UPC Case Management System has opened for user testing:

The UPC case management system (CMS) is now open for user testing. If you feel like testing what it will be like to start an infringement action or apply for a patent opt-out, you can register at  secure.unified-patent-court.org and create an account.

You can also take a peek at our screen shots below to have an idea of what the case management system might look like. You can click on them to have a closer look at the CMS.

If you wish to leave any feedback about this new case management system you can do so via the ‘send feedback’ button at the bottom of the web page.

Case management Screenshot1

Case management Screenshot2

Case management Screenshot3

The 18th Draft Rule of Procedure in detail…How does it differ from the 17th Draft?

We published this morning the 18th Draft Rules of Procedure. We now look at the modifications that the Preparatory Committee introduced to the final version of the UPC Rules of Procedure. 

Rule 5 -Paragraph 13: Opt out applications: 
The opt-out period  is now confirmed by paragraph 13 of Rule 5. Applications accepted by the Registry before the entry into force of the Agreement, shall be treated as entered on the register on the date of entry into force of the Agreement.

Rule 10 (c): Written procedure:
If all parties agree not to have an oral hearing (to reduce costs for example), the Court can decide not to hold an oral hearing.

Rule 14: Use of languages in proceedings:
Panels of regional or local divisions will have the possibility to use the official national language(s) of the country where it is situated for oral proceedings and for rendering orders or decisions, even if the parties themselves have chosen to use an additional language of the EPO as the language of proceedings. It will be up to the Judge Rapporteur to order this exception to the language regime, and he may only do so “in the interest of the panel”. However, in case the official language is used over the chosen language, each order and decision shall be accompanied with a certified translation for enforcement.

It means for example that the Judge Rapporteur in Lithuania may decide that in the interest of the panel it is better for the panel to use  Lithuanian rather than English/French/German, in oral proceedings and for drafting orders and decisions.

Rule 17.3: Distribution of actions between the seat of the central division and its sections: 
The UPC agreement provides that the competence is determined by the classification of the patent. Rule 17.3.c) provides a solution for the situation in which the action involves a single patent having more than one classification or where the action involves more than one patent which do not have a single classification corresponding to the seat or section of the central division. In such case the Registry shall assign the action to the panel to the seat or section appropriate to the first classification of either the single patent or, where the action involves more than one patent, the patent first listed in the Statement of claim.  This distribution is either accepted or rejected by the presiding judge of the aforementioned  panels. If the presiding judge rejects it, they shall instruct the Registry to refer the action to the presiding judge of a panel of the section of the central division they considers appropriate, who shall likewise consider if the allocation is appropriate. If the latter considers otherwise, the President of the Court of First Instance (which will be located in France), shall finally allocate the action.
Rule 158, paragraphs 4 and 5: Decision by default in case of no security for costs: 

At any time during proceedings and following a reasoned request by one party, the Court may order a party to provide a security for the legal costs and expenses incurred or to be incurred by the requesting party. If a party fails to provide adequate security the Court may give a decision by default.

Rule 202: Letters rogatory:

The Court can now issue letters rogatory for the production of documents by other competent courts or authorities outside the EU. In previous drafts of the Rules of Procedure the letters rogatory were only possible for the hearing of witnesses or experts by such courts.

Rule 229: Appeals not respecting the time requirements: 
Rule 229 provides that the President of the Court of Appeal shall reject the appeal as inadmissible, if it is lodged outside the time limits set for appeal . The rule however provides that the President “may” give the appellant an opportunity to be heard beforehand.

Rule 311: Insolvency of a party:
Rule 311 now provides that the Court shall stay proceedings up to three months if a party is declared insolvent under the law applicable to the insolvency proceedings. Proceedings may also be stayed at the request of a temporary administrator who has been appointed before a party is declared insolvent.

Rule 345: Allocation of judges to panels by the President of the Court:
The task of the President of the Court of First Instance is to allocate the judges to the panels of the local or regional divisions, the seat of the central division and its sections. In previous drafts this task was given to the “presiding judge of each local or regional division or the seat of the central division or one of its sections”. The Preparatory Committee has since decided to allocate the task of allocating judges to the President of the Court, who will therefore become a key player within the UPC.

The 18th Draft Rules of Procedure is now available

As announced a few weeks ago, the Unified Patent Court has now published the last Draft Rules of Procedure. This new draft is presented as a “major milestone in the progress of the Committees work” which is “the result of a successful and fruitful collaboration between the Preparatory Committee’s Legal working group and the Drafting Committee”.

You can find below the new Rules below:

[embeddoc url=”http://upcblog.amar.lawwp-content/uploads/2015/11/UPC-Rules-of-Procedure.pdf”]

Consultation on Court Fees: What were the public responses ?

In May 2015, the IPO and CIFA organised a consultation on Court Fees. See our post here.  In July, the UPC Blog participated to the webinar organised by both organisations and summarised for you the  Background of the consultation, The Issues at stake in the consultation document and the Discussion that followed between the participants. These can be found here.

Finally, in its October Newsletter (See below), the EPLAW reveals that 146 responses were received, 68 from the Italian Chambers of Commerce, and identified the main issues raised by the participants:

  • greater clarity is required where multiple parties / patents are involved
  • the guidelines for the calculation of value-based fees should be published for comment
  • no value-based fee should be payable for a counterclaim for revocation the opt-out fees should be lower than 80 Euros
  • there is divided opinion on the desirability of alternative one as compared to alternative two to aid SMEs
  • the caps on recoverable costs are too high at the lower values of cases.
  • there should be a value-based fee for an application for a preliminary injunction

These responses were presented to the Preparatory Committee on 19th October who will present a final draft of Court Fees in February 2016 after negotiating with Member States.

The 18th and final Draft Rule of Procedure to be soon released…

The EPLAW announced in its October newsletter that the 18th Draft Rules of Procedure will be adopted today (19th October) and published thereafter. Rule 5 (opt-out provision), Rule 8 (identification of proprietor) and Rule 14 (language of procedure) have apparently been substantially amended compared to the 17th Draft of Procedure… Furthermore, according to the EPLAW, if this draft may face a few re-numbering of its Rules, it will very likely be the final version of the UPC Rules of Procedure.

So watch this space as we will post the 18th and final Draft Rules of Procedure as soon as the UPC releases it!

 

 

EPLAW updates on the training of UPC Judges:

UPC Judges recruitment 2019

The European Patent Lawyers Association issued a statement to its members detailing the different training initiatives developed by the EPLAW and the EPO for candidate UPC Judges.

It appears that in 2015, the EPO Academy ran two training modules for potential UPC judges who had little judicial experience in patents or who were from countries with limited patent litigation, in which they were introduced to basic patent law and patent litigation by well-known European judges and European litigators. The EPLAW in parallel produced e-learning materials which will be published on the EPO’s website before the end of 2015.

2016 will see more training initiatives being organised. The EPLAW notably announces that it will assist the EPO with its standard training programme on infringement and litigation for judges with no or little experience in patent litigation in the EPC countries, and act as representatives in mock trials. Finally, the EPO Academy plans “to run workshops and mock trials for those experienced European patent judges who have applied to be UPC judges concentrating on familiarising them with the Rules of Procedure and the Agreement of the UPC”.

 

Italy joins the Unitary Patent

Encouraging steps by participating member states towards the entry into force of the UPC Agreement

We reported a few weeks ago that Italy had formally requested the European Commission to join the unitary patent. It appears from the European Commission website that Italy’s request was accepted and that it has now become the 26th member of the enhanced cooperation on unitary patent protection.

Italy was  initially opposed to the Council of Europe’s decision to allow the enhanced cooperation and challenged it, along Spain, before the Court of Justice of the European Union in May 2011. However after the CJEU rejected Italy and Spain’s actions in April 2013, Italy decided to sign the Unified Patent Court but abstained from participating in the enhanced cooperation.

Here our post on Italy and Spain’s challenges of the Unitary Patent from 2011 to its resolution in 2015.

Italy (but also Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom)  must now ratify the UPCA.

 

The training of the UPC Technical Judges has started in Strasbourg.

UPC Judges recruitment 2019

The training of the UPC technical judges started last week (on 24th September 2015) at the CEIPI in Strasbourg. The programme will be taught over a period of three weeks between September and November 2015, and  from Thursday to Saturday, in order to facilitate the attendance of the participants.

Designed specifically for the UPC technical judges, the training “addresses the specific legal skills that judges must have, and includes as well the training on the fundamentals of fair trial and due process in the context of patent law. The program encompasses a range of intensive thematic and specialized modules, particularly crafted to respond to the needs of technically qualified judges.” It thus aims at ensuring that the participants have a sufficient knowledge of the law while offering specialised trainings on a range of key technical issues of tailored to the Unified Patent Court context.

It is divided between three modules and eight topics. Module 1 looks at “Judicial Ethics“, “The UPC fundamental principles and fair trial“, “Competition law and the UPC” and “Legal Skills“. Module 2 focuses on “Applicable substantive law and patent holder rights” and “The UPC and its rules of procedure“. Finally, Module 3 is concerned with “Enforcement” and “Expertise and Witnesses“.  In order to meet the challenges of training these new technical judges on a theoretical and practical level the training will be structured around lectures “combined with a intense analysis of jurisprudence and practical exercises, including workshops with case studies and two moot court exercises“.

More about ratification: What about Finland, Slovakia, or Germany?

Encouraging steps by participating member states towards the entry into force of the UPC Agreement

Not long ago we posted about Italy’s change of direction in relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Unitary Patent, and its notification to the European Council of its intention to participate to the enhanced cooperation. It seems however that more happened this summer concerning the ratification of the UPC Agreement:

  •  Bristows reports that Finland is progressing towards a ratification by the end of 2015. The Finish Ministry of Employment and Economy in fact set up in February 2015 a working group to prepare the ratification of the UPCA. This working group published to this effect a draft for a Government Bill focusing on “how its provisions will be brought into force in the country and on how national legislation would be amended to align it with the provisions of the Agreement “, which should be considered this autumn. The UPCA would then become part of the national legislation thanks to a special piece of legislation and therefore entail for Finland an amendment of its Patent Code, Criminal Code, Code of Judicial Procedure and the Enforcement Code.
  • Bristows also notes that The Netherlands, Lithuania and Estonia are moving towards ratification in the coming months, while Germany’s ratification process is due to start in autumn 2015 and the UK’s ratification is scheduled for spring 2016.
  • The Kluwer Patent Blog published a post on Slovakia and the Czech Republic’s ratifications. It highlights the  problems that these countries might face with the Unitary Patent renewal fees and the Unified Patent Court fees.  Martin Husovec, a Slovak-born lawyer, academic and Doctoral Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute in Munich interviewed by the Blog explains that both countries will in fact face “a sky-rocketing increase in the number of valid patents on their territory“, which means that “many activities that have been open to free competition will now need to be licensed and paid for“. The cost of doing business in these countries will therefore increase. Second, “it is likely that in the future UPC cases involving Czech or Slovak companies, they will most often be the defending party. For them, the proposed UPC fees, sometimes more than hundred times higher than currently at national courts, is not going to be good news.” Finally the Czech Confederation of Industry complains that “the consequence of the introduction of high fees will not be better accessibility of the protection of the rights of our inventors, but rather creation of an arena for the ‘activities’ of economically stronger multinational corporations.” The Czech Republic and Slovakia have therefore signaled that if their concerns are not addressed, they might considerably delay their ratification.

 

For regular updates on the UPC and the ratification process, follow us on Twitter @UPCBlogLAVOIX