Category: Ratification & Brexit

Posted on

The UK Supreme court, IP Federation and Protocol on Privileges and Immunities

The UK Supreme Court announced last week that the UK Government could not trigger article 50 without Parliamentary approval. The ruling was followed by the publication by the UK government of the Brexit bill , for a vote in Parliament next week, while the actual trigger of article 50 is planned for the end of March. However, Theresa May’s speech which preceded the Supreme Court’s ruling has left many wondering about the actual possibility for the UK to remain a member of the UPC once it has left the EU.

In fact, although the UK government expressed its support for the ratification of the UPCA  many questions remain. Indeed, neither Baroness Neville Rolfe’s announcement  nor the intervention of the new Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Jo Johnson),  clarify whether it is possible for a state which is a Member of the European Union when the UPCA comes into force, to remain a contracting state after it leaves the European Union, whether the UPCA could be amended to allow  for any non-EU members to become UPC members, or what will happen to the London central division if the UK cannot remain a member of the UPC. Mr Johnson only stated that the UK’s decision to proceed with ratification  “should not be seen as pre-empting the UK’s objectives or position in the forthcoming negotiations with the EU”.  Overall he highlighted that the aforementioned questions will only be answered by the Brexit negotiations.

However, with the UPC planned to become operational in December 2017,  the question of the continuity of UK’s participation to the UPC once it has left the EU is central for all users of the court and future unitary patent applicants.

In this regard, the UK IP Federation issued two statements . In its first statement dated December 2016, it urges contracting states to “work together to enable the UK to stay in the system after Brexit and to prepare transitional provisions in case this is not possible“. It further calls for  “legal instruments to be developed that enable the UK to remain part of the system or for appropriate reassurances to be provided if this is not thought necessary” and “upon the UK and the other contracting states to work together urgently to provide a legally secure route by which the UK can remain in the UPC after Brexit.”  In case the UK cannot remain part of the UPC after Brexit the IP Federation asks the UK government to “provide assurances that any Unitary Patents will be recognised as UK national patents. The UK and other contracting states will also need to produce transitional arrangements to govern what will happen to ongoing litigation at the UPC and to ensure the continued functioning of the court.”

In its second statement dated January 2017, the signatories which describe themselves as “IP intensive companies in the United Kingdom”  list 7 specific demands and notably that “all accrued and pending intellectual property rights (…) be preserved in the UK post-Brexit;” that “(t)he UK (…) provide(s) for the ability to obtain equivalent UK rights in the UK post-Brexit”, and that once the UPC is established “the involvement of non-EU, European Patent Convention Contracting States (e.g. Switzerland, Norway) in the UPC (…) (is) explored”. 

To the best of our knowledge, these statements have not been publicly answered by the UK government. This is not to say however that the UK is not making progress on the ratification of the UPCA, as showed by the fact that the Protocol on Priviledges and Immunities was laid in Parliament on 20th January 2017 in the form of a Command Paper (government publications presented to parliament) and an explanatory memorandum. This protocol will ensure that the UPC judges benefit from the privileges and immunities necessary to their function and to the operation of the UPC.

 

 

Posted on

A general update on the ratification progress in the 26 signatories of the UPCA:

UK ratifies the UPC Agreement

The Institute of Professional Representatives before the EPO (epi) has published a table summarizing the state of the ratification and the planned local, regional and central divisions of the UPC.

Beyond the 11 countries (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden) which have ratified the UPCA and deposited their instrument of ratification, the 15 remaining states can be divided between those that have made progress towards ratification, and those that have either come to a standstill or have not yet started the process of ratification.

I. Countries which have the least satisfactory record for ratification:

Cyprus: No progress with regard to ratification.

Czech Republic: According to the epi, although no progress has taken place regarding ratification “a study is expected to be carried out on the impact of the UPC on Czech firms and on the Czech economy and budget.“

Croatia: The position of the new government on joining the enhanced cooperation in view of taking part in the UPC is awaited.

Greece: No progress with regard to ratification.

Hungary: No progress with regard to ratification but “(a) study on the impact of the UPC on the Hungarian economy, ordered by the Hungarian Patent Office, was conducted by PWC. The outcome of this study was negative. However, a new study, ordered by the Ministry of Justice, as the competent body, is under preparation by EY. The result of the study will not be binding.“

Ireland: The new Irish government has shown no political willingness to organise a referendum for the ratification of the UPC.

Poland: After participating to the enhanced cooperation, Poland decided not to sign the UPCA. Its position has not changed.

Slovak Republic: No progress regarding ratification. the Slovak government “will wait until the system is operational. Officials are discussing whether a study on the impact of the UPC on the Slovak economy should be conducted. There are concerns about the increase in density of patents, the level of the fees and the pro-patent approach of the UPC. The Ministry of Justice will look into the CJEU decisions.“

Spain: The position of the new government on the unitary patent package is awaited.

II. Countries that have moved towards ratification :

Estonia: According to the epi, the Estonian Ministry of Justice “has made a draft law for ratification. This has been circulated at the end of September 2016 among Estonian patent attorneys for opinion. The date for ratification is not yet known.“

Germany: The ratification bill has been brought before Parliament. More here.

Italy: “On 30 Sept 2015 Italy has joined the unitary patent and became the 26th member of the enhanced cooperation on unitary patent protection. After approval by the Government, the Italian Parliament (…) has approved the UPCA ratification instrument.” Italy has not yet however ratified the UPCA. More on the italy participation to the UPC here, here, here, and here.

Latvia: According to the epi, the Ministry of Justice  had planned “to submit documents on the ratification to the Cabinet of Ministers in the first half of year 2016“.  Latvia has not however ratified the UPC yet.

Lithuania: “Draft legislation to ratify the UPCA, to amend the patent law and to establish the regional division has been submitted to Parliament.” However, the epi indicates that due to the coming elections, the UPCA ratification is not expected before spring 2017. More here.

Romania: “In Romania, the ratification process is ongoing. The Protocol on provisional application was signed on 14 September 2016. (…) Ratification by Romania is expected to be finished in the second half of 2016.“

Slovenia: “In Slovenia the legislation for ratification of the UPCA has been approved by Parliament. The Government is expected to deposit the instrument of ratification shortly, as it announced at the meeting of the EU Competitiveness Council on 29 September 2016.“

III. Situation of the UK:

The UK  adopted the Statutory Instrument [SI] in March 2016. See here. This SI adapts the national patent law with respect to the UP and the UPC. It will enter into force when the UPCA enters into force. A second SI is required to implement to the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities. This is expected to be finished within short time.

However, now that the UK has decided to leave the EU it is unclear whether it will ratify the UPCA. The epi emphasises that “(t)he UK may only continue to participate in the Unitary Patent by entering into a new international agreement with the participating EU Member States. Further, it is legally possible for the UK to continue to participate in the UPC after “Brexit” and to host the Life Sciences/Chemistry section of the court, but changes would have to be made to the UPC Agreement.” And finally, “(t)he UK’s continued participation would require it to submit to EU law regarding proceedings before the Court. It would also need to sign up to an appropriate jurisdiction and enforcement regime“.

The UPC Blog has looked in depth at the multilayered issues surrounding Brexit and the UPC, which you can find here:

“What is the impact of the UK’s referendum on its EU membership on the UPCA?”

“What future for the UPC now that the UK has voted to leave the EU?”

“The future of the Unitary Patent package as seen by the EPO”

“UK’s IPO update on Brexit”

“More on Brexit from the AIPPI”

“An inquiry into the effect of Brexit on the UPC and UP“

Posted on

An inquiry into the effect of Brexit on the UPC and UP:

Brexit and the German constitutional challenge

The British government has announced at the Tory Party Conference on Sunday 02nd October that article 50 will be triggered by the end of March 2017. The government also gave details of a “Great Repeal Bill“, which would repeal the 1972 European Communities Act – the law that binds EU law to the British statute book – and  transpose EU legislation into British law in its entirety.

Among the legal issues that the British government will have to handle in the coming months, the UK’s participation to the UPC is of course a major concern for UK and EU IP lawyers.

The UPC Blog has already looked at this issue and its versatile political environment in different posts here.

This post however focuses specifically on the unequivocal -though not definite- legal answers on the UK’s participation to the UPC and UP brought by two barristers from Brick Court Chambers, Richard Gordon QC and Tom Pascoe, in their opinion on the legal consequences  of Brexit “on the Unitary Patent Regulation and the Unified Patent Court Agreement”. This opinion was commissioned by the IP Federation, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Intellectual Property Lawyers Association who have all expressed their support for the UK’s participation to the UPC after Brexit.  20 UK law firms  (among who Simmons & Simmons, Linklaters, Herbert Smith Freehills, CMS UK, Gowling WLG, Bird & Bird, Collyer Bristow, Browne Jacobson and European IP firms Carpmaels & Ransford and EIP) have also backed this inquiry into UK’s post-Brexit UPC membership.

 

Télécharger (PDF, 264KB)

 

Richard Gordon and Tom Pascoe’s opinion answers six questions:

1a. Can the UK continue to be part of the UP?

“The UK may only continue to participate in the unitary patent by entering into a new international agreement with the participating EU Member States. The permissibility of such an agreement under EU law would turn upon essentially the same matters as the legality of the UK’s continuing participation in the UPCA.”

1b. Can the UK continue to participate in the UPCA?

“It is legally possible for the UK to continue to participate in the UPCA after ‘Brexit’ (although the CJEU’s reasoning in Opinion 1/09 is opaque and there is therefore a risk that the CJEU would find otherwise).”

1c. Can the UK continue to host the Life Sciences/Chemistry section of the central division?

“Provided that it is legally possible for the UK to continue to participate in the UPCA, there is no reason why it cannot continue to host a section of the central division.”

2. What changes would have to be made to the UPCA?

“A number of amendments would have to be made to the Agreement” by way of amendments to the UPCA and separate international agreements. Pascoe and Gordon consider that five amendments need to be made in the UPCA at article 1, 2(c), 21, 29, 84 and 88. An international agreement would also need to be entered into between the UK and the Union for the CJEU to accept preliminary references. Finally the UK will need to consider its options for replacing the Brussels Regulation, with notably the Lugano Convention.

3. What would the UK have to sign up to?

“The UK’s continued participation in the UPCA would require it to submit to EU law in its entirety as regards proceedings before the UPC. It would also need to sign up to an appropriate jurisdiction and enforcement regime (such as the Lugano Convention).”

4. Does it matter whether the UK joins the EEA?

“Our advice does not depend upon whether the UK joins the EEA.”

5. Is it possible or desirable to obtain an opinion from the CJEU?

“It would only be possible to obtain a pre-emptive opinion from the CJEU on the legality of the UPCA if the Union became a party to the Agreement.”

6.What would be the consequences of Brexit if the UK ratifies the UPCA without amendment?

“If the UK ratified the UPCA, without amendment, and subsequently left the EU, any divisions of the UPC in the UK would have to cease operating. The transitional consequences of this are matters of detail to be negotiated as part of the UK’s exit negotiations.”

 

Gordon and Pascoe conclude that after Brexit: the UK may only continue to participate in the unitary patent by entering into an international agreement with the EU and its Member States, and in the UPC so long as it signs the UPCA. On the other hand if the UK ratified the UPCA without amendment while still a member of the EU, the UK divisions of the UPC would have to cease operating once the UK leaves the EU. The authors also highlight the role of the CJEU who might reach different conclusions. However, according to Gordon and Pascoe, it would only be possible to obtain a pre-emptive opinion from the CJEU on the legality of the UPC if the Union became a party to the Agreement.

 

Finally, it is important to point out that the British government’s decision to trigger article 50 is being challenged by the People Challenge group, a group of “concerned British Citizens” (You can read the story behind this case here). A hearing will take place next week to decide whether the government can rely on the royal prerogative or whether an act of Parliament must be passed to allow the government to trigger article 50.

Last week, the People Challenge group were granted the right to publish the Government’s defense documents. The People Challenge group’s skeleton arguments as well as UK Government’s detailed grounds of resistance can be found below.

It is however impossible to say whether, were the Court to decide that only Parliament can invoke article 50, this would have any impact on Brexit and let alone on the UK’s participation to the UPC.

 

  •  The People Challenge group’s skeleton argument:

Télécharger (PDF, 554KB)

 

  • The UK Government’s detailed grounds of resistance :

Télécharger (PDF, 1015KB)

 

 

Posted on

Ratification by the Netherlands confirmed

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

The Netherlands have deposited on 14/09/16 their instrument of ratification to the general Secretariat of the Council, thereby becoming the 11th country to have ratified the UPCA.

For the Unified Patent Court Agreement to come into effect 13 countries including France, Germany and the United Kingdom must deposit their instruments of ratification. The UK’s ratification however has become very uncertain after Brexit and Germany’s ratification has allegedly been put on hold until the UK’s participation to the UPC and UP is decided.

Posted on

More on Brexit from the AIPPI 2016:

Brexit and the German constitutional challenge

For want of anything better (ie, real concrete news about what the UK will do regarding the UPC), more discussions as to whether the UK should or will be a member of the UPC have taken place at the AIPPI 2016 congress this week.

The World Intellectual Property Review reports that Margot Fröhlinger, principal director of patent law and multilateral affairs at the EPO, reiterated the EPO’s commitment to the UPC and its desire to see the UK participate even after Brexit.

She highlighted that the “project is ready to be implemented” and, that considering the investment that has already been made as well as the momentum the UP and UPC project created, the UPC “will not been brought to a halt”.

It also appears that the EPO would prefer the UK to be a member of the UPC and unitary patent so that neither of them lose attractiveness. The UK was in fact in 2015 the third country of origin of patent filings and has highly regarded judges from who the UPC could benefit.

Finally, Margot Fröhlinger clarified the issue of the UK’s participation to the UPC after Brexit, and said it would be legally possible for the UK to join the UPC as long as it signed safeguards to ensure the supremacy of EU law. She pointed out that if the UK were to ratify before leaving the EU, it could count on the goodwill of other EU member states.

This obviously raised the question as to what will happen if the UK does not ratify the UPC Agreement.  Margot Fröhlinger appeared  to think that the UPC members will have to “find a way to go ahead without the UK”. This would require a re-ratification but could probably be expedited through a simplified procedure in most contracting member states.

Clemens Heusch, Nokia’s head of European litigation, on the other hand shared his skepticism as to the UK’s ratification of the UPC Agreement, and highlighted the legal uncertainty surrounding the UK’s participation to the UPC after it leaves the EU, despite the EPO’s reassurance on this question.

Lastly, yesterday’s session also heard from Thierry Sueur, vice-president of IP at Air Liquide, a French industrial gases and services provider who underscored that the UPC and the unitary patent are, despite Brexit, still considered by industries as central for innovation and economic growth…

 

 

Posted on

UK IPO’s update on Brexit:

Brexit and the German constitutional challenge

The UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO), the official government body responsible for intellectual property  rights, published a note entitled “IP and Brexit: The Facts” which intends to clarify  “the future of (UK) intellectual property laws following the recent Referendum decision“.

It succinctly highlights the different international IP agreements that UK right holders and businesses can make use of for trademarks, copyrights, patents, designs and enforcement. It also invites IP users to share their views on how to address some of the issues created by the Brexit such as the right of UK IP professionals to represent clients before the EU Intellectual Property Office, or the protection of designs in the UK.

Regarding patents, the IPO is keen to emphasise that “British exit from the EU will not affect the current European patent system as governed by the European Patent Convention” and that “the referendum result has no impact on UK businesses’ ability to apply to the European Patent Office for patent protection“. By contrast, the question of the UPC is addressed only very briefly in a paragraph which  stresses the UK’s continuing participation in the UPC in its capacity as Contracting Member State. However, although it specifically mentions that the UK will continue “to attend and participate in UPC meetings ” the IPO gives no indication as to the possible scenarios  which could allow the UK to take part in the UPC once it leaves the EU…

 

Posted on

The future of the Unitary Patent package as seen by the EPO:

Brexit and the German constitutional challenge

Benoît Batistelli, the EPO’s president published this week a communiqué on the future of the Unitary Patent package following a conference hosted by the EPO in Munich.

It appears that the participants were eager to find ways for the Unitary Patent package to go ahead and enter into operation as soon as possible. Benoit Batistelli highlighted in his communiqué that “at a time of economic challenges and significant budgetary constraints for companies, businesses should not be denied the economic advantages and cost savings offered by the Unitary Patent package”.

Another trend common to the event organised in Paris by the UJUB and the conference organised in Munich by the EPO was the  hope that “political leaders will listen to the pleas of the user community to go ahead with the Unitary Patent package”, especially as the UPC will be ready to begin operating once the necessary ratifications of the UPC Agreement are obtained.

Panel discussions among business representatives also  confirmed that “users are by and large happy with the envisaged implementation, including renewal fees, the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court, and other decisions of the UPC Preparatory Committee”, while a panel discussion among renowned patent judges showed that “future UPC judges will be well prepared for the challenges and that proceedings can be expected to be handled in the most efficient way”. It appears therefore that the expectations in Paris and in Munich for the UPC were very high and that users are eager to see the UPC in action.

Different scenarios for the best way to proceed with the Unitary Patent package were therefore addressed . According to the EPO,  the best case scenario would see the UK going ahead as soon as possible with the ratification of the UPC Agreement. This would allow the UK afterwards, in its EU exit negotiations, to obtain its continuous participation both in the Unified Patent Court and the Unitary Patent.  In fact, as discussed in Paris, “with the UK having brought the system into operation by ratification and having participated in the system from the beginning, it is possible that Member States may allow the continued participation of the UK , even after the ‘Brexit’ takes effect”. The EPO’s president noted however in his communiqué that, even if the UK were not to take part in the Unitary Patent package, there seems to be “a clear feeling in the international user community that the system would remain sufficiently attractive for many”.

Finally, the EPO expressed in its communiqué its support for the UPC, and “stands ready not only to register the first Unitary Patents, but also to assist as much as possible in finding appropriate solutions in the interest of our user community and our Contracting States.”

With Theresa May becoming the new UK Prime Minister today in the UK, one can hope that the UPC will be on her agenda in the coming months.

Posted on

What future for the UPC now that the UK has voted to leave the EU?

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

On Wednesday (06/07/16) the Union pour la Juridiction Unifiée des Brevets (Union for the Unified Patent Jurisdiction) organised in Paris a conference on the consequences of the Brexit for the UPC. (See the recorded video below)  The participants,  Thierry Sueur, chairman of the IP Committee of the MEDEF -the French business federation- representing the European industry, Professor Winfried Tilmann from Hogan Lovells, Rowan Freeland from Simmons&Simmons, and Alexander Ramsay, chairman of the UPC Preparatory Committee, outlined  the legal and political consequences of the Brexit on the UPC and the immediate next steps for the Preparatory and Advisory Committee in this regard.

After an opening by Pierre Véron who reflected on the shock of the Brexit news (shared by the audience), Thierry Sueur highlighted the position of the European Industry which is demanding that the ratification process continues in order for the UPC to come live, and he thus pleaded for the UK to ratify the UPCA and its protocol. According to him, ratification by the UK would in fact allow the UPC to meet its opening deadline in Spring 2017 and would leave the door open for the UK to take part in the UPC and the Unitary Patent package.

Professor Winfried Tilmann then addressed the question of whether the UK can still take part in the UPC. First Professor Tilmann argued that there were strong political arguments to justify the UK’s ratification. In fact, the UK is still and until the end of the two-year period after its notification of withdrawal under article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, a member of the EU and, as both houses of British parliament have already started working on ratifying the UPCA, the ratification could therefore be quite straightforward.  He also noted that the UPCA is an international treaty that does not derive from EU law, and that although the UPC shall be a court common to the Contracting Member States -and thus subject to the same obligations under Union law as any national court of the Contracting Member States- it is not a court of the EU -contrary to the ECJ. This would thus mean that the UK local and central divisions could remain in London, and that UK practitioners and judges could take part in the UPC.

Regarding the legal factors involved in considering whether the UK could leave the EU but still be a contracting member state under the UPCA, article 84 of the UPCA appears to be an obstacle. In fact it provides that only EU member states may ratify the UPCA. According to Professor Tilmann, this condition implies, that countries which ratify the UPCA remain EU member states. Therefore if the UK leaves the EU pursuant to article 62, 65, and 67 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, both the UK and the other signatories of the UPCA, would have the right to cancel the contractual relationship between the UK and themselves.  Article 84 would thus need to be amended to allow the UK to be a signatory to the UPCA even after leaving the EU. Such a change is possible for Contracting Member States on the basis of article 149a(1)(a) of the European Patent Convention and would not require them to re-ratify an amended UPCA. The amendments to the UPCA could in fact be included in the Brexit agreement which would in turn  have the quality of Union law and “pursuant to article 87(2) UPCA, the Administrative Committee has the power to change the UPCA in order to bring it in line with Union law”.

However it is important to note that, were the UK to leave the EU after ratifying the amended UPCA,  it would be bound by the ECJ’s decisions and by its interpretation of EU law as the UPC has the obligation to refer questions on EU law to the ECJ. The UK would also be jointly and severally liable for damages with other contracting member states as provided by the UPCA. Finally, during the transitional period, national UK courts would also be bound by the UPCA within the same remit as stated above.

The legal consequences of the UK leaving the EU would nonetheless be wider than those faced for the UK’s participation to the UPC. In fact the unitary effect would also need to be extended to the UK by agreement under article 142 (1) EPC. This would result into a Unitary patent deriving its effects from EU law when applying within the territory of the EU, and a Unitary patent deriving its effects from international law when applying to the UK.

Rowan Freeland then explored what would happen were the Contracting Member States to “exclude the UK of the UPCA” before it leaving the EU, in order to pursue the implementation of the UPC and Unitary Patent. According to him, re-negotiations of the UPCA to exclude the UK would be possible, but would require a new ratification of the newly amended UPCA. This would in turn require Denmark to organise a new referendum for the ratification of the new UPCA. Rowan Freeland however highlighted that 50% of all European Patents are validated in the UK, France and Germany. Therefore if the UK were not to take part in the UPC and the Unitary patent, a smaller number of users than expected might potentially be interested in the UPC and the Unitary patent. This reasoning would extend to the unitary patent “top 4” renewal fees which is based on the cost of renewal in the four EU countries that have registered the most patents. Indeed, if the Unitary patent effect is not extended to the UK, and if the latter is not part of the UPC the savings achieved by opting for the Unitary patent would decrease.

Finally, despite the general uncertainty, Alexander Ramsay tried to be reassuring and explained that for the moment the Preparatory Committee was working as normal and that the recruitment process was still ongoing. As the chairman of the Preparatory Committee, he emphasized that member states are encouraged to actively pursue their efforts for ratification in order not to delay the coming live of the court, whenever that may be. Alexander Ramsay explained that no contingency plan had yet been drafted as the political situation is very unclear. The Preparatory Committee will therefore need to have more elements of information on the position of the UK and on how the other contracting member states wish to proceed, before devising new options for the UPC and Unitary patent. Alexander Ramsay however was positive and seemed to believe that the project of the UPC and Unitary patent will survive Brexit and come live anyway.

Although the atmosphere cannot be described as joyful, the participants (including the UPC Blog) expressed their hopes to see the UPC and the Unitary Patent becoming a reality in the near future and for EU countries to seize this opportunity to bring the union closer through IP.

Below the recorded video of the conference available on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5clCZXqgxk

The documents (presentation slides) of the conference can be found here.

Posted on

Ireland: One more step towards ratification

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

Ireland published last week its legislative programme for the current parliamentary session which sets out the legislation that the Irish Government will seek to publish over the next few months. It contains notably the “Amendment of the Constitution (Unified Patent Court) Bill” that will amend Article 29 of the Constitution for it to recognize the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court .  

Although heads of bill, or key areas of this bill, have already been approved on 23rd July 2014, Ireland will have to hold a referendum to approve this amendment to the constitution. The Supreme Court has in fact previously held that any transfer of sovereignty, or the transfer of judicial powers to an international body, requires a referendum . The referendum has already been planned for by the Irish Government in its Programme for partnership government (p.153, mistakenly referred to as the Universal Patent Court…), although no date has yet been published.

Finally, Bristows UPC highlights that the Law Society of Ireland has published an ad for the Irish Department for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to invite patent judges and practitioners in patent law to put themselves forward for nomination to the Advisory Committee of the Unified Patent Court, that will take soon over the work of the Preparatory Committee.

Ireland seems therefore to have its eyes firmly set on taking part in the UPC, although with its coming live in Spring 2017, whether Ireland will be ready on time is uncertain.