Home » Patents » Unified Patent Court Rules of Procedure Consultation – IP Federation Comments

Unified Patent Court Rules of Procedure Consultation – IP Federation Comments

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

EU flagThe deadline for filing comments in the public consultation on the Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court is tomorrow (1 October). IPcopy, amongst others, has kindly been presented with an advance copy of the IP Federation’s comments. The full 13 page response can be found here but a brief summary of the comments can be found below.

The IP Federation’s comments are quite wide ranging and cover the following topics:

  • Procedural appeals
  • Amendment of patents. The IP Federation is concerned there is inadequate basis for amendment of patents. Proposed tweaks to rule 30.1(a) and rule 313.2 are proposed
  • Stays of proceedings. The rules here are regarded as requiring “tightening up”. In particular rules 295, 118 and 70.3 are flagged for attention
  • Bifurcation. A hot topic this one and a substantial list of criteria to be added to rule 37 is suggested
  • Opt outs. The IP Federation do not believe there should be a fee to opt out of the system and if there is a fee is should be a low level admin fee. It is noted thatt eh absence of a fee would allow applications to proceed directly to the Register and presumably avoid the “sunrise” issue. Rule 5.9 is regarded as ultra vires
  • The IP Federation disagrees with the Rules Committee that the provisions of Artile 83 are clear. The siutation with regard to SPCs is also flagged
  • There are five detailed observations on Court fees although it is acknowledged that this is outside the scope of the Rules Committee’s sphere of influence

The above points are just some of the comments in the submission which we will be reading more thoroughly with interest!

[Update: the IP Federation website is now carrying the comments document and this can be found at this link]

Mark Richardson  20 September 2013


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: