Menu
Browse Options
Decision expected in Italy on participation in Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court

vlag italie kleinIn a surprise move, the Italian Ministry of Economic Development made a formal call last week on stakeholders to share their view as to what Italy should do with the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent (UP) system. Italy is the only European country which has signed the UPC Agreement, but has stayed out of the enhanced cooperation within the EU leading to creation of the UP.
The Ministry wanted to know what the most favourable option is for stakeholders, including employers’ associations, patent attorneys and universities: 1) Italy to join the enhanced cooperation and to ratify the UPC Treaty; 2) Italy to remain adverse to the Unitary Patent, but to ratify the UPC Treaty; or 3) I [...]

UPC’s extraterritorial jurisdiction resulting from Regulation (EU) № 542/2014 amending “Brussels I (Recast)” Regulation № 1215/2012

Pierre veronPierre Véron is attorney-at-law at Véron & Associés, Paris, Honorary President of the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW), Member of the Drafting Committee of the Rules of Procedure and Member of the Expert Panel of the Unified Patent Court.

On 10 January2015, Regulation (EU) № 542/2014 of 15 May 2014 entered into force simultaneously with Regulation (EU) № 1215/2012, the so-called “Brussels I (recast)” Regulation.

The main purpose of Regulation № 542/2014 is to ensure compliance with the Brussels I Regulation (recast) of two treaties relating to international courts: the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the Protocol to the 1965 Benelux Treaty on the Benel [...]

Unified Patent Courts will hardly bifurcate proceedings

aktuelles FotoThe possibility to bifurcate proceedings is a concern to many potential users of the future Unified Patent Court (UPC). Proceedings in Germany, in which infringement decisions may be rendered long before a judgment is given on the validity of a patent, serve as an alarming example. Moreover, bifurcation is said to be attractive to patent trolls. However, Dr. Matthias Zigann, presiding judge of a patent division of the Munich Regional Court I, explains that the Rules of Procedure (RoP) at the UPC are very different from German law. At the Unitary Patent Package Congress in Amsterdam last week, he told Kluwer IP Law that he expects bifurcation to happen rarely.

Dr. Zigann is also remarkably o [...]

Jurisdiction Unified Patent Court extends to non EU countries

Pierre veronThe new long arm jurisdiction provision in the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is one of the most remarkable elements of the Unitary Patent (UP) package, according to French lawyer and IP specialist Pierre Véron. Pierre Véron and Thomas Cottier of Bern University are the authors of the renowned Concise International and European IP Law, a widely used resource for IP lawyers on the instruments of intellectual property law, both European and international, applicable in Europe. The updated third edition has just been published.

On 12 February 2015 Kluwer IP Law hosted a webinar  held by Pierre Véron. In addition to this event an interview was done in which Mr. Véron explains how th [...]

Webinar on Unified Patent Court by Pierre Véron

We are delighted to announce that on 12 February 2015 Kluwer Law International is hosting a free webinar by Pierre Véron on the Unified Patent Court.

Wolters Kluwer present this webinar by Pierre Véron, Attorney-at-law, Véron & Associés, Paris, Honorary President of the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW), Member of the Drafting Committee of the Rules of Procedure, Member of the Expert Panel of the Unified Patent Court. He will comment on:

  • The main legal purpose of Regulation № 542/2014: to ensure compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of two treaties relating to international courts: the Unified Patent Court Agreement and the Protocol to the 1965 Benelux Treaty on the Ben [...]
Will the CJEU uncap the recovery of IP litigator fees?

This question has been on the minds of many European IP litigation stakeholders since January 26, 2015. On that date, the Court of Appeal of Antwerp in United Video Properties v. Telenet referred some preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) regarding the (in)compatibility of Belgium’s system of capped recovery of lawyers’ fees with article 14 of the IP Enforcement Directive. This article provides for the recovery of reasonable and proportionate legal and other costs by the party prevailing in an IP case.

Recovering lawyers’ fees in Belgian litigation, in particular when it relates to intellectual property (“IP”), is an old sore. Many assume [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...