Home » Patents » UPC Update: UK Purdah and a Belgian challenge

UPC Update: UK Purdah and a Belgian challenge

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_8533-1The UK election is on its way (in case you hadn’t noticed) and while Dave, Ed, Nick and Nigel battle it out, UK government civil servants are now in the period of purdah. During purdah, which is the period between the calling of a General Election and the General Election, rules apply which limit what can be said and done in public by civil servants to ensure they are impartial during the election process. As a result the UK UPC Taskforce is likely to be fairly quiet until after 7 May 2015.

Before they went into this period of restricted communication however, the UK UPC Taskforce issued another UPC update, the main points of which are noted below. Also highlighted below is a challenge against the ratification of the UPC Agreement in Belgium (Note: Belgium ratified the UPC agreement on 6 June 2014).

UK Taskforce

The Executive Committee of the Preparatory Committee met at the end of March to discuss matters including the opt-out process, court fee consultation and privileges/immunities. The next meeting of the Executive Committee is 24 April in advance of the next Preparatory Committee meeting on 5 May. It is noted that the UK has sent detailed comments on the European Patent Litigators Certificate (EPLC) to the Legal Frameworks Working Group and it is expected that the EPLC will be agreed at the May Preparatory Committee meeting. So, not too long now until European patent attorneys find out how onerous it will be to get representation rights at the UPC!

A draft of the court fees consultation also appears to be ready for Preparatory Committee approval. So expect the fees consultation to launch shortly after 5 May.

Work is ongoing on the IT and accommodation fronts for the UK’s London location of the UPC. The IT infrastructure of the court will also be discussed in a joint meeting in Munich of the IT and Facilities Working Groups on 21/22 April.

The Legal Working Group has begun to look into the timing requirements of a provisional application phase of the UPC (i.e. the period between getting the required 13 signatures of the UPC agreement and the court actually opening it’s doors).


In Belgium it appears that the ratification of the UPC agreement is being challenged in the Belgian Constitutional Court – see here. Esoma is the European Software Market Association and they have filed an appeal at the constitutional court along with iMatix (who design and build distributed systems) challenging the ratification of the UPC agreement on, apparently, the grounds of equality of languages, separation of powers and the role of the EPO. Although the linked page contains the usual “software patent” related gripes from the anti software brigade, the actual complaint appears from a brief skim read to be reasonably well formed though we doubt it will have any real impact upon the unitary patent system coming into effect. If anyone is able to shed more light on the complaint then we’d be interested to hear from you (thanks to Dr Ingve Stjerna for bringing this matter to IPcopy’s attention).

Mark Richardson 15 April 2015

1 Comment

  1. It seems the Belgian challenge is inadmissible, because it was late filed. The challenge is against the law approving the UPC Agreement which was approved in May 2014, and placed in the official journal of 9 september 2014 http://reflex.raadvst-consetat.be/reflex/pdf/Mbbs/2014/09/09/129049.pdf .

    But challenges of treaty approvals need to be filed within 60 days… (http://www.const-court.be/fr/textes_base/textes_base_lois_01.html, where it says in art 3.2:
    Les recours tendant à l’annulation en tout ou en partie d’une loi, d’un décret ou d’une règle visée à l’article 134 de la Constitution par lesquels un traité reçoit l’assentiment, ne sont recevables que s’ils sont introduits dans un délai de soixante jours suivant la publication de la loi, du décret ou de la règle visée à l’article 134 de la Constitution.)

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: