Implementing the Unitary Patent in the UK

Whitehall
Photo T. B. Murray
Source Wikipedia
Creative Commons Licence






















Whatever happens on 23 June 2016 HMG will have to make rules to implement the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court in the United Kingdom. The reason I say that is that the Agreement comes into force after 13 countries, including France, Germany and the UK, ratify the Agreement. Nine countries including France have already done so (see the European Council's website).  Parliament has enacted primary legislation to enable the Secretary of State to give effect to the Agreement in the UK by order in council (see S,17 of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 inserting a new s.88A and s.88B into the Patents Act 1977). As it would take time to negotiate an exit agreement under art 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union the Agreement will almost certainly come into force while the UK is still an EU member. There would have to be some sort of secondary legislation at least for the time in which the UK remains a party to the UPC Agreement.

Consultation on such legislation began shortly after the Intellectual Property Act 2014 received royal assent. The Intellectual Property Office published a draft statutory instrument at Annex C to a Technical Review and Call for Evidence on Secondary Legislation Implementing the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and EU Regulations Establishing the Unitary Patent (see my article entitled Unified Patent Court Consultation 25 June 2014) together with a series of questions and invited responses by 2 Sept 2014 (see my article entitled Unified Patent Court Consultation 25 June 2014). HMG received 20 responses to that invitation which it summarized in its Technical Review and Call for Evidence Summary of Responses on 12 March 2015. On 14 Jan 2016 HMG published its reply to those responses in its Government Response to the Technical Review and Call for Evidence on Secondary Legislation  Implementing the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and EU Regulations Establishing the Unitary Patent. In the executive summary of that document HMG indicated that the 20 responses have helped to inform the further development of the secondary legislation and also assisted with updating impact assessments that go with that legislation.

HMG has indicated that it will make changes to the provisions of the draft statutory instrument that confer jurisdiction on the UPC (paras 10 and 20), make transitional arrangements (para 18), provide for enforcement of the UPC's orders (para 24), the computer software exception (para 55) and the definition of infringement (para 56). Other provisions of the draft order upon which the IPO consulted remain the same.

Over the next few weeks I shall be writing about the draft regulations in so far as they relate to our law on infringement, groundless threats and examiners' opinions. Should anyone wish to discuss those topics, unitary patents or patent law in general he or she should call me during office hours on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 or use my contact form.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Image
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in  Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd   [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br
Read more

Copyright: Primary Infirngement - Copying

The right to copy a copyright work is restricted to the copyright owner by s.2 (1) and s.16 (1) (a) of the  Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 . The restriction applies to every description of copyright work though different provisions apply to different types of work (s.17 (1)). This right to restrict copying is referred to as the right of reproduction in art 9 of the Bern Convention and art 2 of the "Copyright in the Information Society" or  Copyright and Related Rights Directive  (Directive 2001/29). Literary Musical, Dramatic or Artistic Works Copying in relation to an artistic, dramatic, literary or musical work  work means reproducing the work in any material form including storing the work in any medium by electronic means. In the case of an artistic work this includes making a copy in 3 dimensions of a 2 dimensional work and the making of a copy in 3 dimensions of a 3 dimensional work. Films and Broadcasts S.17 (4) of the 1988 Act as amended  includes within the
Read more

Patents - Gilead Sciences Inc v NuCana Plc

Image
  Jane Lamber t Patents Court  (Mr Justice Meade) G ilead Sciences Inc and another NuCana PLC  [2023] EWHC 611 (Pat) (21 March 2023) This was an action by Gilead Sciences Inc. and its British subsidiary Gilead Sciences Ltd ("Gilead") for revocation of two European Patents (UK) that had been granted to NuCana Plc ("NoCana"), namely  EP 2 955 190 B1 (“EP190”)  and   EP 3 904 365 B1 (“EP365”) .  NuCana complained that Gilead's product  sofosbuvir  infringed its patents. Mr Justice Meade, who tried the action, could see no real defence to the counterclaim if the claims of the patents were valid. Grounds of Revocation Gilead sought revocation of the patents on the following grounds: Added matter in that the  Markush group definitions of the claims  of the patents are not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application; Lack of plausibility in that the Patents do not plausibly disclose any technical contribution common to substantially all the claimed
Read more