Home » Patents » Malta, Spain and Virgin v Zodiac: Why ignoring the Malta problem will delegate the decision to the EPO

Malta, Spain and Virgin v Zodiac: Why ignoring the Malta problem will delegate the decision to the EPO

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.

EU flagThere has been a resurgence of Virgin v Zodiac in IP news recently, owing to a UK Court of Appeal Decision that upheld Mr Justice Floyd’s High Court decision in full (see, for example, Amerikat’s IPKat article here, and an Article in The Lawyer here [with which IPcopy heartily disagrees]).

Virgin v Zodiac was, of course, very important in overturning the Unilin principal relating to awards of damages. However, another important issue was caught up in this case, which is now catching the eyes of IP reporters, and which has some surprising relevance to Unified Patent Court matters: the UK patent that was the subject of this litigation should never have existed, and only came into being as a result of a procedural error made by the EPO’s Examining Division. Specifically, the Examining Division failed to notice that the Applicant had explicitly asked that the UK not be designated when the European application had been filed, and had erroneously given the application a European designation.

IPcopymark has already explained what went down in subsequent UK and EPO proceedings in his recent article, so I won’t cover this ground again. In summary though, wherever Zodiac turned to have this designation error rectified, the decision was batted back to the EPO’s Examining Division – the division that had made the mistake in the first place – who ultimately decided that if it said there was a GB designation on the register, then a GB designation there was, and that was that. There was no procedure for appealing this decision to any other Division or court, and so the UK patent that had resulted from the erroneous designation was to stay put.

‘What the EPO says goes’, seems to be the message. It is clear that, for European patents at least, there can be no revocation on procedural grounds, and there is no route for appealing procedural decisions.

MaltaIt strikes this IPcopy writer that the designation problem of the Virgin v Zodiac case is a gloomy foreshadowing of the potential mess that could be caused by the Malta problem of the Unitary Patent system (the problem that a European application filed before Malta joined the EPC on 1 March 2007 would not designate Malta, but if matured into a Unitary Patent would have effect in Malta, thereby extending its legal effect).

The EPO will have responsibility for dealing with the procedural aspects of the Unitary Patent, and in particular for maintaining the register of unitary patents, and dealing with the ‘validation’ of unitary patents (i.e. the stage after grant at which an Applicant can select a Unitary Patent, or not). In other words, the EPO will be dealing with procedural matters at the point when the Malta problem will come into play for each pre-Malta patent as it grants.

If the Malta problem is not considered by any of the parties involved in setting up the Unified Patent Court and the Unitary Patent System, and if no decision is made as to whether or not a Unitary Patent will be allowed for a pre-Malta application, this problem will simply be left hanging. The EPO would either need to take the decision itself as to whether or not to allow pre-Malta applications to become unitary patents (and I can’t imagine anyone would be too keen on leaving that decision to the EPO), or to simply ignore the problem in which case pre-Malta applications will be waived through to become Unitary patents, and the protection they offer will be extended to Malta.

All signs from the Virgin vs Zodiac case indicate that, whatever the EPO’s procedural decision on this point, it will be final and unchallengeable.

A plea, then, from IPcopy: please, someone, make a decision on the Malta problem, and ensure a system is in place to implement that decision, so that the final say doesn’t fall into the EPO’s hands while no one is looking!

Emily Weal 13 January 2013


  1. Russell Barton says:

    I heard a prominent member of DG5 speak In Brussels in December. I thought he was pretty clear that No Malta=No Unitary Patent.
    I think he also indicated that only 5-8% of pending application did not designate all UPC states However, of those applications that are ready to grant in 2015 I’d expect the percentage to be higher

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: