Home » Patents » UPC updates: Judgment Day for Spain & confusing communications from the EU Commission

UPC updates: Judgment Day for Spain & confusing communications from the EU Commission

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.

IMG_8533-0A couple of unitary patent snippets today comprising news of Judgment Day in the CJEU for Spain and a confusing European Commission communication.

In a day that is fast taking on some significance* for the unitary patent system, May 5th will see the CJEU hand down its judgments on the two Spanish actions C-146/13 and C-147/13. (*The Preparatory Committee is meeting on the same day and may approve both the European Patent Litigators Certificate and the consultation on court fees.)

The European Commission published a piece on the unitary patent last week – “The Unitary Patent package – better protection for European innovators.” The article was relatively short but still managed to raise IPcopy’s eyebrows a few times. The following statement was, to our mind, the worst offender within the article:

Uniform protection for the covered invention will be provided across all 25 countries and the cost of administration – a single payable fee – will be € 5 000.

Such a short statement and yet so many questions! What is meant by “the cost of administration”? What “single” fee is being referred to here? Where did the € 5 000 amount come from?

We tweeted a question to both the EPO and the Twitter account for the European Commission (Internal market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs) for clarification of this statement but, as yet, no reply……

We’ll update you if we hear anything but we’re not holding our breath!

Mark Richardson 20 April 2015


3 Comments

  1. Olle Bäcklund says:

    In the EU Commission text there is another strange comment:
    “Innovators wishing to apply for a patent in Europe …, or a “European patent”, which nevertheless has to be applied in each Member State separately – at a high cost.”

    It is a simplification of the real situation.
    At an average, applicants validate in 4-5 countries, the most common are GB DE FR ES IT.
    • it is free of charge to get your EP validated in the three first (GB DE FR)
    • Spain and Italy will not participate in the Unitary Patent meaning that the cost will be the same with or without the Unitary Patent.
    • It means that it will all boil down to the annual fees: if the annual fee for the Unitary Patent will be higher (and it will most probably be) than the sum of the annual fees in GB DE FR, then the Unitary Patent will be a more costly system than today’s system with validations.

    • ipcopymark says:

      Hi Olle

      The Commission text seems to be a continuation of the “Fee saving myth” that we’ve talked about on IPcopy before. It’s frustrating when the new system is presented in this light as it just makes it more difficult to explain to users. And when a press release is so confusing over the costs (5000 Euros) that it’s not readily apparent to an EPA what’s being discussed, then that’s really poor!

  2. fish says:

    This is just a press release probably written by a trainee and certainly not reviewed by a specialist (or if it was reviewed, they published the draft, not the final version).

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: