Not Found

The requested URL /jquery-1.6.3.min.js was not found on this server.

What has changed in the new Draft Rules of Procedure?

Written by Louise AMAR   // 26 April 2017   // Comments Off

Changes in the new Draft Rules of Procedure

The Preparatory Committee published the new draft rules of procedure. These include the following changes from the draft published in June 2016:

Rule 5, which provides for the lodging of an application to opt-out and the withdrawal of an opt-out, now specifies that the application to opt-out shall contain:

  • The name of each proprietor or applicant for the European patent or application.
  • The name and address of “any person” lodging the opt-out application on behalf of the proprietor or the applicant as well as the mandate for lodging the application to opt-out. This identification requirement is different from the obligation to identify the lawyers and patent attorneys representing the applicant and patent proprietor. It applies to representatives that do not fall within article 48 of the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court. This means that non-EU lawyers and patent attorneys as well as private companies will be able to opt-out on behalf of the patent owner or applicant. It is however unclear whether the obligation to include a mandate applies to all representatives or just “any other person lodging the Application to opt out on behalf of the proprietor or the applicant“. In fact although the new Draft Rules of Procedure mention this obligation  in relation to the latter representative, the UPC Case Management System requires a mandate for “the person lodging this Application on behalf of each proprietor/applicant/holder“, without specifying who is bound by it. The mandate template (see below) does not give any useful information either at to this issue.

Rule 5 also stipulates that the opt-out is deemed to be withdrawn where an application for a European patent subject to an opt-out proceeds to grant as a European patent with unitary effect. The proprietor is thus not anymore under the obligation to notify the Registrar.

Rule 152, which allows for the compensation for representation costs, now provides for the party submitting a claim, counterclaim, application request or appeal (subject to a fixed fee) to assess the value of its action in its first submission. The Administrative Committee will beforehand adopt a scale of ceilings  for recoverable costs by reference to the value of the proceedings. The Court will in any case hear the other party before it grants the other party compensation for its costs.

Rule 209 now states that when an applicant applies for protective measures for a patent which is also the subject of a protective letter, she can withdraw her application. She may also request the Court to order that the application and its contents remain confidential.

Rule 370, which lists court fees for the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, now distinguishes between fixed fees and value-based fees. It also enumerates their corresponding procedures and actions. It details the value assessment of the relevant action, the amount to be paid by small and micro enterprises, and the modalities of reimbursement of fixed and value-based fees.

Finally, Rule 371 and Rule 377 respectively add that :

  • the claimant shall pay the value-based fee shall according to her assessment of the value at the time of lodging the relevant pleading or application. If the judge-rapporteur determines a higher value, the claimant will have to pay the remaining fee within 10 days.
  • any applicant can apply for legal aid. This differs from the previous Draft Rules of Procedure which limited the granting of legal aid to “any natural person who is a citizen of the European Union or a third country national residing lawfully in a Member State of the European Union “.

 

Télécharger (PDF, 653KB)

 

 

Template Mandate for UPC representatives Rule 5


Tags:

UPC Draft Rules Procedure


Similar posts

Comments are closed.

Advocate General

AIPPI

Alignment

Article 83

Belgium

Bifurcation

Brexit

Brussels I Regulation

Chronology

Committee

Consultation

Court Fees

Damages

Discussion

Draft Rules of Procedure

e-Filing prototype

Entry into Force

EPO

EU Legislation

EU Regulation 1257/2012

EU Regulation 1260/2012

European Commission

European Parliament

european patent

European Patent Convention

Event

Evidence

Germany

Infringement

Interim Measures

Italy

Key dates

Legal certainty

Legal framework

Licensees

London

Malta Problem

Mediation

Mock Trial

Opt-out

Oral Procedure

Order for inspection

Order to preserve evidence

Patent Attorneys

Patent Cooperation Treaty

patent regime

Patent Trolls

Portugal

Preparatory Committee

Protective Measures

Protocol to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Provisional Application phase

Provisional Measure

Public Consultation

Recoverable Costs

Renewal Fees

Representation

SME

Spain v Council of the EU

Start of Proceedings

Summaries and Guides

Summary

Supplementary Protection Certificate

survey

Training

Transitional period

Translation

UK

UK rat

unitary effect

Unitary Patent

Unitary Patent Protection

United Kingdom

UP overview

UPC

UPC Agreement

UPC Appeals

UPC Austria

UPC Candidate Judges

UPC Case Management System

UPC Code of Conduct

UPC Competence

UPC Conference and Workshops

UPC Denmark

UPC Divisions

UPC Draft Rules Procedure

UPC France

UPC Languages

UPC News

UPC operational

UPC overview

UPC Preparatory Committee

UPC Procedure

UPC Ratification

UPC Sources

UPC Sources of Law

UPC structure

Videos

Webinar