Misplaced Pages

Talk:Unified Patent Court: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:02, 15 July 2014 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,348 editsm Signing comment by 2.206.59.68 - "→Malta ratification: "← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:29, 14 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,054 editsm Archiving 22 discussion(s) to Talk:Unified Patent Court/Archive 2, Talk:Unified Patent Court/Archive 1) (botTag: Replaced 
(118 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject European Union|class=start}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject European Union|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}
|algo = old(365d)
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|counter = 2
|archive = Talk:Unified Patent Court/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Privileges and Immunities protocol ==
__TOC__


How is it possible to integrate the Privileges and Immunities protocol ratification in to this article. This is the whole reason why the UK has not yet completed its ratification, and is an integral part of the UPC coming in to force. Can there be some discussion in to how this can be integrated promptly into the article, to give a complete picture of how this is occurring. The UK has now passed the necessary statutory instrument, and this needs showing, and preferably in a tabular format. ] (]) 14:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
== Merge ==
:I am not in favour of this. The UK text should stop somewhere, and the UK has decided to make its ratification dependent on passing the privileges and immunities protocol, others first want to change their patents act, others don't, but it is too much detail for this article to include. And the ratification notes on the UK are anyway already much longer (the only ones, where we are stating two legislative proposals, where NONE of them is actual ratification). We have privileges protocols for all major international organisations, and they are also there hardly mentioned... ] (]) 22:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
{{Discussion top|1=The result of this discussion was not to merge the two articles, but to cross-link them and try to improve them ] (]) 16:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)}}
I think we should merge ] into this article, by summarizing it and deleting unneeded stuff. That article concerns development back from 2006 and has mostly been dormant ever since. While it suggests it's about the European patent and a litigation agreement over it, it's in fact mostly about the developments in EU at that time (2006-2007), which led to the Unified Patent Court recently. Basically, that article says nothing new and is mostly about a proposal made in 2006. I would even go as far as to say it probably violates ]. So, merge and purge. ] (]) 22:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:Yup, it's probably a good idea to merge it into the "Background" section. ] (]) 23:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
::Well what it does (appear to!) say is that apparently originally there was a proposal which was distinctly different as it was a Europe-wide treaty, which gradually shifted to a Europewide-treaty-with-the-European-Union-as-well-as-its-member-states to a European Union member states treaty. It probably can indeed be merged into background. If it gets too extensive in terms of information, we should move the Europe-notEuropeanCommunity part down to "earlier proposals" or the like.. ] (]) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Does one of you want to do the merging? And, also, some of the links to the EPLA page should be made to link to the Unified Patent Court page while others to this article's section where the EPLA will be merged into. ] (]) 01:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
:'''Strongly oppose'''. The European Patent Litigation Agreement was a radically different proposal, independent from the EU (and involving also Switzerland). It is now dead, but this proposal is certainly worth its own article. I have just fixed the dead links in the "External links" section. Quite amazing how all these web pages have disappeared from the web sites of the EPO, UKIPO, and Swiss Patent Office, as if all this had never happened. --] (]) 22:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
::The original "Unified Patent Court" agreement also involved parties outside of the EU, and the agreement is outside the framework of the EU treaties, so it's not all that radically different. While I'm not necessarily opposed to keeping a separate article, the article in it's current state certainly fails our ] guidelines as it's sourced entirely from ] sources, such as press releases and court rulings, and ]. If you want to keep it as a separate articles you will need to find ] sources which establish its notability. ] (]) 22:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your note. I am glad you are not necessarily opposed to keeping a separate article. I have just added some secondary sources (there is for example a 30-page paper exclusively on the EPLA published in 2006 in the renowned ]: Oser, Andreas (2006). "''The European Patent Litigation Agreement - Admissibility and Future of a Dispute Resolution for Europe''". IIC: 520) and I have expanded the article. For your information, the words "European Patent Litigation Agreement" return 1410 hits on Google Books and 292 hits on Google Scholar. Could you explain why you understand that the "Unified Patent Court" agreement is outside the framework of the EU treaties? I understood that the enhanced cooperation is still within EU structures (as mentioned in our Misplaced Pages article ]), but perhaps I am missing something. --] (]) 00:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Basically you're conflating two distinct things. The unitary ] is what was approved using enhanced cooperation and you are correct that this is within the structures of the EU treaties. However, the UPC was established via an intergovernmental treaty outside the EU framework because it wasn't compatible with the treaties: . This is similar to how the ] was signed years before it was incorporated into the EU treaties. The EU patent depends on the UPC in that it won't be granted until the UPC is in force. However, the UPC will have jurisdiction over more than just the unitary EU patent, including ruling on cases over the ]. ] (]) 01:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Indeed, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is not based on the enhanced cooperation process. I had misunderstood that. But still I don't fully understand the sentence "the UPC was established via an intergovernmental treaty outside the EU framework because it wasn't compatible with the treaties" notably in view of Art. 20 of the Agreement: "''The Court shall apply Union law in its entirety and shall respect its primacy''." Art. 21 also says that the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be binding on the UPC. So, the UPC is not independent from the EU, in contrast to the once proposed EPLA. And what is the nature of the cooperation with the Court of Justice of the European Union, see Art. 21? I guess I have to study this further... --] (]) 21:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::Excuse me Edcolins, but, this sentence of you: "So, the UPC is not independent from the EU, in contrast to the once proposed EPLA." is completely untrue. The clearly states:
::::::"....
::::::Refers to '''the legal framework which surrounds the Agreement and from which many provisions are drawn:''' the EPC 2000, the TRIPs Agreement and '''Community law (in particular, the Agreement relating to Community patents of 1989, the Brussels and Lugano Conventions and Regulation 44/2001).'''
::::::....
::::::'''The application of Community law will be guaranteed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities which on request by the European Patent Court will issue preliminary rulings binding for the latter in so far as its decision takes effect in a Member State of the European Union.'''"
::::::So, the once proposed EPLA was not (even proposed as) independent from the EU. ] (]) 00:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::You may be right that now the EPLA and the UPC eventually share quite a lot of legal features. Still, in my opinion, there was an important discontinuity in 2007, when the EPLA's own history as a piece of proposed legislation ended, and when other efforts backed by the European Commission gained momentum (or did these efforts gain momentum only later in 2010?). Even the primary sources you provided in show that no documents regarding the EPLA came from the EU Commission. Not surprising. The European Commission was hostile to the EPLA and regarded the negotiations on the EPLA as unlawful (see secondary sources cited in the lead of the ] article). You can't find this information in the primary source you cited (). The EPLA was supported and driven by national patent judges and patent practitioners, whereas the later developments were driven by the EU Commission. As far as I know, the EU Commission has never used, for its own proposal, the term "European Patent Litigation Agreement". To me, all this shows that the EPLA is a discrete subject with its own name and warranting its own article (see ]). --] (]) 21:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::I'm sorry, but I cannot but disagree. I don't know where to begin, really.
::::::::*Primary and secondary sources are used to judge notability of the subject. The sources you have added on the EPLA lead come from a magazine to which I have no online access. However, I can comment that at least one of them, mr. Pagenberg, is not a secondary one. As it can be seen :<br>"For more than 10 years Dr Pagenberg has directly contributed to creating a unified European patent court system: from 2000 until 2005 as expert of the European working group for the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA), from 2008 to 2011 as member of the expert group of the European Commission and, simultaneously, between 2005 and 2011 as board member, vice president and president of the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW), the board of which he is still advising today."<br>This apart from stating that mr. Pagenberg is a primary source on EPLA, also tells us that EPLA and the EU patent-related working groups shared at least one expert member.<br>About Andreas Oser, the source making the statement about the EU Commission thinking of the EPLA as being unlawful, I will guess - as I have no access to the source - that he means that the EU regarded the EPLA as unlawful, and was not actively hostile about it. That's the spirit of the abstract I found , as far as I can tell.
::::::::*Which brings us to the relation of EPLA and EU. The EU was not against the general idea of the EPLA, as you seem to suggest, but, rather considered its form to be unlawful ''as it was''. This was also twice proven to be true - once by the legal service of the European Parliament and once by the Court of Justice. This is also clear by the statement of the EU Commisioner on the EPLA article, which existed there before you added the sources about the EU's position on the legality of the EPLA:<br>"On July 12, 2006, Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, said "the European Patent Litigation Agreement is seen as a promising route towards more unitary jurisdiction" while closing the above-mentioned public hearing on future patent policy in Europe."
::::::::*Moreover, the EPLA establishment was paused to wait for the EU patent, as stated by the EPLA working group . This clearly proves there's cooperation instead of rivalry, which of course is just to be expected, as the EU member states are also EPO members. Furthermore, you wrote: "The EPLA was supported and driven by national patent judges and patent practitioners, whereas the later developments were driven by the EU Commission." Not true. The EPLA working group was established by EPO members at the Paris Intergovernmental Conference on 25 June 1999 and confirmed at the London Intergovernmental Conference in 2000, which also established the ], and .
::::::::*The reason why the agreement was unlawful is that the EU also has competence on patents, which is why an EU patent system could be and was established through EU directives. So, the EU either had to accede to the EPO and to the EPLA, or it was unlawful. explains up to some degree why it couldn't work. A non-EU court could not judge EU patents. And, the agreement on a patent court was of course envisaged to be about a single court system for both European and EU patents. The EPLA working group states in 2003, "The working party is conscious of the fact that the establishment of a litigation system for existing European patents is being paused, in view of the work being done by the European Union to introduce a Community patent with a judicial system of its own. .... The time until the next meeting of the working party should be used for consultations with a view to resolving potential conflicts between the law of the European Union and the contemplated European Patent litigation system." So, ever since 2003 and at the time they agree on their first draft, they are aware their work is probably incompatible with EU law and no court will be established until the EU patent has been agreed upon. Which is only logical, they got an EPO mandate and the most significant EPO members are also EU members. Also, guess who produced the draft agreement: "A sub-group of the Working Party on Litigation comprising DE, UK, FR, NL, CH, SE, DK, FI, MC, LU was set up in October 2000 by the Working Party on litigation to produce a draft agreement." So, it is pretty clear that the EPLA if it ever came to be anything more than a draft should be compatible with the EU law.
::::::::*You also wrote: "As far as I know, the EU Commission has never used, for its own proposal, the term "European Patent Litigation Agreement"." Which is true, but, similar terms were used, replacing European with Unified: "... the draft agreement concerning the creation of a unified patent litigation system (UPLS). As is well known, this draft agreement drew on many provisions introduced for the first time by the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) and provided, inter alia, for the establishment of a European and Community Patents Court (PC)."
::::::::*The Unified Court is outside the EU law and outside the framework of the EU for two reasons. Firstly, the EU does not have competence over the judicial system and, generally, the institutions. A new court or institution must be agreed on by an intergovernmental conference of the member states and a relevant treaty; it cannot simply be established by an EU directive (a law made by the EU itself). And, secondly, not all EU member states agreed on this court, thus, it could not be incorporated into a new EU treaty or treaty amendment. There is also a hole in the EU law to have the UPC be exactly like the rejected EPLA and the rejected UPC drafts: if for whatever reason the rest of the EPO members decide they want their patents to be judged by the EU patent court and the EU judges and this is agreed upon, or merely accepted.
::::::::*You also wrote: "Still, in my opinion, there was an important discontinuity in 2007, when the EPLA's own history as a piece of proposed legislation ended, and when other efforts backed by the European Commission gained momentum (or did these efforts gain momentum only later in 2010?)." Not true, as seen in the wall of text below, reads: "'''The work carried out between the years 2007 and 2009''' resulted in a draft agreement for setting up a patent court with exclusive jurisdiction for both European patents granted by the EPO (so-called "classical" patents) and EU patents with unitary effect to be created in the future."
::::::::*You also wrote: "Even the primary sources you provided in your long analysis below show that no documents regarding the EPLA came from the EU Commission." Not true. Wall of text :"'''The present working document aims at setting out in more technical detail the possible features of a future unified and integrated patent litigation system''' which, it is hoped, could find the support of Member States (MS) and users. '''It is based on''' the results of the deliberations of the Council Working Group following the Commission's Communication dated 3 April 2007 and '''previous work carried out by MS and users, in particular in the context of work on the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA).'''" (and, also further below, on the same primary source) : "In order to remedy the significant shortcomings of the current situation of patent litigation in Europe a number of Member States and third countries prepared, under the auspices of the EPO, '''a draft European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) which would have addressed the abovementioned shortcomings in relation to European patents only. However, there was insufficient political support from Member States in the Council for the necessary involvement of the Community. For this reason, the Commission proposed in its abovementioned Communication the creation of an integrated jurisdictional system for both European patents and future Community patents.'''"
::::::::*Generally, only after the EPLA was found to be incompatible with the EU law in 2007, the EU Commission started its work on establishing a European patent court (by mandating its own group of experts), continuing from where the EPLA had stopped, with at least one same expert. And, when the European patent court draft was rejected in 2011, it only then turned into an EU patent court. This , kinda explains the issue with a headline: "European Commission tries to put patent law out of the acquis". Patent law is within the EU competence (the acquis), therefore, it has to be decided by the EU, and not only the member states. states: "Commissioner McCreevy supports the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA). The Commission has meanwhile already made a formal proposal on patent legislation, centered around the EPLA. The European Parliament's five largest political groups agreed in May to vote on a patent policy resolution at the September II plenary." This clearly shows that the EU Commision didn't really oppose the EPLA as a principle.
::::::::*'''The UPC and the EPLA were pretty much the same thing as drafts, with the difference that the UPC was based on the EPLA, and it started from the EU, while the EPLA started from the EPO. The main difference that exists now regarding membership is the implication of both drafts being judged incompatible to EU law. This difference made UPC into a signed agreement and caused EPLA to remain a - now rejected - draft (albeit one that was re-used to some degree to make the UPC).''' ] (]) 23:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Could you summarize why you think the two articles should be merged? Your long reasoning is becoming hard to follow. In my opinion, the topics, i.e. the EPLA, being an EPO initative, and the UPC, being a EU Commission initiative, are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short (per ]). --] (]) 16:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::Hello, Edcolins, and thanks for choosing to reply on my very long post here (after 2 weeks) and while we were messaging each other on our talk pages. Also, thank you for choosing to support reason number 3 of the reasons not to merge, instead of just linking again to all of them. I supported merging the two pages per reason 3 (text) of the reasons to merge. One article is about a dead deal and its content (plus competence problems plus name) section is really small, with the biggest sections being about background and history. The other article is a bigger article about a deal to materialise (albeit not way too soon) and which is partly based on the dead deal. Also, reason no. 4 (context) from the reasons to merge applies to some degree, as well as reason no. 2 (overlap). From the reasons not to merge, also reason no. 2 could partially apply. This is quite a unique case and while the two agreements are not completely discrete, one could argue they both are notable (even though the online sources for EPLA are dying) and with some cross-linking and some clean up, they could both keep existing as separate articles. I therefore, decided to support L.tak's position which is documented at the bottom of this thread and suggest we close this discussion with the following result: "The result of this discussion was not to merge the two articles, but to cross-link them and try to improve them." ] (]) 17:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


:::This is though holding up the UK from depositing the instruments of ratification. This needs to be included somewhere. In my opinion the information on the whole ratification process should be included in a separate article. I propose that the article is split in to a separate article on ratification issues. It is correct that the main article is too big to go in to all the details and a more detailed article on the ratification and implementation is required. ] (]) 03:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
:'''Neutral'''. Merger seems pointless. The EPLA is independently notable and CRYSTAL is irrelevant since the agreement DID exist even if nothing came of it. However, would seem to sugges that the EPLA is indeed part of the background to the UPC so a merger would be suitable if done correctly. ] (]) 22:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Again. No, this is a single country issue and a ''choice'' on how they proceed. If we separate this, we have to get info on all this from many countries, and that simply isn't available... ] (]) 10:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
:::There are four reasons to merge an article (see ]). I don't see which one applies in this case. Furthermore, there are three reasons ''not'' to merge an article and all three apply IMHO. Especially, regarding the third one ("''The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short''"), the EPLA was (and still is, historically) a subject on its own. The EU Commission was hostile to it and regarded not only the EPLA but the negotiations on the EPLA as unlawful (see sources added to the article now). Further, Sir Nicholas Pumfrey said in 2007 that the EPLA had "finally died". The own, discrete existence of the EPLA ended in 2007. So, yes, the EPLA is independently notable and, to me, the subject is worth its own article. --] (]) 01:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::For countries where this isn't available, simple it isn't available, that does not mean information that is available should not be included. That is like saying off-line sources cannot be access on-line, so should not be included. Not including all of the information simply means that the Misplaced Pages will not show the full picture, and will omit key information regarding just how complex implementation can be for some countries on this issue. Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom to name but three. ] (]) 20:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Well, we are an encyclopedia, and not a directory of all available info. That requires choices, and also to trying to be balanced. I don't see omitting the process of UK ratification of an immunities protocol as omitting key information, and agree that more info on the UK needed to be there (although the amount now in, is already way, way too much IMO). Let's see what the comments of others are however, to see what is the best way forward... ] (]) 22:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


== "The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is a proposed common patent court open for participation of all member states of the European Union." ==
::'''Merge'''. The EPLA was a proposal, which eventually led to the Unified Patent Court. I don't really understand why I even have to argue over this. There are/were two main targets for patents in the European Union/Europe for the last 5 decades: a single EU patent and a single patent court. As is the usual procedure, after an initial proposal for a common EPO patent court, a working group was set up, and produced an initial draft in 2003, while also a common EU patent and a court for it were also being discussed:
::"The working party is conscious of the fact that the establishment of a litigation system for existing European patents is being paused, in view of the work being done by the European Union to introduce a Community patent with a judicial system of its own. The working party feels that its proposed judicial system for European patents also contains useful pointers towards practical solutions for the ongoing work on a Community patent court system. It will meet again on Wednesday, 8 December 2004. The time until the next meeting of the working party should be used for consultations with a view to resolving potential conflicts between the law of the European Union and the contemplated European Patent litigation system."
::In 2004, a new draft proposal was published, which clearly implicates EU law in it. This is also true for the 2005 version draft, which seems to be the latest and last draft, i.e. the proposal actually debated upon (but not accepted). By 2005, however, the EU had already 24 member states, which were more than 1/2 of the EPO member states. The draft agreement was put before the European Parliament in 2006, which asked for an interim opinion from its legal service, which was delivered in 2007 and found the agreement to be incompatible with EU law. However, as noted :
::"On 4 April 2007, the Commission submitted a communication on "enhancing the patent system in Europe" (8302/07), considering key elements for developing the new system, such as quality, costs, efficiency, knowledge transfer, enforcement of patent rights and international aspects. It also identified three options in order to create an integrated jurisdictional system for patents:
::*the accession of the EU to an intergovernmental agreement creating a European patent court (the draft European Patent Litigation Agreement, EPLA), which has been negotiated under the auspices of the EPO;
::*the creation of a specific EU jurisdiction for patent litigation on European and, once created, on EU patents; and
::*a mixed system that would combine features of both EPLA and the EU jurisdiction"
::By then, the EU had 27 member states, more than 2/3 of the member states of EPO. The EU focused on reaching an agreement on EU patents,
::"Developments in the European patent system<br>At the EU Competitiveness Council meeting in December, ministers reached political agreement on a number of key elements of the future Community patent, which following the Lisbon Treaty's entry into force is now referred to as the EU patent. The EU Council agreed on a general approach to a draft regulation on the EU patent, and political agreement was reached on the main features of the envisaged unified patent litigation system, on principles for EU patent renewal fees and their distribution, and on a system of enhanced partnership between the EPO and central IP offices. These conclusions are conditional on an opinion from the European Court of Justice which is expected no earlier than the summer of 2010."
::while the EPLA draft was modified to incorporate the case of a possible EU patent:
::"The work carried out between the years 2007 and 2009 resulted in a draft agreement for setting up a patent court with exclusive jurisdiction for both European patents granted by the EPO (so-called "classical" patents) and EU patents with unitary effect to be created in the future. The new jurisdictional system was designed to be concluded by the EU member states and third countries belonging the European Patent Convention.
::In June 2009, the Council requested the Court of Justice of the EU to give an opinion on the compatibility of the draft agreement with EU law. The Court of Justice delivered its Opinion on 8 March 2011 and concluded that the envisaged system was not compatible with the provisions of European Union law.
::(http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-03/cp110017en.pdf)"
::where the Court of Justice link states:
::"The draft agreement on the creation of a ''European and Community Patent Court'' is not compatible with European Union law<br>The Council of the European Union drew up a draft international agreement, to be concluded between the Member States, the European Union ''and third countries which are parties to the European Patent Convention'', with the objective of creating a court with jurisdiction to hear litigation related to the European patent and the future Community patent."
::The 2009 draft agreement is clearly related to the draft EPLA:
::"EUROPEAN AND COMMUNITY PATENTS COURT DRAFT AGREEMENT
::THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY,
::THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM,
::
::AND
::
::hereinafter referred to as the CONTRACTING PARTIES
::...
::CONSIDERING that the integrated and exclusive European and Community Patents Court shall be set up for Community patents and European patents designating one or more States party to this Agreement and that the present Agreement shall be open to accession by any Contracting State to the European Patent Convention"
::and :
::"Introductory remark
::The present working document aims at setting out in more technical detail the possible features of a future unified and integrated patent litigation system which, it is hoped, could find the support of Member States (MS) and users. It is based on the results of the deliberations of the Council Working Group following the Commission's Communication dated 3 April 2007 and previous work carried out by MS and users, in particular in the context of work on the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA).
::....
::Rules of procedure
::Since the suggested system would constitute a fully fledged Community jurisdiction (however with some degree of decentralisation and local presence in Member States) it is suggested to provide for uniform rules of procedure
::• The rules of procedure should take account of the Enforcement Directive and should also reflect the work carried out in the context of the preparation of EPLA, such as the Second Venice Resolution, dated 4 November 2006, of the International Patent Judges Association relating to the rules of procedure of a European Patent Court.
::• Such rules should ensure expeditious and high quality judgments. Moreover they should provide for cost effectiveness of procedures, in particular for SMEs."
::So, as it is clear that the initial plan for the Unified Patent Court was that it would be based on the reworked draft EPLA, open to member states of the EPO, as it can be also seen . However, the European Court of Justice rejected this and the EU proceeded into limiting the proposed jurisdiction of this Patent Court. EPLA was only a draft, which was rejected by the EU (through the European Parliament) while still being a draft, and which was reworked by the Commission into new drafts, which also incorporated the recent developments on EU patents as they developed, and always contained the idea of it being an EPO/EPC (optional - as it would be open to accesion) agreement, until this was rejected by the ECJ, leading to an internal EU agreement on this issue.


This is disputed, surely? Or at least it is supposed (by some) to be open to all member states of the ] without a requirement to be part of the EU? ] (]) 14:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
::Restating these points (tl;dr) :
:No, I don't think this is disputed. I have just added a reference. Cheers --] (]) 19:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
::"The Commission proposes to open negotiations with a view to the conclusion of an agreement between the European Community, its Member States, and other Contracting States of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention, EPC) of 5 October 1973 on the creation of a Unified Patent Litigation System. The court structure established in the framework of the Unified Patent Litigation System would have jurisdiction both for existing European patents and future Community patents. ''In view of the former the agreement would be open for accession by any Contracting States of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention, EPC) which is not among the initial contracting parties of the agreement.''
:: It has at least been disputed by the UK government and by academics, no? https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/12/3/245/3059290 ] (]) 07:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
::.....
::: No, there is no dispute on who can be a party to the Unified Patent Court (only EU states), but there is no clear answer on what would happen upon leaving the Union. Thus it is unclear if the UK can ''remain'' in the Unified Patent Court after Brexit... ] (]) 19:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
::''In order to remedy the significant shortcomings of the current situation of patent litigation in Europe a number of Member States and third countries prepared, under the auspices of the EPO, a draft European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) which would have addressed the abovementioned shortcomings in relation to European patents only. However, there was insufficient political support from Member States in the Council for the necessary involvement of the Community. For this reason, the Commission proposed in its abovementioned Communication the creation of an integrated jurisdictional system for both European patents and future Community patents.'' On the basis of the Communication the Council Working Party on Patents has been discussing the idea of creating a Unified Patent Litigation System. The court structure established in the framework of the Unified Patent Litigation System would have jurisdiction concerning the infringement and validity of European and Community patents. It would appear that there is emerging broad consensus on the main features and the basic tasks of a Unified Patent Litigation System involving a largely decentralised first instance, a single appeal instance and a role of the ECJ aimed at providing a consistent interpretation and application of Community law." ] (]) 04:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:::: In a new paper "Delayed Again? The Benelux Alternative to the UPC" (https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article-abstract/70/12/1133/6362674), Dr Jaeger argues this is not a common court to the Member States, as the CJEU had recognised only the Benelux Court of Justice being part of the judicial order of the EU because national courts are involved in the Benelux system, not in the UPC system. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
'''Neutral''' I have reread the arguments pro and con on the site (mainly of Heracletus and Edcolins) and find both positions fully defendable. This is a lumper/splitter debate. European countries (mostly and most relevantly because of their cooperation in conflict law and common market: EU(/EEA) countries) have been looking for ages to get common patent litigation. This search has been performed in two different fora (EU and EPO), and texts have shared from previous versions. EPLA is part of the history of the UPC of course… But EPLA also had its own notability, because it was ethe EPO coordinated proposal and included possibly all countries. The fact that the European Council/Commission picked up the earlier draft, does not make those things equal…. I have been making some edits to the EPLA and propose that we try to get that article/section up to quality: now it moves seamlessly between EU/EC and EPO and is not very clear there, which is much more important then where it will end up…. ] (]) 23:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}


==Ratification by three states with most European patents in effect in 2012==
== Wording, source, reliability ==
Hi ], you . Do we need a source for that? Is it clear that, after the U.K. left the EU, the condition for ratification automatically changed? --] (]) 21:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
:Well, maybe we should need a source for that and it may be unclear: the condition is "This Agreement shall enter into force on 1 January 2014 or on the first day of the fourth month after the deposit of the thirteenth instrument of ratification or accession in accordance with Article 84, including '''the three Member States in which the highest number of European patents had effect in the year preceding the year in which the signature of the Agreement takes place''' or on the first day of the fourth month after the date of entry into force of the amendments to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 concerning its relationship with this Agreement, whichever is the latest." It is questionable whether this meant "member states at the time of signature" or "member states during ratification"... ] (]) 21:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
::Yes, it seems the legal provision is a little unclear, and it is not for us to decide how it should be understood. We need a reliable source for the contention that, after Brexit, France, Germany, and Italy, rather than France, Germany, and the UK (in which case this would mean that the agreement could no longer enter into force, absent a renegotiation) are the decisive "the three Member States in which the highest number of European patents had effect" for the entry into force. --] (]) 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


== Effect outside the Contracting Member States of the UPCA (and even for non-EU States) ==
I wonder why "were considering" is used rather than just "are considering" in "''According to Elexica, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and Hungary were also considering forming a regional division.''" I don't have access to the source "elexica". A login is required. What does the source say exactly? And how reputable is this source, considering that "he reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value" (from ])? --] (]) 09:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
:You have a point; it's a decent-looking company source; not exactly the best regarded source we have... I have also heard rumours about possibilities for a regional division of UK+IE(+PT) as well as mere speculation on BeNeLux; so maybe also this one should be removed. The source says: "In addition to the proposed Nordic-Baltic regional division, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Cyprus are also considering establishing a joint regional division. " (so the "were considering" part is just my poor English...) ] (]) 10:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
::Yes, I couldn't verify the statements from "elexica" using any other source, although there might be something in Danish language out there. For now, I would say that the information does not pass the threshold for inclusion per ]. --] (]) 11:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Well, I would have left the Nordic-Scandinavian division in, as that was quoted as a government announcement and thus relevant beyond the crystal ball; and I have no reason to assume they would be misquoting; but anyway; if that is the case we should be able to find another source… ] (]) 15:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
::::I think you mean a "Nordic-''Baltic'' regional division" not "Nordic-Scandinavian regional division"... --] (]) 16:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::indeed ;-). I just listened to the prime ministers speech… but only the referendum; not the court is mentioned unfortunately…. ] (]) 16:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::The DK Prime Minister? Could you add this speech as a reference in the article? Thanks. --] (]) 19:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Agreed with L.tak. ] only prohibits "unverifiable speculation", which doesn't apply here because the claims are verified by a source. The policy also states: "It ''is'' appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." I see no reason to exclude sourced speculation on where regional division might be located. ] (]) 19:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::::I fully agree that, in principle, properly referenced speculations can be discussed in an article, but here the statements were not properly referenced IMHO. The source was a self-published newsletter by a law firm. Although it seems to be a well-established law firm, this is not sufficient to me. "If the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" (from ]). --] (]) 20:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Let's please separate 2 discussions. We have a company source with a i) speculation for Greece et al. and a ii) statement that the Danish gov has made a proposal on a Nordic-Baltic division. The focus should be on "ii)" and thus the "speculation" is not a factor in establishing notability.... (The source is also easily available, an account is free) ] (]) 21:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::The Source for the Nordic/Baltic court would apppear to be a note from the Danish Minstry of Growth see http://www.eplawpatentblog.com/eplaw/2013/05/eu-upc-update-uk-and-denmark.html#more <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::::::The blog post was authored by the law firm that also authored the original source we had (elexica). And I cannot find the reference "Location of a Regional Division of the Court of First Instance (UPC), Ministry of Business and Growth, Denmark, 08 April 2013". As mentioned above, "f the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so"... So, I suggest not reporting this apparently unpublished (?) announcement by the Danish Government unless a second, distinct source confirms this. --] (]) 13:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::Well, this a not a matter of life or dead, so let's keep it out until there is such a source; I will ask ] to have a look; if he can't find it in the Danish sphere, it doesn't exist... ] (]) 17:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::'''Status in Denmark as of 1 June:''' No "implementation law" proposal has been published by the (in Danish: Erhvervs- og Vækstministeriet), neither for public hearing. The department in the ministry with the responsibility to develop the "implementation law" proposal is , and they have not published any press notes about the regional CFI in Malmö, although one of their staff employees on 2 May 2013 indeed wrote at the : "A regional division of the UPC's CFI for the nordic-baltic countries, can help to ensure that ". Based on my websearch my conclusion is, that the ministry indeed currently work to develop the idea of setting up a regional Nordic-Baltic division, but that we are still only in the pre-investigating phase, meaning that it will take several months before a specific draft law proposal for a regional division will be launched. My own speculation goes, that the ministry at the earliest will publish a draft law proposal for the "implementation law" in Q4-2013 (as our parliament anyway is of on its summer vacation from 1 June to 1 October). The government does not want to arrange a UPC referendum at all, but such a thing will be arranged if the 5/6 majority for the proposal can not be reached in parliament. As of 1 June, we have 6 parties flagging their support for the proposal (A+B+F+C+V+I) and only two parties arguing against (Ø+O). As Ø+O together represents more than 1/6 of the parliamentary seats (= more than 30 seats), we will have a referendum about it in Denmark, unless one of the parties reconsider their preliminary opinion about it after reading the submitted specific proposal. Only thing we know for sure, is that the Danish parliament has been scheduled to during next session from 1 Oct 2013 to 31 May 2014 (and that our government currently think it will be impossible to have a final proposal ready for a joint referendum together with the Municipality elections in Nov.2013). Most likely the exact location of the regional Nordic-Baltic division is currently also still unknown (perhaps Malmö has indeed been proposed by Denmark, but this has not been confirmed by any Danish press media yet, and the political negotiations about it will most likely only be carried out during the upcoming months). We also do not yet know for sure, if all other Nordic-Baltic countries indeed will be ready to join the Danish proposal. Bottom line is, that no specific proposal info has been published to the Danish press, but most likely the ministry has sent an informal "proposal letter" to all other governments of the Nordic-Baltic states, about the idea to establish a Nordic-Baltic division of the UPC's CFI. ] (]) 07:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi ], I think the second part of the sentence
== detailed table ==
{{cquote|Decisions of the UPC will cover the full territory of the UPCA Contracting Member States in which the European patent has effect,<ref>Art. 34 UPCA</ref> <u>but may (eg in actions regarding infringement) also have effect in other states where the European patent has effect</u>."}}{{reflist-talk}}
would benefit from a reference and some clarification. Do you have in mind what is referred to as the long-arm jurisdiction of the UPC, resulting from Art. 71b(3) Brussels I (recast) Regulation (i.e., Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012) as amended by Regulation (EU) No 542/2014 (Art. 71b(3) reads: "... where a common court has jurisdiction over a defendant under point 2 in a dispute relating to an infringement of a European patent giving rise to damage within the Union, <u>that court may also exercise jurisdiction in relation to damage arising outside the Union from such an infringement</u>.")? See e.g. point 60ff of . --] (]) 17:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
:Well, that is -I believe- the specific jurisdiction that is not normally in Brussels 1, but normally left to member states. In the case of unified courts it is arranged through Art 71b(3). What I mean is the basic rule under the Brussels system that one can sue for damages in the place of residence of the defendant; and that damages can be awarded for the full infringement territory. In the case of the UPC that infringement is limited to European patents and thus could cover 38 countries. The work you cite (which is great btw!) describes it under paragraph 27, with an example under paragraph 29.... ] (]) 18:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
::Yes, this is obviously a great document. And it also shows how complex this subject is... That is, we still have some work to do in our section "Competence" to reflect this complexity and the possible uncertainties regarding some aspects of the system. It might be good to have distinct sub-sections within the section "Competence", such as "International jurisdiction", "Territorial jurisdiction", and "Jurisdiction during the transitional period". ] (]) 21:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
:::It is complex indeed, but I am not sure how to approach it. We could indeed have the competence part as a section (as there is a fixed list of competence), and then expand that it can use that competence only if it has jurisdiction; and that the type of action determines the territorial effect of a decision. However it may also go beyond the scope of this article and we run the risk loosing ourselves in the details... It may be best to leave it (roughly) as it is now... ] (]) 14:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


== Ratification Table ==
] has added a detailed table predicting ratification by the signatory states. Per ] I reverted that, as the table removed vital specific information (the entry into force criteria), and had many unsourced assertions (which Belgian parliaments will need to ratify in this case? it's certainly not all here); lot's of information on required percentages (which are treaty dependent); and info on implementation law (which is not always needed; and was always unsourced). I'd like to start the discussion here on how the table should look like! ] (]) 22:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


@], regarding the colouring of the table the legend is clearly defined as below,
:Firstly it is usual practice to have a table of the nature I produced al be it this is more detailed, the version I have replaced is not fit for purpose and is unclear. The information in the "notes" section of that table was moved underneath the table I produced. I understand that sources will be required and some sources will be not possible or would be absurd e.g. sourcing a 50% majority required in most parliaments. The current table is not fit for purpose and needs the kind of massive overhaul I have provided, if the version I have produced needs updating then please make suggestions. Though I think we can all agree the current version in unfit for purpose. ] (]) 22:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
{|
::No objections to adding the table, but I agree with L.tak that we should drop the "Majority needed" and "Implementation" columns, at least until we have sources for them. Otherwise they're pure speculation. Belgium is always a disaster, so I've got no good ideas for that. As for the "entry into force criteria", I suggest a footnote combined with colouring (similar to how we handled the ESM .)
|-
::Perhaps we can all use your ] to get the table up to snuff before we move it live ]?
| style="background:lightgreen; border:1px solid #aaa; width:2em;" |
::Also, it's generally considered good form to leave a note in your edit summary if you ] as you did with this table from ]. (It's not a big deal, because there's no copyrightable material in the edit, just a matter of politeness.) ] (]) 00:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
| = States which have ratified the agreement
|-
| style="background:#FFFF90; border:1px solid #aaa; width:2em;" |
| = States which must ratify the agreement for it to enter into force
|}


The UK columns are green because they '''did''' ratify the treaty. You say that "coloring in by legislative house is consistent with general practice in ratification tables", could you please point to a policy or accepted practice that supports your assertion?
:::I have no principle problems with adding a table in a format based on this, as long as it is not ]; and people are willing to maintain it. I think for Belgium the safest way is to only add the 2 parliaments we are sure of (I am actually hopeful that this will not be considered a mixed treaty by Belgium, and that the regions and communities stay out of this; but that may be naive). Also the Danish referendum should go; we haven't had the initial vote in parliament yet there… The proposal to do the prep work in a sandbox seems a very good one. Furthermore: ":signatories date" sounds weird to me…(as for CWW, I think it is required to provide attribution, as the exact table format in itself is -in the better safe than sorry-world of wikimedia foundation- copyrightable ] (]) 08:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
For me it's clear, Ireland '''as a state''' have not ratified the treaty.


Anyway, there's no point in getting into an edit war over this, so let's try and reach a consensus. ] (]) 14:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Feel free to play with the table in my sandbox. The reason the signatory date was put in the table by me is as EU member states can accede to the treaty they can sign later e.g. Bulgaria signing in March not February. I am just keen to have something in place which can replace the current table in the article, as the current version is woefully inadequate. I think the implementation table on the side is useful as it shows the different ways this treaty will be ratified e.g. Ireland will be amending its constitution and holding a referendum which would not otherwise be clear from text. ] (]) 10:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


:Happy to discuss. See previous edits such as . If you go through the past edits on this page, you'll see that individual institutions were individually colored as they voted. It's also the approach that was taken to the ratification of EU Association Agreements like . Or I'd take lighter green as a compromise. ] (]) 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::*Signing later is a bit… vague. We have the news reports of Bulgaria, but the treaty doesn't say it is possible; and the depository indicates all signatures were in February (which seems to be white lie) (but my point was: it should be not signatory date, but "signature").
:Also, for a more recent example, tracking Swedish accession to Nato, . ] (]) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::*(Please accept that "woefully inadequate" is your point of view. There are many, many more treaties on wikipedia, with this woeful version, then there are with the European version; and at least they are correct). The implementation law will hopelessly complicate things. How are we going to find out if there is an implementation law in -say- Greece? Or just an approval law? And what about the Netherlands, where the implementation law (better: the change of the current patent law) will be a consensus kingdom law (requiring first the assent of Curacao, Sint Maarten, possibly Aruba, before the parliament approves), while the approval law will be a normal Kingdom law.
::Thanks for your reply and comprehensive examples. I'll admit you're approach appears to be correct. I did like the light green example you highlighted . I'm not too pushed either way, I just don't want the table to be misleading. Regards, ] (]) 18:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::*I tried editing the table, but I don't manage the changes removing entries etc. I have it on my watch list however, so I'll be doing the things I can do whenever I can.. ] (]) 10:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Perks of not having had a life ten years ago. It is annoying when people refer to legislative votes as ratification when that properly refers to the deposit of the instrument of ratification. That being said, going by row makes changes in the table more visible, and I think it's fine as long as the country name and ratification date box are left unchanged. I'm going to leave it lightgreen for now, but I won't revert if anyone does want to change it to lightlightgreen. ] (]) 21:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

::::Yeah I think it's fine as is. It might look a bit odd between presidential assent and formal ratification (if the referendum is passed that is), but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. ] (]) 22:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Of course this is all opinion and I have to politely reject the notion of "others are like to so its fine" that is like saying the table on the EU constitution is clear and easily understood, just because it has been left alone for sometime. This table is free from how the actual parliaments ratify and is just a country name date of signature and a vague "notes". Notes goes in prose not in the table, notes in the table are necessarily complicating and if they have to go in the table they are best put in as a footnote, not the rambling prose they currently are. Also the nonsense POV stuff on the EU relations and the UK should be removed, as it is POV pushing and Original Research backed up by synthesised sources. All of the information you have raised about the different kinds of legislation and approval needed are important as it is how the different countries are ratifying the Treaty. Just because something is complicated doesn't mean it should be overlooked because it may be difficult to write or may take time too write. Users on Wikipeida are not idiots and users should expect to receive the full facts and sources not just what is simplest or most convenient for editors. It is just in my opinion laziness to obfuscate on this by saying "its not clear cut and could be complicated". ] (]) 11:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::If you think the "nonsense UK pod stuff should be removed; propose it on the talk page… I don't agree that all the info I raised is necessarily encyclopedic. We are here to document the ratification process in encyclopedic detail. That doesn't mean we can't discuss to what detail it is appropriate to add it here. I agree with you that "level of complication" is not a criterion, but "possibility to obtain info from reliable source"; which is -also considering languages- sometimes a bit, very big problem. {{unsigned|L.tak}}
:::::::::I have just raised the removal of the UK prose section, it reads like it is written by the Daily Mail or UKIP. ] (]) 11:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::SAP: I'd agree that the details of the ratification procedure are important, and worth mentioning if they can be sourced. However, my primary concern is that they are sourced. As L.tak points out above, this is often very difficult. At present, there are no sources for the "Implementation" column, so it's pure speculation and guess work. If you think these details are important, then go out and find some sources! If you can source the column then I'd support it's inclusion. But we should refrain from including unsourced content. ] (]) 16:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree that if sourceble and clear it ''could'' be in. It certainly does require more defining than ahs been done until now, as I have the impression approval law, approval procedure and implementation law(s) have been conflated. We added this column (after much debate) to the European Fiscal Compact treaty, because -as a treaty requirement!- some provisions had to be transferred into national law. This is not the case here and the implementation law will therefore be more about forbidding of a unitary patent to take effect (related to ] more than the agreement; national jurisdiction of the court; setting up local divisions etc). It will be very hard to get that all in such a table... Anyway, if the table would be implemented now (witht he implementation law removed until we have a consensus on what and how and if to include), I won't object; (and we can wait and see how capable we are as an editing group in keeping it filled; I did a round of German, Dutch, English and French sources, but didn't find anything definate yet) ] (]) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Finally on the signature date/signature I cannot see need for a change if countries can accede, Croatia could accede and they were not legally allowed to sign before they were a member of the European Union, so the source stating "all signatures signed in February" is not correct.] (]) 11:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::It's not a big deal; but Croatia, can accede, but not sign+ratify anymore (which doesn't matter; it's the same legal effect). The text reads: "This Agreement shall be open for signature by any Member State on 19 February 2013." {{unsigned|L.tak}}

==UK ratification information==
] said int the section above "Also the nonsense POV stuff on the EU relations and the UK should be removed, as it is POV pushing and Original Research backed up by synthesised sources." and indicated that it should be considered as "raising it on the talk page" as I proposed after that. Feel free to give your standpoints on what should be done with the section here… ] (]) 11:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
:Feel free to improve ], but I don't see any good reason for removing the material, which is backed by a reliable source ({{cite web |url=http://www.worldipreview.com/news/cameron-eu-speech-could-threaten-unitary-patent |title=Cameron EU speech could threaten Unitary Patent |date=24 January 2013 |publisher=World IP Review |accessdate=11 May 2013}}). ]. --] (]) 20:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

::It is elevating a single source and giving it ]. ] (]) 20:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
:::You made a good point. Thanks. I have attempted to find additional sources and apart from raising similar concerns, I couldn't find much more substance on this. Thus, I have removed the sentence (which I had added) and I have integrated the rest of the section into the table above. --] (]) 20:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

== UK ratification ==

Does anyone know whether we are following at the moment (that gives rise to implementation of the Unified Patent Court) is also the law that approves ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court; or whether a separate bill should be proposed to that effect? ] (]) 02:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:The Intellectual Property Bill in the 2013-14 session of parliament ratifies the treaty under section 17 of the Bill. ] (]) 10:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
::That section introduces a new Section 88A to the Intellectual property act which gives the secretary of state the power to confer jurisdiction etc on the unified patent court ("The Secretary of State may by order make provision for giving effect in the United Kingdom to the provisions of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court made in Brussels on 19 February 2013."). But I wonder if it also gives the power to deposit an instrument of ratification of the ''agreement on a Unified Patent Court'', because that is not explicitly stated… With (the amendment of article 136 of 1 of the EU treaties) it was much more explicit: "The European Council decision of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro (2011/199/EU) is approved." The same goes for the Croatian accession treaty : "The treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union, signed at Brussels on 9 December 2011, is approved." ] (]) 15:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I'd expect to see clearer language that the bill approves ratification of the Agreement like the past examples L.tak has provided. But I did some searching and couldn't come up with any other bill. So either this is it, or maybe they are planning to implement first and then ratify. ] (]) 18:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
::::I have a feeling this may be ratified slightly differently to other EU treaties as not all member states are participating. I have a feeling the instrument of deposition could well come when the Brussels II regulations are updated. The UK may potentially pass a standing Order allowing the deposition of the Instruments of Ratification with the Italian Government under Secondary Legislation or previous Intellectual Property/Patent legislation. Alternatively the UK may just be accepting this allows them to ratify but this bill clearly implements the provisions of the treaty in to UK law the deposition may be done under other legislation e.g. the European Communities Act 1972. We will have to wait and see. ] (]) 21:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
For sure it is different, as it is a non-EU treaty (but it follows the European scrutiny committee)… I had an interesting read today about treaty ratification in the UK and I am sharing some results:
*Formally, there is no requirement for parliament to approve or ratify a treaty
*However, according to the ], treaties are laid before parliament, which may decide to debate them (this has become a "constitutional rule"; if so done, also an Explanatory Memorandum is produced
*Parliament may decide to debate within a specified period…
*Some treaties are not layer before parliament (e.g. double taxation treaties, but that is no "democratic problem", as they can only be ratified following legislation regarding implementation measures.
Now with regard to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court:
*It was presented to parliament in June 2013 (see
*An explanatory memorandum is also produced ()
*The subject has been debated of course as part of the implementation law and will probably be debated as well as part of the adaption of Brussels I.
I ''interpret'' that with the non-debate on the UPC-agreement, it has ''de jure'' (well: de jure as practiced by the common law) been silently approved according to the Ponsonby Rule; while ''de facto'' it will only be ok after votes on the changes in the IP-law (the one we are now reporting in the table) AND the approval by parliament of the amendment of Brussels I. Whatever we decide to put in the table, I guess we'll have to add some clarifying notes regarding the nature of the votes in parliament we are reporting… ] (]) 22:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
:I've gone ahead and made a note; whilst keeping the focus on the present act there…. Feel free to further fine tune (or to revert and discuss here)! ] (]) 23:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:: clearly states the Intellectual Property Bill ratifies the UPC treaty and I think provides the clarity on the subject from a reliable source we are looking for. ] (]) 15:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
:::Well, it says "It will implement the Unified Patent Court, which will mean that a single patent application will be valid in almost all EU countries. ", which means it is an implementation law, rather than an approval law for the agreement… ] (]) 16:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

== Bug in table? ==

Why is there a horizontal line above "14 March 2014" (row "France", column "Deposited") in the signature/ratification table? A bug? --] (]) 16:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
:I see nothing out of the ordinary, so I might nog fully grasp the location you have the error; but it is also possible that this is a visualization error that is browser or browser/computer combi specific... Can you check if it still occurs in a different computer with a different browser? ] (]) 18:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
::I've found in the past that the table renders strangely in certain browser/operating system combinations, with the bolded borders sometimes not showing up at all, and at other times only in random locations. ] (]) 20:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Here is what I see with Firefox 27.0.1:
:::] I'll try to check with another browser... but I've just one on my computer right now... --] (]) 20:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Same problem with Firefox 28.0... --] (]) 20:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
::::What zoom level are you at? (Try: View->Zoom->Reset) At the default zoom level it looks fine for me on 28.0, but if I zoom out too much the cell borders get funky. I suspect it is . ] (]) 20:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::I am at a "zoomed-in" level. But I have the same problem at the default zoom level. How weird... This line seems to stick somehow. --] (]) 21:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

==Entry into force==
I'm trying to determine when the Brussels I requirement is met for use in the table L.tak added. I think it makes more sense to use the date when the condition allows for entry into force of the treaty, rather than the date the regulation is published.

The UPC agreement says while the relevant regulation says
Reading that one would assume that the UPC Agreement could enter into force as early as 1 September 2014, however the Regulation doesn't actually apply until months later. It seems a bit strange that the UPC Agreement could enter into force before the Regulation applies. Does anyone have any sources which shed some light on this? ] (]) 21:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
:Hmmm, I don't... It seems to me that interpreted to letter, the date of 28 May applies, and interpreted to the intention Jan 2015 applies and I have no particular preference of what date to use... (<small>feel free to further tweak, especially the column headers, which I feel are somewhat awkwardly phrased....</small>) ] (]) 22:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
::Well, I found (non-RS) which has noticed a similar issue. However, I found which suggests the entry into force of the Brussels I amendment was moved forward specifically to allow the UPC Agreement to enter into force early. So it seems 1 September is probably the correct date. How that would be possible I have no idea. But it's probably best to keep the table as you set it up since I can't find any sources which give a precise date. Perhaps something will come up over time. ] (]) 23:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

== royal assent in Denmark ==

I have never looked into this before, but have a general concern and a concern regarding the dates. I am therefore not entirely happy with mentioning the date as "expected" already without a source explicitly stating that as there seems to be quite some wiggle room here: (see )
*the council of state (Statsråd) seems to give consent, not the monarch... should we change the text of "royal assent"
*the document says acts should be enacted within 30 days after passing parliament; but nothing of the post referendum procedure.... Will there be a new act after the referendum? or will the 30 days start after that?
*The expected statsråd will take place at 25 june, 31 days after the referendum.... Will this be in time?
Based on this, I'd prefer not to have a date, but I'd be ok with keeping it in, but have no problems keeping it in at the risk of being wrong for the next 2 weeks or so; but it would be good if someone could shed some light on this... ] (]) 09:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
:The law has been "stadfæstet" (formally declared to be in force) five days ago, on 03-06-2014.--] (]) 14:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
::I've updated the text in the table:--] (]) 14:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Great! good that that seems to be solved... One question; the law seems to be signed on 2 June (not 3) according to the document; am I correct? ] (]) 15:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
::::You are correct. It was signed on 2 June, and published on 3 June. I should probably have written 2 June in the article:--] (]) 15:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

== annulment actions ==
There seem to be three positions regarding the impact of Spanish actions for annulment of the unitary patent regulations on the Unified Patent Court
#(by the IP or IPs): If the unitary patent is stopped, it will have no bearing on the start of the UPC agreement (which is –legally speaking- true)
#by Danish: If the Unitary patent is stopped, it will delay implementation of the UPC (based on the premise that there are reports saying the unitary patent preps have to be finished before the UPC can start)
#by me: If the unitary patent is stopped, the UPC agreement entry into force criteria will not change (no formal effect), but it is well possible that a negative CJEU statement will negatively effect the willingness of states to ratify the agreement (so we can simply not make a definite statement at the time).
This all would be solved of course by reliable sources directly stating what will happen to the UPC in the case of annulment… Do we have those available? And what do we do in the mean time?
] (]) 06:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
:I think we all agree, that regardless if position 1/2/3 is correct, we need a source to tell us - because it is far from something we can conclude just by using logic. Just to clarify, in regards of my 2nd position, I agree with you that ''"if the unitary patent is stopped, the UPC agreement entry into force criteria will not change"'', but my flag to all people, is just that the UPC "commencement of operations" in this situation would be delayed. When reading several status documents published by the preparatory committee and the select committee, it leaves the impression they will and have the power to delay "UPC commencement of operations" if they are not ready (which mean both the unitary patent and UPC court structures needs to be ready). I also assume it makes no sense to have "UPC commencement of operations" in case the Unitary patent is not ready in advance, because it would create troubles (shortened timelines) with the predefined agreement deadlines for converting EPO granted European patents to unitary patents. Finally, I do not think a technical "UPC entry into force" several months ahead of "UPC entry into operation" would be a critical disaster, because as far as I have understood, there will anyway be a 7 year transitional period where all national courts still will be allowed to continue judging all old European Patents; meaning that we do not have a jurisdiction vacuum. The only loss would be - in case of "UPC entry into force" ahead of "UPC commencement of operations" - that their would be no launch of unitary patents until the point of time we have the "UPC commencement of operations", because only the UPC have jurisdiction to judge and grant these delicious unitary patents. As a temporary solution for the article, I think we should as minimum add a cn-tag to the current sentence "does not necessarily cause a delay for the UPC", which I just did. ] (]) 14:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
::He Danish, you know we disagree regarding the possibility of the UPC not to exist after the UPC-agreement has entered into force (in my view it is contrary to article 1, 3b/c/d, but also the transitional regime; the fact that they "may" opt out leaves the requirement of the states parties to leave the option not to opt out and litigate) compatible with article 3a); maybe it is therefore best to write about the agreement and not about the court in a similar conclusion that we had re. the commencement of operations discussion? ] (]) 16:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
:::But you cant "opt out" from something which doesn't exist (and the UPC agreement can have an entry into force despite certain of its provisions then will be regulating something that does not yet exist). If we indeed get the scenario, where the "unitary patent" regulation is annulled by the court, this will mean that the "unitary patent" can not enter into force, and hence it wont exist, at least not until the point when a new amended regulation has been passed and approved by all parties (which will be a long process). In that scenario, my point is that the "UPC entry into force" will not be affected. The IP-editor is correct, so far that the UPC still both can have "entry into force" and by judicial terms also "commencement of operations"; it would just only be ruling on and granting the ordinary EP's. My argument however goes, that the Preparatory Committee has the power -no matter what- always to delay the UPC's "commencement of operations" if they agree this is smart by a 3/4 majority, and in their published status reports they have expressed it is very important both the "unitary patent" and "court structures" are fully ready ahead of "commencement of operations". This is why, I argue the annulment of the "unitary patent" would not lead to a delay of "entry into force of the UPC agreement" (which is controlled by the ratification speed), but most likely lead to a delay of its "commencement of operations". If the court ruling a month from now does not annul the "unitary patent", our discussion will only be academic, because we will never really find out. For the moment I can (for the reason that time will soon anyway solve our academic debate) accept the current more "unclear" formulation in the article followed by its cn-tag. ] (]) 15:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
::::We agree in the first part, but not in the second: I don't see how the prep com would delay with 3/4 votes (and this, as you indeed suggest original research). The claim that they have stated it is important to have the unitary patent ready for the UPC does not necessarily take into account the situation of annulment (does it need to be ready, even if it is annulled? we don't know....). I am a bit concerned of having the cn tag as a temp solution; they should only be used to solve something, not to stall something.... Why do you have a problem with my "necessarily" solution, which indicates it is not a legal requirement, but decisions of people (in my case: the decision of the UK not to ratifiy if things are not yet clear; in your case: a decision of the committee) may result in a de facto non-commencement.... ] (]) 21:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::I had no problem with your "necessarily". When the IP-editor had removed it for the third time, I however (in the attempt of launching a compromise and avoid edit-war) reinstated the "necessarily" again with a cn-tag. As the IP-editor never enganged in our discussion (and as I think your formulation was reasonably open - not requiring a citation), I will however not object if you remove the cn-tag again. ] (]) 05:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::Good; I will implement if I hear no objections in the next day or so... ] (]) 10:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

==Court cases==
Should we farm out the 4 (5? incl the one agaisnt the treaty?) court actions to a separate article ]? I am afraid it will be too big soon; but we need to be able to give more info; and we can do it in one place with two summaries (at unitary patent; and at this page....) ] (]) 10:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:I think we should wait to farm out, until the moment it grows too big. For the purpose of perhaps giving a few more details about the legal complaints, I can recommend a full read of (and to use) this 3 page , also added yesterday as a timeline reference to the article. For the moment I think we should not expand with too many details...maximum one or two more lines (explaining the 2 cases contain 7 complaints; and mentioning what the two most notable complaints are about) would be appropriate according to the Misplaced Pages notability criteria. If the court uphelds part of the Spainish complaints, the two cases will on that point of time suddenly become much more notable, which on that point of time then would justify a farm out and more details to be added. If the court dismisses all complaints, their notability will remain at the current relative low level, and then I think its most appropriate not to do a farm out or big extension. ] (]) 06:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::He Danish, fair enough; let's wait a bit and let's see how it plays out... I have the feeling the previous case will get some notability in the next 10 years or so (and maybe now already), as it interprets for the first time essential elements of the enhanced cooperation procedure, but I am not sure if there are sufficient treatments in reliable sources about that... The same goes for the interpretation of the removal of articles 6-8 from the regulation: in my words: leaving an essential element of a regulation to (unified) national law; thus turning a regulation with that respect basically into a directive... ] (]) 10:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC).

== Malta ratification ==

Compared to Article 3 in the Maltese , the Maltese UPC ratification (as far as I understand) is of the 1.C type, which will have to follow the 2.A ratification procedure because it ''"contains any provision which is to become, or to be enforceable as, part of the law of Malta"''; meaning that ratification can not be done alone by the parliaments approval of a ratification resolution (as provided for by the 2.B ratification procedure) but needs to be completed by an '''Act of Parliament'''. All Maltese newspapers however reported the story in January 2014, in a way indicating the parliamentary ratification process had been completed. Even the picked up the story and blogged that Malta had completed its parliamentary ratification process. Hence we have a situation where the story communicated by the press/media, is that the Maltese parliamentary ratification process has been completed; but according to the Maltese ratification law it has not been completed. This is kind of incredible (and almost hard to believe), which is why I also decided to leave a note about it here. In all circumstances, I think we need to keep an eye with the situation, and as soon as the this should be reported in the "Malta ratification note" to clarify the situation. Currently the Maltese Parliament work to finalize a , but without looking into it in details, it appear not to have anything to do with the UPC or unitary patent, which is why I chose not to mention it in the note. If you have any additional comments/knowledge about what is going on with the Maltese ratification, please share. :-) ] (]) 09:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
:He Danish, thanks for taking the time to work this out a bit.... Your explanation regarding the required act seems sensible when concluding that it is a 1.C agreement (although that is indeed also debatable ,as this is a "common court", and also the UK doubted whether it should apply its "intergovernmental organizations" provisions there), with a 2.A ratification procedure... The partliament (in my google translate (!) of the resolution you mentioned) does not seem to think so suggesting the ratification requirements have been fulfilled: ''Since after Fteim signed by Malta on 19 February 2013, Malta has now passed the ratification process, to be carried out in accordance with article 3 of the Act on Ratification Treaties (Cap 304). Parliament authorizing Malta to ratify the Agreement (Patent Court Industrial unified) Unified Patent Court (UPC) which was signed on 19 February 2013, copies its English language is annexed to this resolution.'' I think it may be that article 3 should be read differently: ratification is now allowed, but to have effect for ordinary persons (to give effect to it in Maltese law) some type of legisliation (possibly a type of implementation legislation that gives effect to the treaty) is required... We'll see how it works out! ] (]) 09:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::Indeed, I will keep all doors open for what happens next! Including a door for the option, that the current ''"Bill 60 amending the patent act"'' (which switch status from bill to act when passed by the third reading), perhaps implicit solves potential UPC and unitary patent conflicts with the Maltese law without explicit mentioning the UPC and "unitary patent" - and thus could substitute the need for approval of an explicit "Ratification Act". In that case, the deposit of the Maltese ratification currently only awaits the 3rd reading approval of . Due to all the uncertainty, I however still prefer not to mention Bill 60 in the note, until the point of time when we know which (if any) role it will play in the UPC ratification procedure. :-) ] (]) 10:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
;Dear Danish ,Expert': You are a ,wisenheimer' and NOT an expert! Therefore the quality of this page is so low and nobody relevant will consult it in the future! Switch over to the official site of the EU commission. Its much more reliable them self appointed so called ,experts'! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== UK ratification - use of news from patent attorneys etc...; let's not go that deep in OR territory, that we are not sure of the results anymore...; let's keep it short ==

I have edited the UK ratification note.... I think these notes should be reserved for necessary details, and we are loosing outself (as always) in getting too much details... That is not necessary, and also we run the risk of being wrong because we need to further then reliable sources go... A couple of important points
#I am uneasy using , as it is basically a company employee that gives some information in order to attrackt viewers... It falls in the blog-system (only to be used in exceptional cases). Especially when he says ''It is understood that the United Kingdom is expected to ratify the UPC Agreement by the time of the next General Election'', that means he uses a vague passive voice. We can't use, especially when we don't attribute even it.
#there is original research regarding to which level implementation acts have to be in place (as a rule? as a formal requirement? any exceptions?) and thus to predict when the UK may be in a position to ratify; especially when we explicitly say which is the last required step.
#do we really need "laid before, and approved by parliament? why not "approved by parliament"? What info would be lost?
#we get into lenghty details. Do we really have to state the consultation start date, the deadline, the date of response of the government, and what they will do?
#Does the UK have a meaningful legislative cycle? Are acts dissolved if parliament is dissolved? is this commonly used?
I am hesitant to get a long conversation over what should be a short and referenced note, but the thoughts of talk page watchers.... ] (]) 19:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
:* '''Ad.1)''' Source far from optimal. It was added as step 1 in the process of building the note, because at that point it was the best we had. After step 2 in my work to build the note (adding info about IPA and "technical review of Patent Order 2015"), we have better sources and explanations leading to the same conclusion of the source you now criticize. Based on that, I can accept we remove it. However, we should perhaps consider reflecting his last point about the "legislative cycle" - which I will elaborate on at your point 5.
:* '''Ad.2)''' You are correct that other actions (i.e. a challenge of the act/order to a constitutional court), potentially could delay the deposit of the ratification instrument. As far as I know, for UK the "Patents Order 2015" will however be a direct part of the "ratification instrument" to be deposited
:* '''Ad.3)''' Now you attack a line, that originally was a copied as a cite of what had been written in the IPA 2014. Reason why I chose to cite it at step 1, was that it accurately reflected what had been outlined by IPA 2014, for the purpose of avoiding editors to disbelief the factual point of the note. At step 2, the cite was then converted into our own interpretation of the words, and then we of course no longer need the additional words. So I can accept you deleted those words. Including that you cooked down "both houses of parliament" to "parliament", despite that some could argue, that it is not "automatically implied" for casual readers (being non-experts into UK law) that both houses would need to approve an implementation order. Cutting out details will very often diminish the extend of info provided by the line! In this case, I can however fully accept the deleted words, and have no objection against your point 3.
:* '''Ad.4)''' Yes, it '''is''' relevant to note for the time being, that the further parliamentary process for approving the Patent Order awaits a Technical consultation review with the noted deadlines. This inform readers by facts, how long time it as minimum will take before the parliament will even start to discuss their approval of the implementation order. In particular because the UK ratification speed is vital for when the overall agreement can enter into force (as one of the 3 big countries required to have completed ratification before an overall entry into force will happen), this "time info" for the UK process is very important to include!
:* '''Ad.5)''' Yes UK have a meaningful legislative cycle! Bills/orders not passed by parliament (and all non-completed work) ahead of the parliaments dissolvement, will automatically be dissolved, and the parliamentary process needs to start all over from scratch. This is why it is "understood" by our lawyer source, that the government will make sure the "implementation order" gets approved ahead of the date when the UK parliament automatically becomes dissolved. Now when you object so much about it, I can accept we do not mention the legislative cycle. This is mainly however, only due to your reasonable argument, that we need a more primary source from government (or a government party) stating they as a priority will do their outmost to ensure the parliamentary process for approval of the "Patents Order 2015" will be completed within the current legislative cycle. I agree with you in so far, that we need an additional source for that. I disagree with you in so far, if you claim no such source can be found during the next 6 months. I am positively certain, that such needed source will become available, sooner or later. For the sake of peace, I am willing to accept we do not mention the "legislative cycle" until that point of time.
:Overall I can accept your deleted point 1+2+3+5, but I can not accept your deleted point 4 for the reasons given above. ] (]) 06:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
::ok, thanks for your reply... I accept to keep ad.4 in, and to re-add ad. 5 (info regarding elections) once we have a truly reliable source... ] (]) 07:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:29, 14 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unified Patent Court article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEuropean Union Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Privileges and Immunities protocol

How is it possible to integrate the Privileges and Immunities protocol ratification in to this article. This is the whole reason why the UK has not yet completed its ratification, and is an integral part of the UPC coming in to force. Can there be some discussion in to how this can be integrated promptly into the article, to give a complete picture of how this is occurring. The UK has now passed the necessary statutory instrument, and this needs showing, and preferably in a tabular format. Sport and politics (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not in favour of this. The UK text should stop somewhere, and the UK has decided to make its ratification dependent on passing the privileges and immunities protocol, others first want to change their patents act, others don't, but it is too much detail for this article to include. And the ratification notes on the UK are anyway already much longer (the only ones, where we are stating two legislative proposals, where NONE of them is actual ratification). We have privileges protocols for all major international organisations, and they are also there hardly mentioned... L.tak (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This is though holding up the UK from depositing the instruments of ratification. This needs to be included somewhere. In my opinion the information on the whole ratification process should be included in a separate article. I propose that the article is split in to a separate article on ratification issues. It is correct that the main article is too big to go in to all the details and a more detailed article on the ratification and implementation is required. Sport and politics (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Again. No, this is a single country issue and a choice on how they proceed. If we separate this, we have to get info on all this from many countries, and that simply isn't available... L.tak (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
For countries where this isn't available, simple it isn't available, that does not mean information that is available should not be included. That is like saying off-line sources cannot be access on-line, so should not be included. Not including all of the information simply means that the Misplaced Pages will not show the full picture, and will omit key information regarding just how complex implementation can be for some countries on this issue. Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom to name but three. Sport and politics (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, we are an encyclopedia, and not a directory of all available info. That requires choices, and also to trying to be balanced. I don't see omitting the process of UK ratification of an immunities protocol as omitting key information, and agree that more info on the UK needed to be there (although the amount now in, is already way, way too much IMO). Let's see what the comments of others are however, to see what is the best way forward... L.tak (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is a proposed common patent court open for participation of all member states of the European Union."

This is disputed, surely? Or at least it is supposed (by some) to be open to all member states of the European Patent Convention without a requirement to be part of the EU? FOARP (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is disputed. I have just added a reference. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It has at least been disputed by the UK government and by academics, no? https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/12/3/245/3059290 FOARP (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
No, there is no dispute on who can be a party to the Unified Patent Court (only EU states), but there is no clear answer on what would happen upon leaving the Union. Thus it is unclear if the UK can remain in the Unified Patent Court after Brexit... L.tak (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
In a new paper "Delayed Again? The Benelux Alternative to the UPC" (https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article-abstract/70/12/1133/6362674), Dr Jaeger argues this is not a common court to the Member States, as the CJEU had recognised only the Benelux Court of Justice being part of the judicial order of the EU because national courts are involved in the Benelux system, not in the UPC system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoobab (talk • contribs) 23:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ratification by three states with most European patents in effect in 2012

Hi L.tak, you added "after Brexit: France, Germany and Italy". Do we need a source for that? Is it clear that, after the U.K. left the EU, the condition for ratification automatically changed? --Edcolins (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should need a source for that and it may be unclear: the condition is "This Agreement shall enter into force on 1 January 2014 or on the first day of the fourth month after the deposit of the thirteenth instrument of ratification or accession in accordance with Article 84, including the three Member States in which the highest number of European patents had effect in the year preceding the year in which the signature of the Agreement takes place or on the first day of the fourth month after the date of entry into force of the amendments to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 concerning its relationship with this Agreement, whichever is the latest." It is questionable whether this meant "member states at the time of signature" or "member states during ratification"... L.tak (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it seems the legal provision is a little unclear, and it is not for us to decide how it should be understood. We need a reliable source for the contention that, after Brexit, France, Germany, and Italy, rather than France, Germany, and the UK (in which case this would mean that the agreement could no longer enter into force, absent a renegotiation) are the decisive "the three Member States in which the highest number of European patents had effect" for the entry into force. --Edcolins (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Effect outside the Contracting Member States of the UPCA (and even for non-EU States)

Hi L.tak, I think the second part of the sentence

“ Decisions of the UPC will cover the full territory of the UPCA Contracting Member States in which the European patent has effect, but may (eg in actions regarding infringement) also have effect in other states where the European patent has effect." ”

References

  1. Art. 34 UPCA

would benefit from a reference and some clarification. Do you have in mind what is referred to as the long-arm jurisdiction of the UPC, resulting from Art. 71b(3) Brussels I (recast) Regulation (i.e., Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012) as amended by Regulation (EU) No 542/2014 (Art. 71b(3) reads: "... where a common court has jurisdiction over a defendant under point 2 in a dispute relating to an infringement of a European patent giving rise to damage within the Union, that court may also exercise jurisdiction in relation to damage arising outside the Union from such an infringement.")? See e.g. point 60ff of this document. --Edcolins (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, that is -I believe- the specific jurisdiction that is not normally in Brussels 1, but normally left to member states. In the case of unified courts it is arranged through Art 71b(3). What I mean is the basic rule under the Brussels system that one can sue for damages in the place of residence of the defendant; and that damages can be awarded for the full infringement territory. In the case of the UPC that infringement is limited to European patents and thus could cover 38 countries. The work you cite (which is great btw!) describes it under paragraph 27, with an example under paragraph 29.... L.tak (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this is obviously a great document. And it also shows how complex this subject is... That is, we still have some work to do in our section "Competence" to reflect this complexity and the possible uncertainties regarding some aspects of the system. It might be good to have distinct sub-sections within the section "Competence", such as "International jurisdiction", "Territorial jurisdiction", and "Jurisdiction during the transitional period". Edcolins (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
It is complex indeed, but I am not sure how to approach it. We could indeed have the competence part as a section (as there is a fixed list of competence), and then expand that it can use that competence only if it has jurisdiction; and that the type of action determines the territorial effect of a decision. However it may also go beyond the scope of this article and we run the risk loosing ourselves in the details... It may be best to leave it (roughly) as it is now... L.tak (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Ratification Table

@Lambsbridge, regarding the colouring of the table the legend is clearly defined as below,

= States which have ratified the agreement
= States which must ratify the agreement for it to enter into force

The UK columns are green because they did ratify the treaty. You say that "coloring in by legislative house is consistent with general practice in ratification tables", could you please point to a policy or accepted practice that supports your assertion? For me it's clear, Ireland as a state have not ratified the treaty.

Anyway, there's no point in getting into an edit war over this, so let's try and reach a consensus. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy to discuss. See previous edits such as this one. If you go through the past edits on this page, you'll see that individual institutions were individually colored as they voted. It's also the approach that was taken to the ratification of EU Association Agreements like here. Or I'd take this lighter green as a compromise. Lambsbridge (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, for a more recent example, tracking Swedish accession to Nato, here. Lambsbridge (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and comprehensive examples. I'll admit you're approach appears to be correct. I did like the light green example you highlighted here. I'm not too pushed either way, I just don't want the table to be misleading. Regards, Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Perks of not having had a life ten years ago. It is annoying when people refer to legislative votes as ratification when that properly refers to the deposit of the instrument of ratification. That being said, going by row makes changes in the table more visible, and I think it's fine as long as the country name and ratification date box are left unchanged. I'm going to leave it lightgreen for now, but I won't revert if anyone does want to change it to lightlightgreen. Lambsbridge (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I think it's fine as is. It might look a bit odd between presidential assent and formal ratification (if the referendum is passed that is), but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Unified Patent Court: Difference between revisions Add topic