Home » Patents » Unitary Patent Update: Renewal fee news (shock!), EPLC, CJEU and Italy’s consultation

Unitary Patent Update: Renewal fee news (shock!), EPLC, CJEU and Italy’s consultation

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.

IMG_8533-1A quick round up of a few items that have come across IPcopy’s desk this last week.

Topics discussed below include: some actual figures for the renewal fees for the unitary patent(!!), a clarification about the updated European Patent Litigators Certificate, an updated article from Dr Stjerna regarding the Spanish challenges and the CJEU and unitary patent news from Italy.

1) First up, news of the potential renewal fees for the unitary patent. The IPKat has been sent a document “Proposals for the level of renewal fees for European patents with unitary effect” which suggests that the EPO is focussing on two main options for the unitary renewal fees. The two options considered are based on the Top 4 most popular validation countries (UK, FR, DE, NL) and the Top 5 countries (= TOP 4 + SE). A variation of the Top 5 option for SMEs is also considered.

IPcopy will have more discussion on these two options in the near future.

2) In our recent UPC Taskforce update post we queried whether “the Chairman confirmed that the European Patent Litigators Certificate is now in need of finalising and that it should come for adoption at the next meeting of the Preparatory Committee in May“ meant that the EPLC was going to be finalised in May or whether a second draft would issue in May.

Following an email exchange with the UPC Taskforce it appears that the final version of the European Patent Litigators Certificate will be issued in May. So only a couple of months to wait and see whether that QMW course from 15 years ago will be enough to grandfather you in to the new system….

3) Dr Ingve Stjerna, who has written extensively on the unitary patent system on his website, has updated his most recent article that looks into the issues surrounding the Spanish challenge to the unitary patent and the recent developments at the EPO with respect to the independence of the Boards of Appeal. According to Dr Stjerna’s updated article the CJEU will not be considering the recent “house ban” of a member of the Boards of Appeal since this happened after the oral proceedings in C-146/13. Dr Sterna’s website also contains correspondence he exchanged with the CJEU Translation Unit from December 2014 in an effort to track down the elusive English translations of C-146/13 and C-147/13.

4) The Italian government held what we can only describe as a snap consultation recently (16-20 February 2015) which offered Italian stakeholders the chance on commenting whether to (i) fully join the unitary patent system; (ii) ratify the UPC Agreement but not join the unitary patent; or (iii) leave the system altogether. The Italian government sounds like they want to go with option (i) but two stakeholders who have published their replies (FICPI Italy and CONFIMI) have both gone for option (iii). More on this story can be found here.

Mark Richardson 10 March 2015

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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: