After yesterday’s post about the Rules of Procedure consultation comments from the IP Federation comes news of Bird & Bird’s own response.
The full submission can be accessed here. Highlights of the submission were detailed in the email that popped into IPcopy’s Inbox a few minutes ago and these are reproduced below.
• The first thing that patent owners will need to do is to decide whether they want to opt out their traditional European patents from the jurisdiction of the UPC. We have proposed a number of improvements to the opt-out/opt-in system of Rule 5 to make this as smooth as possible.
• The language regime in the current rules is too complicated. We propose that the plaintiff can choose from the languages designated by the division of his choice. This only requires deleting Rule 14.2
• The rules for orders to produce or preserve evidence should contain checks and balances to safeguard the confidentiality of trade secrets and commercial information. Such information should only be disclosed to the applicant after a proper evaluation by the Court and these orders should only be granted if the applicant has carefully and sufficiently substantiated his claims. To achieve this, we have proposed a number of improvements to Rules 190 – 196.
• Amicus curiae briefs, which are letters to the court expressing views on legal issues, will be an important tool for ngo’s and companies to assist the Court in the proper development of its case law. Bird & Bird fully supports EPLAW’s proposal for a new Rule 318 on this.
• There should be case management that ensures expedient litigation and coordination of cases that are related. To that end, we have suggested improvements to Rules 25 and 70 and a new Rule 340a on the coordination of simultaneous actions.
We’re sure more submissions will be made public in the near future. Will details of all the submissions be made public on the Rules Committee website we wonder?
Mark Richardson 1 October 2013