Category: Unified Patent Court

Posted on

The Unified Patent Court and the «Malta problem»

One of the many challenges the UPC faces and which is currently the subject of questions and debates is the impact of the ratification of the European Patent Convention by member states on the UPC Agreement, or what is commonly called “the Malta problem”.  The UPC Blog would like here to introduce the main elements of the debate and open the topic to discussion.

 

The European Patent Convention was signed on 5 October 1973 and entered into force in 1977 for seven countries (Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Netherland and the United Kingdom). Malta on the contrary is a late-comer to the European Patent Convention and only joined on 1 March 2007, which means that European patent applications filed before 1 March 2007 are not valid in Malta by virtue of Article 79 (1) EPC. However, assuming that Malta ratifies the Unified Patent Court Agreement, its late ratification of the EPC will have direct consequences for the Unitary Patent at the scale of Europe.

 

Article 3(1) of regulation 1257/2012 requires in fact for the unitary effect “a European Patent granted with the same set of claims in respect of all the participating Member States”. The same article further states that “a European Patent granted with different sets of claims for different participating Member States shall not benefit from unitary effect.” Malta having been a member of the EPC since only 1 March 2007, any European Patent application filed before that date will not get a grant valid for Malta. Hence the granted European Patent will not have the same set of claims in all participating member states, since it would have a valid claim set for some states and no set at all for Malta.

 

This situation of course seems absurd: assuming that Malta ratifies the Agreement in a timely fashion it would appear that no European patent application filed before 1 March 2007 could be eligible to become a Unitary Patent.

 

One could argue that this is not really a problem since it will resolve itself. In fact, most applications will at some point have a filing date situated after 1 March 2007, and will thus be eligible. However, this problem will not in the future be limited to Malta. In fact what about new and future EU members? As for example Croatia, which joined the EU on 1 July 2013 and joined the EPC as recently as 1 January 2008, after being an extension state from 1 April 2004. As an EU member, Croatia is now able to opt in to the Unitary Patent package. So, if Croatia ratifies the Agreement, the same problem will apply, except that the cut-off date will now be 1 January 2008.

Other recent EPC-joiners that aren’t yet EU members are Norway (EPC since 1 January 2008), Albania (EPC since 1 May 2010), Macedonia (EPC since 1 January 2009), Serbia (EPC since 1 October 2010), and San Marino (EPC since 1 July 2009). Any of these joining the EU in the near future, and becoming Member States of the unitary patent, would shift the cut-off date even later.

It thus seems to the UPC Blog that the Unified Patent Court will have to decide between three possible interpretations of article 3 (1) of regulation 1257/2012.

 

The first interpretation would be a literal interpretation of article 3 (1) which would have for consequence that no European Patent with Unitary effect could be delivered for European Patents granted before 2007. This interpretation seems of course to be very unlikely.

 

The second interpretation would consider that if a European patent is not available in a country, the Unified Patent Court should then ignore that country rather than disqualify the Unitary Patent. The requirement of a European Patent “granted with the same set of claims in respect of all the participating Member States” could hence be read as follows: in all participating Member States for which the patent is granted, it should have the same claims. But if the patent is not granted in a particular member state at all, the only effect is that it will not be included in the unitary effect. To a certain extent this will happen anyway. In fact, not all member states will ratify the UPC Agreement at the same time. So a European Patent with Unitary Effect obtained a few years after the Unified Patent Court Agreement enters into force will very probably concern more countries than a European Patent with Unitary Effect granted early 2015 (assuming that the UPC Agreement comes into force in early 2015 as planned by the UPC preparatory committee).

 

Finally, the third interpretation of article 3 (1) would require the Court to ignore the date of entry into force of the European Patent Convention. This interpretation would mean that a European Patent which could not have been filed for Malta before 2007 could get unitary effect on the basis of a European Patent with Unitary Effect much older than 2007. This situation would however affect third parties who may have relied on the fact that Malta was not covered by a European Patent before 2007.

 

The UPC Blog awaits your thoughts, comments and questions on the “Malta problem”.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Amendment of Brussels I Regulation: The Council of Justice Ministers agrees on a General Approach.

On 20 November 2012 the European Parliament voted in favour of the Legal Affairs’ Committee amendments to the European Commission’s proposal to reform the Brussels Regulation. The draft legislation was sent to the Council of the EU for final adoption, which took place on December 06th 2013 at the Council of Justice Ministers.

 

The Council agreed on a general approach on a proposal for a regulation amending Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, also known as Brussels I.

This general approach will constitute the basis for negotiations with the European Parliament in order to agree the final text of the regulation.

 

What needs to be amended?

Article 31 of the UPC Agreement states that the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court is to be established in accordance with Regulation 1215/2012, or, where applicable, the 2007 Lugano Convention. Article 89 of the UPC Agreement links the entry into force of that Agreement to the entry into force of the amendments to Regulation 1215/2012 concerning the relationship between those two instruments.

It is therefore necessary to amend Regulation 1215/2012, in particular to insert provisions which determine how the Unified Patent Court can exercise its international jurisdiction.

The Commission submitted its proposal in July 2013. Although the main objective of the proposal is to regulate the relationship between Regulation 1215/2012 and the UPC Agreement, it also takes into account the existence of the Benelux Court of Justice and the international jurisdiction to be exercised by that Court in specific matters which are covered by Regulation 1215/2012.

Source: Press release of the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting

Posted on

UPC –Appeals:

(A) Appeals on Infringement and Validity:

The UPC’s Court of Appeal may hear appeals against separate decisions on the merits in infringement proceedings and in validity proceedings together, under Rule 220.3 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC.

 

(B) Proceedings and languages:

In case of bifurcation at first instance, the language of proceedings before the local or regional division may not be the same as the language of proceedings before the central division. The language of proceedings before the Court of Appeal will however be the language of proceedings of the main action, namely the infringement action heard by the local or regional division. In such a case, the judge-rapporteur may order the appellant to lodge translations into the language of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal of written pleadings and other documents lodged by the parties before the Court of First Instance and decisions or orders of the Court of First Instance (Rule 232.1 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC).

 

(C) Appeals on points of Law and Matters of facts:

The appeal will neither be a complete rehearing of the first instance case nor will it be strictly limited to points of law. An appeal may be based on points of law and matters of fact (Article 73.3 of the UPC Agreement).

 

(D) New facts and arguments on Appeal:

A new fact or new evidence may only be introduced at the appeal stage if a party could not reasonably have been expected to submit it during proceedings at first instance (Article 73.4 of the UPC Agreement).

The UPC’s Rules of Procedure shall lay down further details relating to new facts and evidence.

In Rule 222.2 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC, it is provided that requests, facts and evidence, which have not been submitted by a party during proceedings at First Instance may be disregarded by the Court of Appeal. When exercising this discretion, the Court of Appeal shall in particular take into account:

  • whether a party seeking to lodge new submissions is able to justify that the new submissions could not reasonably have been made during proceedings before the Court of First Instance,
  • whether the new submissions are highly relevant for the decision on the appeal,
  • the position of the other party regarding the lodging of the new submissions.

 

 

(E) Allowed appeals:

Under Article 73 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 220.1 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC[6], the decisions of the Court of First Instance which may be appealed as of right are (1) final decisions, (2) decisions which terminate proceedings as regards one of the parties and (3) decisions or orders referred to in the following Articles of the UPC Agreement:

  • Article 49.5: decision of the President of the Court of First Instance to use the language in which the patent was granted as language of proceedings, at the request of one party.
  • Article 59: order to produce evidence and to communicate banking, financial or commercial documents.
  • Article 60: order to preserve evidence and to inspect premises.
  • Article 61: freezing order.
  • Article 62: order granting provisional and protective measures, including injunctions, seizure and delivery up.
  • Article 67: order to communicate information.

 

Other orders of the UPC may only be appealed together with the appeal against the final decision of the Court of First Instance, or where the Court grants leave to appeal (Article 73.2(b) of the UPC Agreement).

 

 

(F) Permission to Appeal:

Under Article 73.2(b)(ii) of the UPC Agreement, “the Court grants leave to appeal”. The Court is the UPC as such which means that the Court of First Instance as well as the Court of Appeal will be able to give permission to appeal.

 

Posted on

The UPC- Provisional and Protective measures and Bifurcation:

 

I. Provisional and Protective measures:

 

(A) The provisional measures granted by the UPC:

The UPC will have the power to:

  • order the seizure or delivery up of products suspected of infringing a patent, as well as the precautionary seizure of the movable and immovable property of the alleged infringer, including the blocking of the bank accounts and of other assets of the alleged infringer (Article 62.3 of the UPC Agreement).

 

 

(B) Provisional measures, strength of the plaintiff and other factors:

Before granting an injunction, the UPC will weigh up the interests of the parties and in particular take into account the potential harm for either of the parties resulting from the granting or the refusal of the injunction as stated in Article 62.2 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 211.3 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC.

Factors which the UPC shall take into account under Rule 209 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC include:

  • the outcome of any opposition  before the European Patent Office or any other proceedings before a national court,
  • the urgency of the case,
  • whether the defendant has been heard,
  • whether any protective letter has been filed.

 

The UPC may also require the party applying for an injunction to provide reasonable evidence in order to satisfy the UPC with a sufficient degree of certainty that the party is the right holder and that his right is being infringed, or that such infringement is imminent under Article 62.4 of the UPC Agreement.

 

(C) Interim Measures and Exclusive Jurisdiction:

The UPC is a court common to the Contracting Member States as stated in Article 1.2 of the UPC Agreement, in which it has exclusive jurisdiction. However, decisions and orders -like for example an order to preserve evidence- can under certain circumstances be enforced outside the territories of the Contracting Member States in accordance with Regulation 1215/2012.

 

(D) Interim measures without involving the defendant:

Under Article 62.5 of the UPC Agreement, where necessary to avoid any delay which could cause irreparable harm to the patent proprietor, or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed, the UPC will have the power to grant – without hearing the defendant – provisional and protective measures (injunctions, seizure or delivery up).

Similarly, the UPC may order measures to preserve evidence or inspect premises and grant freezing orders without hearing the defendant (Articles 60.5 and 61.2 of the UPC Agreement; and Rule 212 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC).

 

(E) Protective Letter:

A protective letter may be filed at the UPC, typically where a person considers that there is a risk that an application for provisional measures against him as a defendant be lodged before the UPC (Rule 207 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC).

It is envisaged that a protective letter may be filed at any time. It may contain facts, evidence and arguments of law and set out the reasons why any future application for provisional measures should be rejected by the UPC. It is furthermore envisaged that a fee should be paid. The protective letter would have effect for a period of 6 months (extendable upon payment of an extension fee). It would not be made public.

 

 

II. Bifurcation:

 

(A) Infringement and Validity actions:

If an infringement action is initiated before the central division of the UPC and a counterclaim for invalidity is brought before the central division, both infringement and validity will be dealt with together.

If an infringement action is initiated before a local or regional division of the UPC and a counterclaim for invalidity of the patent is brought before the local or regional division concerned, Article 33.3 of the UPC Agreement foresees different scenarios:

  • The local or regional division concerned may decide to proceed both with the infringement action and the counterclaim for invalidity together (in this case it has to request the allocation of a technically qualified judge with qualifications and experience in the field of technology concerned);
  • it may alternatively decide to refer the counterclaim for invalidity for decision to the central division and, depending on the circumstances of the case, either suspend or proceed with the infringement action (Rule 37.4 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC provides further guidance to the local or regional division on the criteria to consider when deciding whether to suspend or to proceed with the infringement action);
  • with the agreement of the parties, the local or regional division concerned may also decide to refer both the infringement action and the counterclaim for invalidity to the central division, where they will be dealt with together.

 

(B) UPC’s discretion as to hear infringement and validity together:

Article 33.3 of the UPC Agreement leaves it to the discretion of the local or regional division concerned to decide whether to proceed with the infringement action and the counterclaim for invalidity together or whether to refer the counterclaim for decision to the central division.

In the latter case it is also left to the discretion of the division concerned whether to proceed with the infringement action or whether to stay the infringement proceedings and to wait for the counterclaim for invalidity to be decided on by the central division.

It is expected that the division concerned will take these decisions taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including grounds of fairness to the parties.

 

 

Posted on

UPC Procedure and Languages:

(A) Language of proceedings in the UPC:

In the Court of First Instance, the official language will be the official language or one of the official languages of the Contracting Member State hosting the local division or the official language(s) designated by the Contracting Member States sharing a regional division. The language of proceedings in the central division shall be the language in which the patent was granted. The language of proceedings before the Court of Appeal shall be the language of proceedings before the Court of First Instance (Article 49 and 50 of the UPC Agreement).

However there are exceptions to the main rule:

  • The Contracting Member States may designate one or more of the official languages of the European Patent Office in addition or instead of their official language as the language of proceedings of their local or regional division.
  • The parties may agree to use the language of the patent (applies also in the Court of Appeal).
  • With the Agreement of the parties the competent panel of the Court of First Instance may decide to use the language of the patent.
  • At the request of one of the parties and after having heard the other parties and the competent panel the President of the Court of First Instance may decide to use the language of the patent.

 

 

(B) Translation and Costs:

Every document will normally need to be translated into the language of proceedings. The party submitting the document will bear the costs for the translation. This will however be a cost that can be recuperated from the losing party (Rule 7 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC). Any Panel of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal may, to the extent deemed appropriate, dispense with translation requirements (Article 51.1 of the UPC Agreement).

Under certain circumstances when an infringement action is brought before the central division of the Court of First Instance a defendant having its residence or place of business in a Contracting Member State shall have the right to obtain translations of relevant documents in the language of the Member State of residence or place of business. The costs shall be covered by the plaintiff (Article 51.3 of the UPC Agreement).

When the President of the Court of First Instance (at the request of one of the parties and after having heard the other parties and the competent panel) has decided to use the language in which the patent was granted as language of proceedings the President shall also assess the need for specific translation and interpretation arrangements (Article 49.5 of the UPC Agreement).

 

(C) Translations for the Court of Appeal:

If the language of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal is not the language of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. Then the judge-rapporteur may order the appellant to lodge translations into the language of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal of written pleadings and other documents lodged by the parties as well as decisions or orders of the Court of First Instance. The costs shall be covered by the appellant (Rule 232 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC).

 

(D) Interpretation to assist parties at the oral proceedings:

If the judge-rapporteur decides that simultaneous interpretation is appropriate then the cost is covered by the UPC. In the event that the judge-rapporteur refuses to order simultaneous interpretation the parties may request arrangements to be made, so far as practically possible, for simultaneous interpretation at their cost (Article 51.2 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 109 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC).

 

 

Posted on

UPC Procedure and Parties to Proceedings and Representation:

(A) Licensees:

The holder of an exclusive licence is entitled to bring actions before the UPC under the same circumstances as the patent proprietor, except where the licensing agreement provides otherwise. Under Article 47.2 of the UPC Agreement, the patent proprietor must be given prior notice. A holder of a non-exclusive licence is on the other hand not entitled to bring actions before the UPC, unless the patent proprietor is given prior notice and in so far as expressly permitted by the licence agreement (Article 47.3 of the UPC Agreement).

Moreover, in any action brought by a licensee, the patent proprietor shall be entitled to join the action (Article 47.4 of the UPC Agreement).

 

(B) Representation of third parties before the UPC:

Under Article 48 of the UPC Agreement, representation before the UPC will be mandatory and parties will have to represented by either:

  • a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Contracting Member State; or

 

  • a European Patent Attorney who has acquired additional appropriate qualifications such as a European Patent Litigation Certificate. However, the issue of how a European Patent Attorney will obtain an independent right to represent clients at the UPC still has to be considered by the Contracting Member states and the Preparatory Committee.

 

 

Posted on

UPC Procedure:

 

!! The Rules of Procedure for the Unitary Patent Court are yet to be finalized and adopted by the UPC Preparatory Committee  !!

 

I. Start of proceedings (written procedure):

(A) Initial pleading and what needs to be submitted to the UPC:

Depending on the type of action to be started, the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC lays down what the corresponding Statement or Application shall contain:

  • a Statement of claim shall contain the items listed in Rule 13;

 

  • a Statement for revocation shall contain the items listed in Rule 45;

 

  • a Statement for a declaration of non-infringement shall contain the items listed in Rule 60;

 

  • an Application for appropriate compensation under Article 8.1 of Regulation 1257/2012 shall contain the items listed in Rule 80;

 

  • an Application to annul or alter a decision of the European Patent Office shall contain the items listed in Rule 88;

 

  • an Application for obtaining provisional and protective measures and injunctions shall contain the items listed in Rules 192 and 206.

 

 

(B) Starting proceedings before the UPC:

Depending on the type of action which is to be started, the plaintiff shall lodge either:

  • a Statement of claim (infringement action)

 

  • a Statement for revocation (revocation action)

 

  • a Statement for a declaration of non-infringement

 

 

 

Similarly, an action for obtaining provisional and protective measures and injunctions will start when a plaintiff lodges an Application under Rules 192 and 206 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC.

 

(C) Registration of the plaintiff’s proceedings:

A plaintiff shall lodge the Statement or Application at a sub-registry of the UPC’s Registry. A sub-registry will be set up at all local or regional divisions as well as at the central division’s seat and sections (Article 10.3 of the UPC Agreement). The plaintiff may in many instances choose between several divisions, in accordance with the competence of the divisions under Article 33 of the UPC Agreement.

It is currently planned that an electronic filing system will be set up so that a plaintiff will be able to lodge the statement or Application electronically at the UPC’s Registry (Rule 4 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC).

A Statement of appeal against a decision of the UPC’s Court of First Instance – or an Application for leave to appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance – shall be lodged at the UPC’s Registry in Luxembourg. Electronic filing procedures are also planned for the appeal stage.

 

 

 

II. Interim Measures procedure:

(A) End of the Written procedure:

The aim of the Interim procedure is to make all necessary preparations for the oral hearing (Rule 101 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC). The judge-rapporteur shall be responsible for the Interim Procedure and may in particular – where necessary, and subject to the mandate of the panel – hold one or more Interim conferences with the parties. In addition, the judge-rapporteur shall explore with the parties the possibility for a settlement, including through mediation, and/or arbitration, by using the facilities of the Patent mediation and arbitration centre (Article 52.2 of the UPC Agreement).

Further provisions in the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC lay down that the judge-rapporteur may order parties to provide further clarification on specific points, answer specific questions, produce evidence or lodge specific documents including each party’s summary of the orders sought at the Interim conference (Rule 103 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC).

 

(B) Cross examination of witnesses in Interim procedure:

Only preparatory discussions with witnesses and experts may take place during the Interim procedure (Rule 104(f) of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC). These preparatory discussions shall take place in the presence of the parties with a view to properly preparing for the oral hearing.

 

(C) UPC compliance penalty:

The UPC has a general power to impose a penalty on a party which does not comply with an order of the UPC (Article 82.4 UPC Agreement; Rule 354.5 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC). The penalty shall be proportionate to the importance of the order to be enforced.

In the Interim procedure, the judge-rapporteur may order the parties to provide additional information (Rule 103 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC). During an Interim hearing, the judge-rapporteur may issue orders regarding the production of further pleadings and documents, experts, experiments, inspections or further written evidence (Rule 105(e) of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC).

 

 

III. Oral procedure :

(A) Witness cross-examination :

Witnesses will only be heard during the oral procedure if ordered during the Interim procedure (Rule 112.2(b) of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC). If ordered, witnesses and experts may be heard – always under the control of the presiding judge – either during a separate hearing before the panel or during the oral hearing (Rules 104(h) and 112.3 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC). Where a witness or expert is heard during the oral hearing, the presiding judge and the judges of the panel may put questions to the witness or expert. The parties may also – under the control of the presiding judge – put questions to the witness or expert (Rule 112.3 and .4 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC).

 

(B) UPC’s decision:

Only in exceptional cases may the UPC give its decision immediately after the closure of the oral hearing. In such cases the written reasoning will be provided on a subsequent date.

Normally, the UPC’s decisions on the merits will be given after the closure of the oral hearing, as soon as possible. The stated objective is that decisions are issued in writing within six weeks of the oral hearing (Rule 118.7 of the draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC).

 

IV. Evidence:

Any means of evidence may be relied on in the UPC proceedings. In addition, evidence may be obtained by hearing witnesses and party or court experts. The court may order a party to the proceedings to produce evidence. Such an order may be requested by a party which submits reasonable and plausible evidence to support its claims and specifies the evidence which is in the control of the other party. If a party fails to comply with an order to produce evidence this will be taken into account in the court’s decision.

The UPC may issue orders to preserve evidence, such as the inspection of physical objects or premises and the taking of samples. It may also order the seizure of allegedly infringing goods and the materials for producing such goods. Freezing orders are possible under certain circumstances, and may be issued without hearing the defendant.

 

 

Posted on

The Unified Patent Court – Overview and Background.

(A) The current situation:

Currently, national courts and authorities of the contracting states of the European Patent Convention are competent to decide on the infringement and validity of European patents.

In practice, this gives rise to a number of difficulties when a patent proprietor wishes to enforce a European patent – or when a third-party seeks the revocation of a European patent – in several countries: high costs, risk of diverging decisions and lack of legal certainty. Forum shopping is also inevitable as parties seek to take advantage of differences in national courts’ interpretation of harmonized European patent law and in procedural laws, as well as differences in speed (between “slow” and “quick” courts) and in the level of damages awarded.

The Unified Patent Court Agreement addresses the above problems by creating a specialized patent court, the “Unified Patent Court”, or UPC, with exclusive jurisdiction for litigation relating to European patents and European patents with unitary effect (unitary patents).

 

(B) The UPC Structure:

The UPC will comprise a Court of First Instance, a Court of Appeal and a Registry. The Court of First Instance will be composed of a central division (with seat in Paris and two sections in London and Munich) and by several local and regional divisions in the Contracting Member States to the Agreement. The Court of Appeal will be located in Luxembourg.

 

(C) Panel Composition:

The UPC panels will have both legally and technically qualified judges from all over Europe.

Panels in the local/regional divisions will be made up of three legally qualified judges. In addition it will be possible to appoint a technically qualified judge from a pool of judges, either on request of one of the parties or on the panel’s own initiative. For local divisions, two of the three legally qualified judges must be nationals of the contracting state in which the division is set up if this state has 50 or more patent cases per year. Otherwise, only one judge from this state will be required. For regional divisions the same rule applies with the condition that two judges come from the region.

Panels in the central division will be made up of two legally qualified judges who are nationals of different contracting member states and one technically qualified judge with qualifications and experience in the relevant technological field.  When hearing actions concerning certain EPO decisions, the panel will be composed of three legally qualified judges.

Panels in the court of appeal will be made up of three legally qualified judges who are nationals of different contracting member states and two technically qualified judges with qualifications and experience in the relevant technological field.

 

(D) Entry into force

The UPC will come into existence and start its operations immediately after the UPC Agreement enters into force.

As explained by the UPC Preparatory commitment, “the Agreement will enter into force on the first day of the fourth month after the fulfillment of the following two requirements (whichever is the latest):

1. The deposit of the thirteenth instrument of ratification, including Germany, the United Kingdom and France (the three Contracting Member States in which the highest number of European patents had effect in 2012).

2. The date of entry into force of the amendments to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Regulation) concerning its relationship with the Agreement.[4]” The European Commission is expected to present a proposal during 2013. The necessary amendments can then be adopted and enter into force before the target date of the entering into force of the UPC in early 2015.

The Preparatory Committee is officially working towards early 2015 as a target date for the UPC to be set up.

 

(E) Implementation

The signatory states of the UPC Agreement are working together to ensure that the UPC is fully operational by the time the Agreement comes into force. To this end the Preparatory Committee oversees work in five main areas:

  • Legal framework of the UPC,
  • Financial aspects of the court,
  • IT,
  • Facilities,
  • HR & Judicial Training.

Each area has been assigned to a working group with the responsibility to develop proposals. The details and the target dates are established in the roadmap of the Preparatory Committee which is published on the official website of the Committee and can be found here.

 

(F) Enforcement of UPC decisions

Any ruling by the court on a patent will be simultaneously valid in all countries in which that patent has been validated and will be enforced under procedures governed by the law of the country(ies) where enforcement takes place.

 

 (G) Fees

The fee system for the court is yet to be finalized, but will be agreed upon by the participating Member States according to Article 36 (3) of the Agreement. In setting the fees Member States will need to balance the need to ensure the Court is accessible for users, especially SME’s, with the requirement in the Agreement that the system will eventually self financing.