This is just a brief note that the final text of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court has just been published today. It is available in Document 16351/12 via the Document server of the Council of the European Union.
Hard-coded in Article 84 (1) is a provision setting the date on which the Agreement open for signature by any Member State to
February 19, 2013.
The Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council December 17, 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection has already been published in the Official Journal of the EU Number L 361/1 dated December 31, 2012.
The Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council December 17, 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements has already been published in the Official Journal of the EU Number L 361/89 dated December 31, 2012.
Axel H. Horns
German & European Patent, Trade Mark & Design Attorney
2 Responses to Stop Press: Final Version Of Agreement On a Unified Patent Court Published Today
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
MISCELLANEOUS
The KSNH blogging landscape
This blog and the German-language sister blog k/s/n/h::jur link to the two popular and privately run blogs IPJur und VisaePatentes and continue their work and mission with a widened scope and under the aegis of our IP law firm.
ksnh::law Syndication
Why not subscribing ksnh::law via e-mail? Simply enter your e-mail address and click OK. 
KSNH::JUR Feed (german)- 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
There is another important change in this document, compared to previous version 16222/12 (sate November 14; 2012): Article 89, dealing with ” Entry into force”, paragraph 1. It now reads (emphasis added):
Whereas previous revision was subjecting entry into force of UPC to the entry into force of the amendment to Regulation (EC) 44/2001.
This is important because it is the so-called Brussel I regulation about “on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters”. As already written on this blog, the Commission has published some note showing that UPC was in conflict with teh Brussels I regulation, and that the latter needs some amendment to take into account UPC. The Brussels I regulation (formerly EC 44/2001) has been recasted very recently, and has been published in EU Official Journal on December 20th, 2012, L 351/1. But nothing about UPC was taken on board in this recast.
So the UPC cannot entered into force before another amendment of Brussels I is voted by the European Parliament and the Council. Whosays that first unitary patents should be granted in early 2014?
Another point is that mandatory amendments to Brussels I regulation demonstrates that the UPC indeed “affect common rules or alter their scope”. It is to be noted that Art. 3.2 TFEU states that “The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement […] in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.” In Case C‑370/12 of November 27th, 2012, about the ESM Treaty, the CJEU has interpreted this article like this: “It follows also from that provision that Member States are prohibited from concluding an agreement between themselves which might affect common rules or alter their scope.”
Isn’t it obvious from this reasoning that the UPC, falling into the realm of EU exclusive competences, cannot be ratified by Member States?
After browsing through the agreement, there’s one little detail that suddenly springs to my eyes: the agreement includes specific requirements as to the nationality of the judges. Although Art. 45(4) TFEU includes an exemption of “public service” from the principle of freedom of movement of workers, this exemption has always been interpreted very narrowly by the CJEU. Could it be that those requirements are in breach of EU law?