Home » Patents » Unitary patent: Responses to the UK’s call for evidence

Unitary patent: Responses to the UK’s call for evidence

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.

IMG_8533-1Back in the summer last year the UKIPO ran a consultation looking at the implementation of the unitary patent and unified patent court into UK law. Although the UKIPO is still processing the comments, a summary of the various responses received has been published (see here).

Only twenty responses were received from a mixture of business types, lawyers, patent attorneys. A few points of interest from the responses are noted below:

  • There were concerns over the way that the transitional provisions of Article 83 of the UPC Agreement were included in the draft legislation. Additionally, there were concerns regarding the clarity of Article 83 itself. Although this latter point was outside the scope of the UK consultation it has been fed back to the Legal Working Group of the Preparatory Committee.
  • On the issue of double patenting, the respondents were divided. In the pro-double patenting group it was felt that allowing double patenting would provide a safety net in case the UP was revoked, would provide an alternative and potentially cheaper litigation option and would also address the issue of portfolio pruning (by allowing a UP to be dropped and a UK to be maintained to provide protection in the UK). In the anti-double patenting group it was felt that this would increase litigation with a risk of “double recovery” of damages.
  • The proposed inclusion of Article 27(c) of the UPC Agreement into the draft legislation was supported by those representing the plant breeding industry. However, many respondents felt that the UPC Agreement lacked clarity about the meaning of Article 27(k) within the UPC Agreement and it was felt that there was a risk that this provision could be interpreted in such a way as to make software patents unenforceable.
  • On the issue of the location of the UPC in the UK there was good support for a local division in London and some support for a local division in Scotland and also for a “roving” local division that could move around the country.

Mark Richardson 31 March 2015


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: