The Paris Opt-out mock trial: Valid or not valid that is the question…

UPC Judges recruitment 2019

A mock trial addressing the issue of the validity of an opt-out took place in Paris on 06th June 2016. It was organised by the Union pour la Juridiction Unifiée des Brevets (UJUB) and hosted by the MEDEF.

The trial opposed two companies, Haussmann La Riche and Generoso, over the revocation action of one of Haussmann La Riche’s patent. The action had been initiated by Generoso before the UPC central division. Haussmann La Riche however challenged the competence of the UPC, since it considered that it had correctly taken the necessary steps to “opt out from the exclusive competence of the Court”. Generoso on the other hand  argued that the UPC was competent because the opt-out had been incorrectly. In fact, the opt-out had been made in the name of a corporate entity which  no longer legally existed and did not name the patent co-owner. In the alternative, Generoso argued that Haussmann La Riche’s secretary had no capacity to register the opt-out, as only the head of the patent department and European patent attorney had the authorization to do so on behalf of the proprietors.

According to the UPC Rules of Procedure, the question whether the UPC has jurisdiction must be presented as a Preliminary objection (Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, to which Rule 48 in fine refers) within one month of the lodging of the Statement of claim. This question then falls within the competence of the judge-rapporteur (Rule 20), who for this matter is the presiding judge, except if the judge-rapporteur decided to refer the matter to the panel under Rule 102.

Both parties, represented by British, French, Dutch lawyers and patent attorneys presented their arguments to Marie Courboulay (Vice-president of the 3rd Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris), the French judge-rapporteur who delivered her ruling on the issue of the validity of the opt-out at the end of the trial. She held, in line with the audience’s vote (though it was held in her absence), that the opt-out was indeed invalid and that the UPC was competent.

[embeddoc url=”http://www.opinews.com/ujub/docs/2016-06-06_UJUB_Opt-out_mock_trial_binder.pdf”]

The hearing can be also viewed here while the detailed synopsis of the case and the parties’ documents can be viewed here.

We await of course for your comments and views on the validity of this opt-out. Valid or not valid that is the question…

A Code of Conduct for the representatives before the UPC: The recommendations of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe

Last week, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) published its comments  on the Code of Conduct for the representatives before the UPC, drafted by the EPLAW, EPLIT and epi .

The CCBE  thereby responds to the Preparatory Committee’s declaration, after its last meeting on 14th April 2016, that the Code of Conduct would be agreed at the end of May, for it to be ready for the UPC’s entry into force in February 2017.

Rule 290 and 291 of the UPC Draft Rules of Procedure in fact respectively provide that representatives before the UPC must comply with the Code of Conduct and if in breach may be excluded from the proceedings by the Court.

The UPC draft Code of Conduct has not however been made public yet, and the CCBE has not had access to it. The CCBE’s general comments therefore provide a helpful insight into the core principles that should govern the UPC Code of Conduct, and, raise important questions about issues such as independence, impartiality and interpretation.

The CCBE focuses on seven points:

  • “A minimum standard”: The CCBE, fearing that it would be difficult to design “a single Code of Conduct for all representatives covering all matters”,  invites the Preparatory Committee to clearly identify the basic legal principles applying to all representatives irrespective of their nationality or position (lawyer, patent attorney, solicitor, etc) to ensure a minimum standard for all appearing before the Court.
  • “Enforcement of the code”: The CCBE recommends that complaints from the Court about the representatives’ behaviour be “adjudicated  by a relevant body rather than the judges themselves or the Court”.  The CCBE in fact highlight, that the UPC judges may not have been trained to handle complaints, and, that an independent body would be a guarantee for impartiality .
  • “Complaints procedure”: The CCBE warns that “(n)either the Rules of Procedure nor the Code appears to explain how a complaint of a breach of the Code is to be made, whether anyone is free to make such a complaint, to whom they should complain, nor whether there is any time limit”.
  • “Possible conflicting obligations”: The CCBE has identified areas where the UPC Code of Conduct and national codes of conduct may conflict, resulting in impossible ethical dilemmas for representatives who would not be able to comply with both codes. The CCBE therefore calls for a careful review of compatibility of all codes of conduct.
  • “Appeals”: Neither the Rules of Procedure nor the Draft Code of Conduct explain the appeal procedure allowing the representatives to challenge a sanction. The CCBE alerts the Preparatory Committee of this oversight and advises against designating the UPC Court of Appeal as the appropriate appeal mechanism, which might lack the required independence.
  • “Sanctions”: The Rules of Procedure appear to indicate that there is only one sanction available to the UPC judges under Rule 291, namely exclusion from the proceedings. The CCBE however points up that “Regulators and Ethics Committees enforcing Codes of Conduct normally have available to them a wide range of sanctions so that they can deal proportionately with each complaint”. In fact, as explained by the CCBE, the consequences of an exclusion  can be very severe and significantly affect both parties.
  • “Interpretation of the code”: The CCBE advises the Preparatory Committee to clarify whether the  Code is to be interpreted strictly or liberally, i.e. whether the code of Conduct contains general principles or “detailed and unambiguous regulations”.

The CCBE concludes it letter by regretting not to have more time and more opportunities to contribute to the UPC Code of Conduct, a view shared by the UPC Blog. In fact, a consultation of the future UPC representatives on the Code of Conduct that will regulate their behaviour before the Court would certainly have been very fruitful.

The CCBE’s letter of comments can be found below. 

[embeddoc url=”http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/CCBE_President_lette1_1462522685.pdf”]

Scale of ceilings for recoverable costs:

The Preparatory Committee agreed last week on the ceilings applicable to recoverable costs together with Court Fees (see our post here on this topic). In this post we look at the specification of the costs deemed recoverable and the determination of the ceilings for the recoverable costs.

So which cost can be recovered?

  • Only reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party may be recovered from the unsuccessful party.
  • The ceilings of recoverable costs shall apply to representation costs.

 

And how much can be recovered? 

These ceilings are a compromise to accommodate the different approaches already existing in the Member States:

  • The ceiling shall be applied to each instance of the Court proceedings regardless of the number of parties, claims or patents concerned
  • In case of partial success the ceiling applicable in the case shall correspond to the proportion of success of the party seeking cost recovery.
  • Unnecessary costs caused to the Court or the other party shall be borne by the party incurring them, which means that even the successful party has to reimburse costs caused that are deemed unnecessary by the Court.

The ceilings are only to be regarded as a safety net, i.e. an absolute cap on recoverable representation costs applicable in every case. The Court has therefore a large margin of appreciation when applying the safeguarding principles before making a cost decision, and the table of ceilings is designed to cater to most situations:

  • In limited situations, such as the particular complexity of the case or multiple languages used in the proceeding, the Court may upon request by one party, having regard to the financial capability of all the parties in the light of the principle of fair access to justice, raise the ceiling by up to 50%. The increase will be limited to up to 25% where the value is more that EUR 1 million and up to and including EUR 50 million. The top ceiling however retains an absolute maximum of EUR 5 million.
  • There is no limit to the level the ceilings may be reduced.
  •  Upon request of one of the parties, the Court may lower the ceiling with regard to that party if, in the event that the requesting party is unsuccessful, the applicable level of recoverable costs of representation to be awarded to the successful party would threaten the economic existence of the requesting party, especially if the latter is a micro-enterprise, SME, non-profit organisation, university, public research organisation or natural person. All types of organisation may make this request, but those from micro-enterprises, SMEs, non-profit organisations, universities, public research organisations or natural persons are given particular emphasis in the wording.

 

The Table of ceilings for recoverable costs:

Value of the proceedingCeiling for recoverable costs
Up to and including 250.000 €Up to 38.000 €
Up to and including 500.000 €Up to 56.000 €
Up to and including 1.000.000 €Up to 112.000 €
Up to and including 2.000.000 €Up to 200.000 €
Up to and including 4.000.000 €Up to 400.000 €
Up to and including 8.000.000 €Up to 600.000 €
Up to and including 16.000.000 €Up to 800.000 €
Up to and including 30.000.000 € €Up to 1.200.000 €
Up to and including 50.000.000 €Up to 1.500.000 €
More than 50.000.000 €Up to 2.000.000 €

The UPC Court Fees in detail: How much will we need to pay for each action before the UPC?

The Court Fees were agreed last week by the Preparatory Committee. They are divided between Fixed and Value-based Fees.

Fixed Fees start at 100€ for an Application to prolong the period of a protective letter kept on the register and go as high as 20,000€ for a Revocation action.

As for Value-based Fees, there will be none for an action up to and including 500.000€ and will reach 325.000€ for an action valued at more than 50.000.000€.

This post will look in detail at the different categories of fees and at the method chosen by the Preparatory Committee to value the action.

It will refer to the “Guidelines for the determination of Court fees and the ceiling of recoverable costs of the successful party” and the “Rules on Court Fees and Recoverable Costs” both published by the Preparatory Committee on the UPC website on 25/02/2016.

Actions requiring a Fixed AND Value-based Fee:

Claimants must pay a fixed and a value-based fee for the five following actions:

(1) Infringement action [R. 15]

(2) Counterclaim for infringement [R. 53]

(3) Action for declaration of non-infringement [R. 68]

(4) Action for compensation for license of right [R. 80.3]

(5) Application to determine damages [R. 132]

First Instance

Tables of Fees (Fixed Fee and Value-based Fee):

Procedures/actions Fixed Fee
Fixed fee Infringement action [R. 15]11.000 €
Counterclaim for infringement [R. 53]11.000 €
Action for declaration of non-infringement [R. 68]11.000 €
Action for compensation for license of right [R. 80.3]11.000 €
Application to determine damages [R. 132]3.000 €

Value of actionAdditional Value-based Fee
Up to and including 500.000 €0 €
Up to and including 750.000 €2.500 €
Up to and including 1.000.000 €4.000 €
Up to and including 1.500.000 €8.000 €
Up to and including 2.000.000 €13.000 €
Up to and including 3.000.000 €20.000 €
Up to and including 4.000.000 €26.000 €
Up to and including 5.000.000 €32.000 €
Up to and including 6.000.000€39.000 €
Up to and including 7.000.000 €46.000 €
Up to and including 8.000.000 €52.000 €
Up to and including 9.000.000 €58.000 €
Up to and including 10.000.000 €65.000 €
Up to and including 15.000.000 €75.000 €
Up to and including 20.000.000 €100.000 €
Up to and including 25.000.000 €125.000 €
Up to and including 30.000.000 €150.000 €
Up to and including 50.000.000 €250.000 €
More than 50.000.000 €325.000 €

Appeal

Tables of Fees (Fixed Fee and Value-based Fee):

Appeals/ApplicationsFees
Appeal pursuant to Rule 220.1 (a) and (b) [R 228] as to an infringement action [R. 15]11.000 € + additional value-based fee according to the value of the action (see below for its method of calculation)
Appeal pursuant to Rule 220.1 (a) and (b) [R 228] as to a counterclaim for infringement [R. 53]11.000 € + additional value-based fee according to the value of the action (see below for its method of calculation)
Appeal pursuant to Rule 220.1 (a) and (b) [R 228] as to an action for declaration of non-infringement [R. 68]11.000 € + additional value-based fee according to the value of the action (see below for its method of calculation)
Appeal pursuant to Rule 220.1 (a) and (b) [R 228] as to an action for compensation for license of right [R. 80.3]11.000 € + additional value-based fee according to the value of the action (see below for its method of calculation)
Appeal pursuant to Rule 220.1 (a) and (b) [R 228] as to an application to determine damages [R. 132]
3.000 € + additional value-based fee according to the value of the action (see below for its method of calculation)

 

Value of actionAdditional Value-based Fee
Up to and including 500.000 €0 €
Up to and including 750.000 €2.500 €
Up to and including 1.000.000 €4.000 €
Up to and including 1.500.000 €8.000 €
Up to and including 2.000.000 €13.000 €
Up to and including 3.000.000 €20.000 €
Up to and including 4.000.000 €26.000 €
Up to and including 5.000.000 €32.000 €
Up to and including 6.000.000€39.000 €
Up to and including 7.000.000 €46.000 €
Up to and including 8.000.000 €52.000 €
Up to and including 9.000.000 €58.000 €
Up to and including 10.000.000 €65.000 €
Up to and including 15.000.000 €75.000 €
Up to and including 20.000.000 €100.000 €
Up to and including 25.000.000 €125.000 €
Up to and including 30.000.000 €150.000 €
Up to and including 50.000.000 €250.000 €
More than 50.000.000 €325.000 €

See section 3 for the valuation method

Actions requiring a Fixed Fee only:

First Instance

The following actions require a Fixed Fee only :

(1) Revocation action [R. 47]

(2) Counterclaim for revocation [R. 26]

(3) Application for provisional measures [R. 206.5]

(4) Action against a decision of the European Patent Office [R. 88.3, 97.2]

(5) Application to preserve evidence [R. 192.5]

(6) Application for an order for inspection [R.199.2]

(7) Application for an order to freeze assets [R. 200.2]

(8) Filing a protective letter [R. 207.3]

(9) Application to prolong the period of a protective letter kept on the register [R.207.8]

(10) Application for rehearing [R. 250]

(11) Application for re-establishment of rights [R. 320.2]

(12) Application to review a case management order [R. 333.3]

(13) Application to set aside decision by default [R. 356.2]

Table of Fees (Fixed Fees):

Procedures/actions
Fixed Fee
Revocation action [R. 47] 20.000 €
Counterclaim for revocation [R. 26]Same fee as the infringement action subject to a fee limit of 20.000 €
Application for provisional measures [R. 206.5]11.000 €
Action against a decision of the European Patent Office [R. 88.3, 97.2]1.000 €
Application to preserve evidence [R. 192.5]350 €
Application for an order for inspection [R. 199.2]350 €
Application for an order to freeze assets [R. 200.2]1.000 €
Filing a protective letter [R. 207.3]200 €
Application to prolong the period of a protective letter kept on the register [R. 207.8]100 €
Application to review a case management order [R. 333.3]300 €
Application to set aside decision by default [R. 356.2]
1.000 €

Court of Appeal

The following actions require a Fixed fee only:

(1) Appeal pursuant to Rule 220.1 (a) and (b) [R 228]

(2) Interlocutory appeals [R. 220.1 (c)]

(3) Application for leave to appeal [R. 221]

(4) Request for discretionary review [R. 220.2, R. 228]

(5) Application for re-establishment of rights [R. 320.2]

(6) Application to review a case management order [R. 333.3]

(7) Application to set aside decision by default [R. 356.2]

Table of Fees (Fixed Fees):

Appeals/applicationsFee
Appeal pursuant to Rule 220.1 (a) and (b) [R 228] as to an application for provisional measures [R. 206.5]11.000 €
Appeal pursuant to Rule 220.1 (a) and (b) [R 228] as to a revocation action [R. 47]20.000 €
Appeal pursuant to Rule 220.1 (a) and (b) [R 228] as to a counterclaim for revocation [R. 26]
Fee paid in the first instance
Application for rehearing [R. 250]2.500 €
Appeal pursuant to Rule 220.1 (a) and (b) [R 228] as to an action against a decision of the European Patent Office [R. 88.3, 97.2]1.000 €
Interlocutory appeals [R. 220.1(c.), 228]3.000 €
Application for leave to appeal against cost decisions [R. 221, 228]1.500 €
Request for discretionary review [R. 220.3, 228]350 €
Application for re-establishment of rights [R. 320.2]350 €
Application to review a case management order [R. 333.3]300 €
Application to set aside decision by default [R. 356.2]1.000 €

How to determine the value of the action when faced with a value-based fee:

The governing principles of valuation

Where the parties agree on a valuation the Court should in principle base its valuation on their estimate.

If the parties do not agree on the valuation, the “Guidelines for the determination of Court fees and the ceiling of recoverable cost of the successful party” set a method for the UPC Judges to follow:

  • The main principle is that valuation should be as simple as practically possible.
  • Valuation should therefore be based on “an appropriate license fee”.
  • A valuation based on the claimant’s loss of profits or the defendant’s profits gained may also be applied, where appropriate, but the Preparatory Committee warns that it “will normally be too complex to be determined at the beginning of proceedings resulting in a mini-trial”.
  • Valuation should also relate to the summed up values of the main remedies claimed (injunction for the future, damages for the past), not excluding, where appropriate, the value of other remedies claimed.

If the amount of payable Court fees threatens the economic existence of a party who is not a natural person, who has presented reasonably available and plausible evidence to support that the amount of Court fees threatens its economic existence, the Court may upon request by that party, wholly or partially reimburse the fixed and value-based fee. The request shall be dealt with by the Court without delay. In reaching a decision the Court shall reflect on all circumstances of the case including the procedural behaviour of the party. Before making such a decision the Court may give the other party an opportunity to be heard. A party who is adversely affected by the order may bring an appeal pursuant to Rule 220.

The Suggested Approaches

(1) Infringement action / Action for Declaration of non-Infringement / Action for compensation for license of rights

(a) Determining the value for applying the Rules on Court fees & (b) Determining the value for applying the Rules on recoverable costs:

The calculation of the value of the injunction claim and for the damage claim should be based on a royalty calculation as follows:

  • The defendant’s turnover in the alleged infringing product for the future up to the expiry of the patent (injunction claim) and for the past (damage claim) should be calculated based upon the known existing turnover of the defendant or, if not known or not yet existent, the market share the defendant has taken and/or may reasonably be assumed to take.
  • A royalty rate should be applied to the defendant’s turnover based upon: (a) the existing royalty rate for the same invention charged by the claimant, or (b) the generally accepted industry rate for the type of invention in question, or (c) a royalty rate determined by the Court after hearing the parities.
  • Where a damage claim (i) is limited to awarding damages in principle, the value of that claim should be reduced by 50%; (ii) specifies the amount of damages, the value should correspond to the amount claimed.
  • The value of an Application for the Determination of Damages including any Request to lay open books should correspond to the amount of damages specified in the Application or if no such sum is specified the value as calculated in accordance with the defendant’s turnover and the royalty rate applying to this turnover.
  • If the action is based on more than one patent and/or if the action is directed against more than one party the value should be calculated in accordance with the defendant’s turnover and the royalty rate applying to the defendant’s turnover on the basis of a combined license for all patents and all defendants across all territories covered by the patents.

(2) Counterclaim for revocation / revocation actions

(a) Determining the value for applying the Rules on Court fees:

There is no need to determine the value of revocation counterclaims or revocation actions since for both actions there is only a fixed fee to be paid.

(b) Determining the value for applying the Rules on recoverable costs:

  • The value of a counterclaim for revocation or of a revocation action should be determined having regard to the value of the patent to be revoked.
  • In the absence of relevant information (i) the value of a revocation action may be assumed to be equal to the value of an appropriate license fee calculate on the basis of the turnover of the parties for the remaining lifetime of the patent, (ii) the value of the revocation counterclaim may be assumed as being equal to the value of the infringement action (1. (a), above) plus up to 50%.
  • If the action concerns more than one patent, the value of each patent should be calculated separately and the values determined should be added together to become the value of the action.
  • The value of the infringement action and the value of the revocation counterclaim pending before the same division should be added together for determining the level of recoverable costs.

(3) Application for interim relief pursuant to Article 62 of the UPC Agreement

(a) Determining the value for applying the Rules on Court fees:

There is no need to determine the value of an Application for interim relief since for such an Application there is only a fixed fee to be paid.

(b) Determining the value for the Rules on recoverable costs:

In case of the application for interim relief which is not followed by an infringement action on the merits the value of an application for interim relief for determining the level of the recoverable costs should be calculated at 66% of the value calculated in accordance with 1. (b) above.

Payments and Reimbursements of Fixed and Value-based Fees:

  • The issue as to when to assess the case value and pay the value-based fee was discussed in depth by the Expert Panel of the Preparatory Committee. The Panel recommended that claimants make their own value assessment and pay the fee based on that at the same time as the fixed fee; that is when lodging the relevant application. If there is any contention over the assessment this will be rectified at the interim conference.
  • If the action is heard by a single judge (Rule 345.6.) the party liable for the Court fees will be reimbursed by 25 %.
  •  In case of the withdrawal of an action (Rule 265) the party liable for the Court fees will be reimbursed by:
  • 60 % if the action is withdrawn before the conclusion of the written procedure
  • 40 % if the action is withdrawn before the conclusion of the interim procedure
  • 20 % if the action is withdrawn before the conclusion of the oral procedure

 

  •  If the parties have concluded their action by way of settlement the party liable for the Court fees will be reimbursed by:
  • 60 % if the action is settled before the conclusion of the written procedure
  • 40 % if the action is settled before the conclusion of the interim procedure
  • 20 % if the action is settled before the conclusion of the oral procedure

 

  • Only one of the reimbursements referred to in subsection (a), (b) and (c) will apply per action and party. Where more than one reimbursement is applicable, the larger will be applied for each party.
  • In exceptional cases, having regard, in particular, to the stage of the proceedings and the procedural behavior of the party, the Court may decide to deny or decrease 6 / 21 the reimbursement according to subsection (b) and (c) of the aforementioned provisions.

Rights and Obligations of representatives before the UPC:

The rights and obligations of representatives before the UPC are defined at article 48 of the UPCA and listed in Chapter 3 of the Rules of Procedure.

Article 48(5) UPCA states that:

(1) Parties shall be represented by lawyers authorised to practise before a court of a Contracting Member State.

(2) Parties may alternatively be represented by European Patent Attorneys who are entitled to act

as professional representatives before the European Patent Office pursuant to Article 134 of the

EPC and who have appropriate qualifications such as a European Patent Litigation Certificate

the Administrative Committee. A list of European Patent Attorneys entitled to represent parties

before the Court shall be kept by the Registrar.

(4) Representatives of the parties may be assisted by patent attorneys, who shall be allowed to

speak at hearings of the Court in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

(5) Representatives of the parties shall enjoy the rights and immunities necessary for

the independent exercise of their duties, including the privilege from disclosure in proceedings

before the Court in respect of communications between a representative and the party or any other

person, under the conditions laid down in the Rules of Procedure, unless such privilege is expressly

waived by the party concerned.

(6) Representatives of the parties shall be obliged not to misrepresent cases or facts before

the Court either knowingly or with good reasons to know.

(7) Representation in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not be required in

proceedings under Article 32(1)(i).”

Following Rule 285 of Procedure, the rights and obligations can be broadly divided into three categories:

  • Privileges (Attorney-client privilege; Litigation privilege; Privileges Immunities and Facilities)
  • Powers (Powers of Attorney; Powers of the Court as regards representatives; Exclusion from the proceedings)
  • Duties (Duty of representatives not to misrepresent facts or cases; Certificate that a representative is authorised to practice before the Court; Change of Representative)

I. Privileges:

Rule 287. Attorney-client privilege:

The confidentiality between the representative and their client is subject to Rule 287 (1) (2) (3), which states that before the UPC and before the Arbitration Centre, the followings are privileged from disclosure:

  • Advice sought by a client for a procedure before the Court or for any other reason;
  • Confidential communication (written or oral) in relation to the seeking or provision of that advice;
  • Communication which would not be related to proceedings before the UPC;
  • Any work produced by the representative;
  • Communication between representatives employed in the same firm or entity or employed by the same client.

This privilege prevents the representatives and his client from being questioned or examined about the content or nature of their communications; it may however be waived by the client (R 287.5).

Rule 288. Litigation privilege: 

The followings communications shall be privileged from disclosure:

  • Any communication between the representative and third parties for the purpose of, or, for use in any proceedings, including proceedings before the EPO

These communications shall be protected from disclosure in the same way and to the same extent as provided for in Rule 287.

Rule 289. Privileges, Immunities and Facilities:

Representatives appearing before the Court shall enjoy immunity in the interests of the proper conduct of proceedings, in respect of:

  • Words spoken or written by them concerning the action or the parties
  • Papers and documents relating to the proceedings which shall be exempt from search and seizure
  • Alleged infringing product or device relating to the proceedings, which shall be exempt from search and seizure

Representatives shall also be entitled to travel in the course of their duty without hindrance.

Finally, the UPC may waive the representative’s immunity where it considers that representatives are guilty of conduct which is contrary to the proper conduct of proceedings. It is however important to note that the Rules of procedure do not define what is contrary to the proper conduct of proceedings, nor state what the consequences will be for the client.

 

II. Powers:

Rule 285. Powers of Attorney:

A representative will be accepted as representing a party without them having to justify of their capacity to do so, unless their representative powers are challenged and the UPC orders them to produce a written authority.

Rule 290 & 291. Powers of the Court as regards representatives and Exclusion from the proceedings: 

Representatives shall comply with any code of conduct adopted by the Administrative Committee.

The UPC shall have the powers normally accorded to a court of law, and will be able to take sanctions against:

  • Behaviours incompatible with the dignity of the Court;
  • Behaviours incompatible with the proper administration of justice;
  • Any representative who uses their rights for purposes other than those for which they were granted;
  • Any representative who is in breach of the code of conduct.

The court may therefore at any time after giving the representative concerned an opportunity to be heard, exclude that person from the proceedings by way of order with immediate effect.

After the exclusion of the representative, the proceedings shall be stayed for a period fixed by the presiding judge in order to enable the party concerned to appoint a new representative.

III. Duties:

Rule 284. Duty of representatives not to misrepresent facts or cases:

Representatives have the duty not to misrepresent facts or cases as mentioned in article 48(6)  of the UPCA and in Rule 284 of Procedure, which states that “a representative of a party shall not misrepresent cases or facts before the Court either knowingly or with good reasons to know”.

Rule 286 & 292. Certificate that a representative is authorised to practice before the Court:

Article 48(1) & (2) of the UPCA respectively state that parties shall be represented by lawyers authorised to practice before a Court of a Member State or alternatively by European Patent Attorneys who have appropriate qualifications. (See our post here for more details on the representation before the UPC).

Rule 286 of Procedure, read in conjunction with EU Directive 98/5, gives more details as to who can qualify as a representative before the UPC, and specifies that representatives shall lodge at the Registry:

  • a certificate confirming that there are lawyers authorised before a court of a Member State of the European Union; or
  • the European Patent litigation Certificate; or
  • justify otherwise that they have the appropriate qualifications to represent a party before the Court.

Rule 292 also makes clear that patent attorneys assisting  a representative as defined by article 48(1) and 48(2) shall be allowed to speak at hearings of the Court at the discretion of the UPC.

The UPC Case Management System has been updated and it is possible from today to discover and test the application for registering as a UPC representative. This form requires two sorts of information, first the representation entitlement, and then the applicant’s contact details. In conformity with article 48 of the UPCA,  five entitlements are listed: “Lawyers authorised to practise in Contracting member States, Patent Attorneys with EPLC, Patent Attorney with Law Diploma, Patent Attorney with other qualifications, Patent Attorney having represented a party on his own.”

Rule 293 – Change of Representative:

Rule 293 declares that parties are allowed to change representative by notifying the Registry that a new representative shall in future be representing the party concerned. The former representative however remains responsible for the conduct of the proceedings and the communication between the Court and the party concerned until the receipt by the Registry of the aforementioned notification.

On your marks, get set, go! Candidates Judges will be able to apply for the UPC before the end of March 2016.

UPC Judges recruitment 2019

A recent interview of Sir Robin Jacob, Chairman of the UPC Advisory Committee, gives indications as to the procedure and timeline that the UPC will follow to select and appoint judges. This selection should start within two months, with the publication at the end of February/beginning of March 2016 of an announcement and online application.

In 2013 an initial call for expression was published and received over 1300 responses, a much higher number than expected. This was not a formal job application but “an initial assessment prior to the formal application process” which allowed the UPC Advisory Committee to identify 354 eligible legally qualified judges  and 341 eligible technically qualified judges. Out of these candidate Judges,  183 required training and about 20 of them were sent to Budapest last year to learn about  basic patent law. Candidates who applied to this first call of expression and new candidates are now invited to submit their application to the new formal recruitment process.

The new online application process  should allow the Advisory Committee’s Human Resources and Training group to identify very quickly the legal, technical and languages expertise of the candidate judges and therefore facilitate the selection process. It is expected that about fifty legally and fifty technically qualified judges will be selected. The number of appointed judges will initially be kept small to match the expected workload.  A pool of appointable candidates will nonetheless be on hand to allow the UPC to respond if needed to high numbers of cases.

The fact that most judges will be working part-time for the UPC raises however two issues. First under the UPCA, national judges are allowed to work part-time at the UPC but lawyers can only do so with special permission. This, as highlighted by Sir Robin Jacob, can be a problem for countries such as the UK which have a specific tradition of using lawyers as judges on a part-time basis. Moreover, some countries do not permit their judges to be part-time, and this will necessitate an amendment of national laws.

 

 

UPC Judges training and appointments- What are the next steps in 2016?

UPC Judges recruitment 2019

As posted here the training for 18 “Extra Training Judges”and Technically Qualified Judges started in 2015. The next steps for the nomination in 2016 of UPC Judges were discussed at the EPLAW Congress in Brussels on 7th and 8th December 2015. It appears that:

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