effect.

EU regulation 1257/2012

After an UK exit, the UK would no longer fall under the scope of article 3 of regulation 1257: A unitary patent would not have effect in the UK. Entry into force of the EU regulation only depends on the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. The latter is determined by the Agreement, discussed below.

Note that even if the UK would leave the EU, the UK would continue to be a party to the European Patent Convention (EPC), thus one could obtain patent protection in the EU, through traditional national validation of a European patent.

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Entry into force of the agreement requires ratification of "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" (article 89 Agreement).  'Member states' refers to Member State of the European Union here. So this includes Spain and Italy, but after an exit would exclude the UK.

The question thus becomes which Member state had the highest number of European patents in effect in 2012, after Germany, and France (and the UK).  Google wouldn't give me the answer to that question unfortunately, but I would guess that it's the Netherlands. Although possibly, it could be Spain or Italy. (If it is Spain, the unitary patent is also out the window.)

The agreement is not EU legislation, but an international agreement made outside the EU. This is why Italy can join the unified patent court without joining the unitary patent. Nevertheless, I don't think the UK could still ratify this agreement, or continue to stay a member, if it were not a member state.

I couldn't find an explicit requirement for being a member state, but the Agreement seems to assume it throughout. For example, the agreement requires for signing that you are a member state. (Technically, this would not be a problem for the UK, as the UK have already signed the agreement.)

So I'll assume the UK would also leave this agreement in case of an EU exit. This would leave the Agreement in an odd state, as London is explicitly mentioned. Article 7 requires that there is a section of the central division in London. That would be difficult, if the United Kingdom weren't a member.



Conclusion

The unitary patent would lose a lot of luster if the UK drops out, but as far as I can tell, the unitary patent could still continue after an UK exit. Neither the regulation nor the agreement explicitly require that the UK participates.

The agreement may be salvaged as is, depending on which member state had that largest number of European patents in effect. Alternatively, these problems, as well as the reference to London,  may be resolved by amending the agreement. 

Belgium shows up on Ratification page

Belgium has shown up on the EU's ratification progress page for the unitary patent.  This bring the total number of countries that have fully completed the ratification page to 4: Austria, Belgium, France and Sweden.

The ratification law had passed the  House of Representative, on April 23, 2014. After that the King of Belgium needed to sign the law, and the instrument of  ratification needed to be deposited. That's all done now.




Public consultation on draft proposal for European Patent Litigation Certificate for European Patent Attorneys

The Legal Working Group of the Preparatory Committee finalised its proposals on the draft European Patent Litigation Certificate pdffor European Patent Attorneys and published this on 13 June 2014 for 6 weeks allowing users to make comments.

The draft proposals are accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum pdfwhich further details the background.

The draft Rules on the European Patent litigation Certificate and other appropriate qualifications pursuant to Art. 48(2) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court include:
  • requirements for institutes that may issue the European Patent Litigation Certificate, and the required curriculum of the course to be accredited as a European Patent Litigation Course as well as requirements as to minimum course duration (120 hours; probably, contact hours - so a study load of in total at least 500-600 hours) and the examination (shall be written and oral examination);
     
  • permanent other appropriate qualifications:
    European Patent Attorneys having a bachelor or master degree in law according to relevant educational standards in a member State or an equivalent state exam in law of a member State of the EU.
    • The Memorandum clarifies that "Such diplomas provide EPAs with the necessary knowledge of private and procedural law, required to conduct patent litigation
       
  • other qualifications during a transitional period of three years from entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. The Memorandum clarifies that this Rule "introduces a transitional measure which takes in its points (a) and (b) into account that  specific courses  are  already  available  to  prepare  EPAs  to  patent  litigation  and that  in  some Member States patent attorneys are already authorized to represent parties before the  national courts in patent infringement cases."
     
    • (a) European Patent Attorneys having successfully completed a course from a proposed list of -now- seven courses deemed to be an appropriate qualification: two from CEIPI, one from FernUniversitat Hagen, one from Nottingham law school, one from Queen Mary College, one from Brunel University London, and one from Bournemouth Univsersity)
      • At first glance, the courses seem to range from very extensive (Patent or IP) Litigation courses of upto 1000 study hours or more to significantly less evolved courses on management of IP or IP certificates;
      • The list ends with "[...]", which appears to be an open invitation to propose more courses. I would expect that some courses leading to a national patent attorney qualification in a member State, where these courses include general law, private law, international private law, European Union law, Enforcement Directive, overview of infringement/ enforcement/ nullification proceedings in different Member States, and litigation practice will be proposed  and accorded to be added to the list;
      • The Memorandum clarifies that, "where appropriate, other courses preparing EPAs to patent litigation in a  satisfactory  way  may  be  added  to  this  list  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the  UPC Agreement, whether they be courses already existing at a national level in the Contracting Member  States  or  courses  created  or  updated  in  order  to  comply  with  the  Course’s requirements foreseen in the Draft EPLC decision and to be accredited as an EPLC Course after the entry into force of the UPC Agreement".
      • In view of the draft status, and with the draft being still open for consultation, it is not yet certain whether all seven courses will remain on the list, or whether some of them will be successfully challenged as appropriate;
    • or
    • (b) European Patent Attorneys having represented a party on his own without the assistance of a lawyer admitted to the relevant court in at least three patent infringement actions, initiated before a national court of a Contracting member State within the five years preceding the application for registration.
      • The Memorandum clarifies  that this clause "states  that  practical  experience  acquired  by  having  represented  a  party in three patent infringement actions initiated before a national court of a Contracting  Member State within the five preceding years is also recognised as appropriate qualification.  This sub-paragraph  focuses  on  recent  experience  acquired  as  a  representative  in  patent  infringement actions, in order to ensure that EPAs qualifying under this rule have acquired a  personal and up-to-date practice in areas such as orders to produce or preserve evidence,  provisional and protective measures, injunctions, counterclaims for revocation or evaluation of  damages.  In  this  respect,  experience  acquired  in  assisting  a  representative  or  in  other actions such as revocation of patents or appeals against decisions of patent offices is not sufficient to ensure that an EPA has developed a personal and adequate knowledge of case  management   in   all   areas   of   competence   of   the   UPC.   The   number   of   three   patent  infringement actions within five years takes into account that the amount of patent litigation  varies among the UPC Member States."

The consultation will close at midnight on Friday 25 July 2014. Comments must be sent electronically to secretariat@unified-patent-court.org. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Status of unitary patent ratification

Before the unitary patent system can start, 13 countries need to ratify the agreement on a unified patent court; including Germany, France and the United Kingdom. With the recent ratification of Sweden the number of countries which fully completed the ratification is currently 3.

Below are all countries for which I know of serious ratification progress:

Ratification Completed

France
Austria
Sweden

Serious ratification progress

United Kingdom
Malta
Belgium
Denmark

Announced plans for a division of the unified patent court 

Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia


Furthermore, I think we we can safely include Germany, and probably the Netherlands as likely candidates to ratify. That brings the total number of countries for which a ratification is sure or quite likely to 12 out of a needed 13. There are more than enough candidates for the 13th country.

Still, it would be nice if somebody would send me link for a further country working on ratification; I'd be happy to blog about it.