Currently viewing the tag: "Jochen Pagenberg"

In Defense of Articles 6 to 9 of the Unitary Patent Regulation

By On March 19, 2012 · 10 Comments · In EU law, EU Unified Patent Court, European Patent Law, TFEU, Unitary Patent

Will we ever find cases related to substantive patent law in here?

Articles 6 to 9 of the Unitary Patent Regulation relate to substantive patent  law. They regulate the right to prevent direct and indirect use of the invention (Art. 6 and 7, respectively), the limitation of the effects of the ‘Unitary Patent‘ (Art. 8) and exhaustion of the rights conferred by the ‘Unitary Patent‘ (Art. 9).

As the question of which EU member state will receive the Central Division of the EU Unified Patent Court (see here, here, and here) is officially seen as the only remaining obstacle to the Unified Patent Court Agreement, the Unitary Patent Regulation already received green light from the EU Parliament’s legal committee (JURI) in late December (see press release) so that the EU Council already began to linguistically finalise the Regulation text in early January.

THE DISPUTE ON ARTICLES 6 TO 9

Even so, a strong and illustrious ‘opposition movement’ of legal professionals and their associations (e.g. EPLAW and Jochen Pagenberg, European Patent Judges and Sir Robin Jacob, Professor Krasser, CIPA), industry representatives (e.g. ICC, IP Federation), and a few politicians (e.g. JURI member Cecilia Wikström (SE, ALDE) [1, 2, 3] and UK IP Minister Baroness Wilcox) demanded Articles 6 to 8/9 to be removed from the Regulation to prevent substantive patent law from becoming subject to review by the European Court of Justice via referral questions according to Article 267 TFEU.

Continue reading »

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • •