Unified Patent Court Agreement Germany
Ultimately, there is no denying that with the UK, the appeal of the UPC itself will also diminish. Not only will excellent judges and lawyers be excluded, but the UPC will not be able to adjudicate cases affecting the UK`s large economic market, leading to the risk of double proceedings (not to mention procedural costs). The procedural costs for English court proceedings are generally much higher than the procedural costs in the main patent jurisdictions in continental Europe, i.e. Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy. Despite the positive assessment of the EPO PREPARATORY Committee and the EPC on the speed with which the single patent package (Single Patent Court and Unitary Patent System) can be implemented once the German courts have taken a positive decision on the constitutional appeal, much remains to be done to launch the UPC, including a decision on whether the UK can remain a member of the system after the transition. esoma.wikidot.com/forum/t-1162188/unitary-patent-challenged-at-the-belgian-constitutional-cour The EPV will be an international court of jurisdiction for patents granted by the EPO. This specialised court will allow patents to be applied throughout Europe, provide greater legal certainty and reduce procedural costs. The Court relies on an international treaty, the UPCA. In addition, in accordance with Article 89(1), the United Kingdom: 1 UPCA is not explicitly designated as a Member State, but made its entry into force, inter alia, conditional on ratification `by the three Member States which had the highest number of European patents in force in the year preceding the signature of the Convention`. In any case, it is obvious that the Member States of the Treaty have different interests that they cannot or do not want to easily ignore. It should be noted that the headquarters of the Central Division was in question until the day before the signing of the UPCA and that it could only be decided by a political compromise at the highest level.
It is not possible to deduce from the Convention a solution within the meaning of one of the three options mentioned above. In any case, it is not unlikely that the Clerk of the UPC would have the power under his powers depending on the case. 23 and 24 of the UPC Statutes, in conjunction with Rule 17.3 of the RoP, purports to assign the cases to the organizational unit that the Registrar deems appropriate, that is.dem the headquarters of the central department in Paris or Munich. Should the situation arise, the President of the Court of First Instance or the Court of Appeal may also attempt to exercise influence under Art. . . .