Home » Posts tagged 'unitary patent' (Page 22)
Tag Archives: unitary patent
We want to be guinea pigs too
Following concerns that the strict patent infringement tests applied by the Courts in the UK are driving lucrative clinical trials overseas, the UK government has now concluded a review of the statute that would allow for a broader ‘Bolar’ exemption to enter UK law.
Transitional provisions and the competence of the UPC: A response to Amerikat
Over at IPKat, Amerikat has been looking at the transitional provisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement and considering an interesting question. In this post, Amerikat has been considering Article 83, which gives a patentee the possibility to opt out of the ‘exclusive competence’ of the UPC if the patent was filed before the end of the transitional period, and to opt back in again at any time.
In brief, her question is this: does opting out of the ‘exclusive competence’ of the UPC still leave the UPC with non-exclusive competence, or does it leave the UPC with no competence at all (pun entirely unintentional)?
At IPCopy, we threw around some thoughts on this when we first noted quite how long the UK courts could still have competence as a result of Article 83 (Draft Article 58 back when we posted this), and we thought this was an opportunity to share them with you, and Amerikat! (more…)
Unitary Patent Package – UPC Agreement – 24 signatures received
After a reasonable delay the signing ceremony for the agreement on the unified patent court took place today (19 February 2013).
As alluded to in the press release a total of 24 member states signed the agreement, including Italy.
19th February 2013 is UPC signing day!
As announced here the signing ceremony for the agreement on the unified patent court will take place on 19 February 2013 (on or around 2.15 Central European time).
Control your excitement readers!
The press release for the signing ceremony also suggests that we will be able to live stream the entire event (at this location).
The IP Federation, the Minister and the European Scrutiny Committee
The IP Federation represents the views of UK Industry and, as can be seen from the front page of their website, has a pretty impressive list of members. As announced here the IP Federation has written to the UK Minister for IP (Viscount Younger of Leckie, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Intellectual Property in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) with a request for an economic analysis to be performed on the effect on the UK economy of the unitary patent system before ratification of the unified patent court agreement takes place.
It will be interesting to see what, if any, response the IP Federation get from Lord Younger. On a related subject we note that the European scrutiny committee has recently cleared the Draft Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute (see here for details).
Unitary Patent Package – Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court (14th Draft)
As noted in our tweet last week the 14th draft of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court have appeared online (a copy can be found here). The document runs to almost 150 pages and 382 rules so it’s something of an early Christmas present for insomniacs.
The release of the 14th draft is expected to shortly be followed by the public consultation exercise on the rules of procedure. IPcopy understands that the window for public comments could be as short as one month and we will let you know as soon as we hear more. It is noted that page 2 of the 14th draft states that it is the aim of the Drafting Committee to complete the draft rules within three months of the signature of the Agreement (which is expected to happen on 19th February).
Unitary Patent Package – Timeline of events for 2013/2014
The much heralded unitary patent package* appears to be moving towards implementation after many years of proposal and counter-proposal.
Looking ahead, the various parts of the package are likely to come into force in 2014 (according to the official timescale anyway). Over the coming 12-24 months, there are a number of keys dates to note.
Unitary patent package – alternative description using 1000 most common words only
In an earlier post we recast an Apple patent claim into “up-goer-five” style by rewording the claim using only the 1000 most common words available (according to this xkcd comic). We weren’t planning on revisiting this style of drafting but ipcopyemily worked up a description of the unitary patent package for the IPcopy team’s amusement and I thought it was too good not to share. So, without further ado, here’s the unitary patent package in “up-goer-five” format. You might think it makes more sense than the real version but I, of course, couldn’t possibly comment.
This is the last time we’ll do this…..promise…..probably…..
Why Malta could inadvertently block your unitary patent
You may have noticed that over here at IPCopy, we’ve been playing with the Unitary Patent Regulation, and testing it to its limits. We’ve already noted some quirks, including the fact that a patentee could potentially opt out of the unified patent court until 2047, and that if an infringement action is brought by an exclusive licensee, bifurcation is all but forced on the defendant.
But this is perhaps the one that’s baked IPCopy’s collective noodle the most so far: assuming that ratification (of the unified patent court agreement) proceeds in time for the Unitary Patent Regulation to come into force 1 January 2014, it appears to us that around one third of the patents that grant that year, and potentially even as many as half, will not actually be eligible for unitary patent protection*.
“How can this be?” I hear you cry! Well it’s all Malta’s “fault”, and here’s why… [we cannot help but think we’ve missed something in the analysis below so feel free to chip in with your thoughts in the comments section!]
Unitary Patent Package – does Article 47(5) of the UPC Agreement hardcode bifurcation?
One of the most frequently-discussed concerns regarding the unified patent court agreement is the possibility of bifurcation*. This has, in turn, lead to concerns in some quarters that local divisions of the unified patent court could set themselves up to be patent proprietor friendly but send validity counterclaims back to the central division. In such scenarios, the argument goes, a patent owner could secure an injunction in the local division based on the issue of infringement that would have effect across the whole of the unitary patent area before validity has even been heard in the central division.
Regardless of the above “doomsday” scenario, however, it is noted that according to the UPC agreement the defendant will be able to raise validity as a counterclaim within an infringement action. It will then be up to the local division in question as to whether they hear both infringement and validity (I&V) or whether they kick the validity part of the action back to the central division (and thereby create a bifurcated case). [This IPcopywriter has assumed (probably naively) that local divisions will probably follow the practice of the country within which they are set up.]
However, on a review of the final text of the UPC agreement, we have come across a particular scenario, written explicitly into the agreement, in which the defendant is apparently not even able to raise validity as a counterclaim in an infringement action. We are referring to Article 47(5) UPC agreement and the scenario where an exclusive licensee brings an infringement action.
IPcopy 