UPC aficionados will be interested to learn that the 16th draft of the Rules of Procedure was unveiled yesterday.
Readers will remember that the previous draft was published on 31 May 2013. Since then, the Drafting Committee has been working on a new draft that may – or may not – accommodate the comments received from stakeholders, including those discussed at the European Judge’s Forum that took place in Venice on 25-26 October 2013. Trying to comment on the 382 Rules of the draft in this very brief blog would be like trying to sum-up the history of mankind in a haiku. So this author will focus his attention on one aspect that appears to be here to stay: the obstinate “opting-out” fee. [...]
The readers will recall that on 18 July 2013, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) handed down its controversial judgment in case C‑414/11 Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon. In this judgment the ECJ, making a 180º twist in relation to the criteria endorsed in Opinion 1/1994, in its judgment of 14 December 2000 and in its judgment of 11 September 2007, concluded that TRIPS’ provisions on patents now fall within the realm of the European Union (“EU”) common commercial policy. This is a rather surprising conclusion to reach, taking into account that in paragraph 46 of its judgment of 11 September 2007 the ECJ [...]
The Court of Appeal of Burgos dismissed the appeal against the Judgment of the Provincial Court of Burgos, which upheld a patent for a pharmaceutical composition and its use, despite the fact that clinical trials regarding the patented composition and the patented use were mentioned in the prior art.
One of the “co-lateral” damages expected from the latest Pixar Films’ type of productions coming from the European Commission (the European patent with unitary effect and the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) fostered by the Commission behind the scenes) is the increase of patent applications filed before national patent offices. Stakeholders are growing concerned that the final product looks more like “Monsters Inc.” (it may be an irony of destiny that the first known patent was granted to a boat called “The Monster”!) than like the expected promised land.
Against this background, the recent publication of a new draft of the “Patent Act” by the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (“SPTO”) may [...]
As my colleague Rik Lambers, from Brinkhof, reported in the blog he posted last Thursday (12 December 2013), that day was a big day for Supplementary Protection Certificate (“SPC“) aficionados, since the European Court of Justice (“ECJ“) published three new judgments that will further feed the long-running saga of SPC decisions. Readers will no doubt have heard that for the good of legal certainty, the ECJ clarified what it meant when in the judgment of 24 November 2011 (Case C-322/10, Medeva BV v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, “Medeva“) it wrote that “article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No. 469/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning t [...]
My last blog, published on 14 November 2013, mentioned that on the closing date (15 November 2013) set to send expressions of interest for persons wishing to be considered candidate Judges at the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”), only Austrian nationals would fulfil the conditions set by the Preparatory Committee, for only Austria had ratified the Agreement on a UPC. This statement was based on the fact that one of the prerequisites was to be a national of a “Contracting Member State.” Dear Austrian readers, I am so sorry to have raised unfounded expectations, for this statement was wrong. After having carefully reviewed the Agreement on a UPC, it turns out that not even Austrian nationals [...]