Yesterday, the first day of the 3133rd Council meeting in the Competitiveness configuration (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) was held in Brussels under the EU Presidency, chaired by Mr Waldemar PAWLAK, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy of Poland. Document 18115/11 conveys a press release saying :
UNIFIED PATENT COURT
Ministers in charge of intellectual property files held a policy debate on the creation of a unified patent litigation court, as a part of a package aimed at establishing a patent system with unitary effect that ensure uniform protection for inventions across Europe, together with the corresponding translation arrangements.
The debate took place on the basis of a compromise package drawn up by the Presidency. The compromise was broadly accepted in substance, but the debate showed that further work is still needed. The Polish Presidency is committed to take the work forward with a view to reaching agreement on the creation of a unified patent court before end 2011.
The essential elements of the compromise include:
1. The seats of the Central Division of the Court of 1st Instance, the Court of Appeal and the Patent Arbitration Centre
Several proposals have been made by member states interested in hosting the seats.
2. The financial contribution of the member states hosting a local division, a regional division, the Central Division or the Court of Appeal
The host member state would provide for the necessary facilities, equipment and, for the initial period, the management of the administrative staff.
3. Other financial contributions of the member states
While the objective should be that the Unified Patent Court becomes self financing over time, financial contributions will be required in the setting up phase based of a balanced and transparent formula.
4. Language of proceedings
While the principal should be maintained that the language of proceedings of a local division can be changed only with the agreement of both parties, a party could address a request to the President of the Court in order to change the language of proceedings for reasons of convenience and fairness.
5. Actions to be brought to the central division
The possibility to enhance the role of the central division and give parties the choice to bring actions from infringements concerning a number of member states before the central division instead of bringing them before a local or regional division. Under the compromise the parties would have the choice to bring an infringement action before the central division if the defendant is domiciled outside the EU.
6. Number of ratifications required for the entry into force
There is general consensus that the Unified Patent Court should enter into force once a minimum number of member states have ratified the Agreement.
7. Transitional period
A transitional period will be fixed for “classical” European patents without unitary effect during which actions can still be brought before the national court.
8. Revision clause
A range of provisions would have to be reviewed by the administrative committee in order to improve the functioning, efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Unified Patent Court and the quality of its judgements.
The debate follows discussions engaged at the ministerial meeting of 29 September 2011 (see press release 14691/11, page 9), on the basis of the draft agreement for creating a common patent court that would ensure compliance with the EU treaties. Previously, on 30 May 2011, a large majority of member states endorsed the setting up of a unified patent court by means of an agreement to be concluded between the member states outside the EU institutional framework.
During the last weeks, EU preparatory bodies have carried out intensive work on the other parts that configure the package: two draft regulations implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection (see press release 11831/11). Following negotiations with the European Parliament, a provisional agreement has been achieved between the Council and the Parliament, which includes additional provisions for the benefit of the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the future use of unitary patent protection.
The European Parliament is expected to vote on the two draft regulations for the creation of unitary patent protection and the applicable translation arrangements early in 2012.
So, apparently we still dont’t know exactly what was decided especially with regard to the seat of core components of the UPC. However, recently I saw an interesting tweet on Twitter:
Well, does this mean that the seat of the Appeals Court has already been determined?
Valentina Pop reports on EUobserver:
A compromise “package” drafted by the Polish EU presidency got the support on most of the issues, except the seat of the main litigation court for the upcoming EU patent – with Britain and Germany refusing to cede it to France, as envisaged by the presidency, one EU diplomat told this website.
Under the non-contentious parts of the deal, Luxembourg would get the appeals court, Slovenia and Portugal two mediation and arbitration centres and Hungary a training facility.
Hence, we shall continue to drink some tea or coffee and watch things unfolding.
By the way, officially unpublished Document 17578/11 dated December 1, 2011, and titled Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the of the Council implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection - Analysis of the final compromise text has been leaked and is available on unitary-patent.eu.
[UPDATE 2011-12-06 1230h] Just saw this on IPKat – how true this critics on the handling of insitutional proceedings! However, contrary to AmeriKat I have not yet made up my mind for final as to whether or not the outcome will at the end deserve the label cold, unappetizing dinner.
One casual observation from the AmeriKat: We have obviously not seen any of the debates on these proposals. Instead we can only go on what is said in these press conferences. To her, there is a flavor of this whole process that reminds her of cooking for a dinner party. Your expectant guests don’t know what manner of horror and chaos is going on in the kitchen, but everytime you come out to living room you calmly and over-enthusiastically assure them that an amazing dinner will be ready very soon. The Presidency and Commission lend themselves to that feeling during these press conferences – who knows what sort of chaos is occurring during these debates but the AmeriKat cannot help expect that despite their positive reassurances, the patent profession will be left picking over a cold, unappetizing dinner having lost its appetite 20 years ago.
(Photo (C) 2011 Council of the European Union)
Axel H. Horns
German & European Patent, Trade Mark & Design Attorney
The k/s/n/h::law blog
Some of the patent attorneys of the KSNH law firm have joined their efforts to research what is going on in the various branches of IP law and practice in order to keep themselves, their clients as well as interested circles of the public up to date. This blog is intended to present results of such efforts to a wider public.
- November 2013 (2)
- October 2013 (1)
- September 2013 (1)
- August 2013 (2)
- July 2013 (3)
- June 2013 (5)
- March 2013 (5)
- February 2013 (4)
- January 2013 (5)
- December 2012 (5)
- November 2012 (5)
- July 2012 (5)
- June 2012 (8)
- May 2012 (5)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (4)
- February 2012 (5)
- January 2012 (6)
- December 2011 (12)
- November 2011 (9)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (4)
- August 2011 (7)
- July 2011 (4)
- June 2011 (1)
- business methods (6)
- EPC (7)
- EPO (12)
- EU law (92)
- European Patent Law (37)
- German Patent ACt (PatG) (1)
- German patent law (5)
- Germany (6)
- Pirate Party (3)
- International Patent Law (4)
- PCT (2)
- IP politics (10)
- licenses (2)
- Litigation (5)
- Patentability (7)
- Patents (12)
- Piratenpartei (2)
- Software inventions (10)
- Uncategorized (9)
- Unitary Patent (24)
- US Patent Law (4)
- kelle on Germany: Copyright Protection More Easily Available For Works Of “Applied Arts”
- Time Limits & Deadlines in Draft UPCA RoP: Counting The Days - KSNH Law - Intangible.Me on Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- Time Limits & Deadlines in Draft UPCA RoP: Counting The Days | ksnh::law on Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Cou... on Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- European Commission Takes Next Step Towards Legalising Software Patents in Europe | Techrights on EU Commission publishes Proposal of amendend Brussels I Regulation for ensuring Enforcement of UPC Judgements
- No public Twitter messages.
- Ist Verschlüsselung passé? September 6, 2013Auf verschiedenen Feldern beruflicher Praxis ist dafür zu sorgen, dass Kommunikation vertraulich bleibt. Die trifft beispielsweise für Ärzte zu, aber auch für Anwälte, darunter auch Patentanwälte. Einer der zahlreichen Aspekte, die in diesem Zusammenhang eine Rolle spielen, ist die Technik, um die Vertraulichkeit beruflicher Kommunikation sicherzustellen. Wa […]
- EU-Einheitspatent: Demonstrativer Optimismus und Zahlenmystik allerorten – Naivität oder politische Beeinflussung? June 26, 2013Nach mehreren vergeblichen Anläufen zur Schaffung eines EU-weiten Patentsystems wurde 1973 als Kompromiss das Europäische Patentübereinkommen unterzeichnet, welches unabhängig von der seinerzeit noch EWG genannten Europäischen Union System zur zentralisierten Patenterteilung mit nachgeordnetem Einspruchsverfahren durch das Europäische Patentamt schuf. Wie wi […]
- Moderne Zeiten oder: DPMA und Patentgericht streiten über die elektronische Akte April 25, 2013Bekanntlich hat das Deutsche Patent- und Markenamt (DPMA) im Jahre 2013 mit der rein technischen Fertigstellung der Einrichtungen zur elektronischen Akteneinsicht einen wichtigen Meilenstein seines Überganges von der Papierakte zur “elektronischen Akte” erreicht. Im DPMA werden aber bereits seit dem 01. Juni 2011 Patente, Gebrauchsmuster, Topografien und erg […]
- Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2013 March 11, 2013Unter dem Datum vom 28. Februar 2013 ist die Bundestags-Drucksache 17/12611 veröffentlicht worden Sie trägt den Titel Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung - Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2013. Die Bundesregierung legt dem Deutschen Bundestag seit dem Jahr 2008 […]
- 3D-Printing: Zum Filesharing von 3D-Modelldaten February 25, 2013In meiner kleinen zuvor angekündigten Reihe über rechtliche Aspekte des 3D Printing komme ich heute auf die Frage zu sprechen, ob die Hersteller von Gerätschaften es hinnehmen müssen, wenn Ersatztreile davon – vom Brillengestell über Smartphone-Gehäuseteile bis hin zu Rastenmähermotor-Abdeckungen – gescannt und die daraus […]
- Ist Verschlüsselung passé? September 6, 2013