ARTICLE
2 November 2021

UPC Preparatory Committee Suggests A Declaration Can Clear The Path To The UPC

JA
J A Kemp LLP

Contributor

J A Kemp is a leading firm of European Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys. We combine independent thinking with collective excellence in all that we do. The technical and legal knowledge that we apply to the protection of our clients’ patents is outstanding in its breadth and depth. With around 100 science and technology graduates in the firm, including 50 PhDs, no area of science or technology is outside our scope. Our Patent Attorneys have collective in-depth expertise in patent law and procedure in every country of the world. The team of professionals who advise our clients on trade mark and design matters have backgrounds in major international law firms and hold qualifications as Chartered UK Trade Mark Attorneys, Solicitors and European Trade Mark Professional Representatives. Dedicated to this specialist area of intellectual property protection, the team has the expertise and resources to protect trade marks and designs in any market worldwide.
Commentators have been concerned that implementation of the Unitary Patent (UP), which is intended to be a single patent right having effect in the territory of participating EU members...
European Union Intellectual Property

Commentators have been concerned that implementation of the Unitary Patent (UP), which is intended to be a single patent right having effect in the territory of participating EU members, overseen by the Unified Patent Court (UPC), could be delayed due to the UK's withdrawal. This is because of the express mention of the UK and London in the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), the Protocol for Provisional Application (PPA) and the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI), all of which need to come into force in order for the project to go ahead. The UK has indicated that it will not be participating in the UPC and UP, thereby potentially making it impossible for the UPC and UP to go ahead without rewriting and re-ratification of the UPCA, PPA and PPI, which would likely take years.

The report of a meeting held on 27 October by the Preparatory Committee of the UPC has indicated that the delegations supported a proposal from the Chairman of the Preparatory Committee for dealing with this issue. The Chairman proposed that a Declaration be signed by all participating members which states that the authentic interpretation of Article 3 of the PAP (which requires the UK to have ratified the PAP in order for the PAP to come into force) is that the article should be read to mirror Article 89 of the UPAC. Article 89 of the UPCA refers to the three member states in which the highest number of European Patents had effect in the year in which signature of the Agreement takes place, which was 2009. The logic is that as the UK is no longer a member state, the three member states of Article 89 are Germany, France and Italy, thereby allowing the UPC and UP to go ahead without rewriting the agreements and ratification.

The report does not elaborate on how the mention of London hosting a central division in the UPCA will be dealt with. The report also mentions that the PPI has come into force, yet does not acknowledge Article 18(1) PPI which requires the UK to have deposited its instrument of ratification of the PPI for the PPI to come into force. It would seem that if the political will to continue with the project exists that a way to deal with these issues to the satisfaction of the participating members can be found.

These developments show that the participating member states are determined to forge ahead with the UPC and UP and they predict that the PAP will come into force later this year or early 2022. The Chairman of the Preparatory Committee has stated that eight months are required to complete the tasks set for the PAP, thereby potentially enabling the UPC to open its doors sometime in 2022. Once up and running, the system will allow applicants to select a unitary patent upon grant of a European patent by the EPO, thereby avoiding having to separately validate the European patent in the member states participating in the UP.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More