Author: Florian Meier

Posted on

UPC isolated revocation action

When testing some of the functionalities provided by the UPC CMS search tools, I came to realize that an isolated revocation action (i.e., a revocation action that is not a revocation counterclaim in an infringement action) has been lodged with the UPC central division in Munich on June 2, 2023, i.e., the second day of field operation. The patent is a bundle patent (i.e., no unitary effect, as it has been granted prior to June 1, 2023).

The value in dispute is 100 Mio. EUR. A lawsuit between the same parties regarding a U.S. patent family members of the patent now challenged before the UPC was recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Amgen vs. Sanofi. The U.S. case dealt with the interesting question of enabling disclosure over the full claim scope or, stated differently, the degree to which independent claims may be generalized as compared to the specific embodiments (which were considered to be disclosed in an enabling manner in the U.S. case).

This is a worthy start for the UPC system, which clearly attracts interesting cases.

It is a bit unfortunate that, notwithstanding all efforts to set up a modern, all electronic system, the revocation action appears to have been filed in paper form pursuant to R. 4.2 UPC (UPC CMS not working properly).

Posted on

Technically qualified judges at the UPC

A couple of days ago, one of the technically qualified judges (a colleague from France who is highly respected and very well-known in the community) announced that he will resign from the position as technically qualified judge (TQJ). In his view, the recently published UPC Code of Conduct makes it difficult to discharge of the duties as a TQJ in a manner that is compatible with an attorney’s work for his/her clients.

While this resignment is a significant loss for the bench of the UPC, this ethics and level of reflection is to be applauded. It also contrasts nicely with the “the part-time judge system works for the Swiss Federal Patent Court, hence it is going to work for the UPC”-attitude that I have sometimes heard in the past. (Just to be clear: Of course, such a system can work, but concerns as regards potential conflicts of interest are to be taken seriously.) It will be interesting to see whether this resignment will remain an isolated event or whether more TQJs are going to re-consider the situation in the weeks or months to come.

Posted on

UPC Case Management System (CMS)

At present (mid-May 2023), the UPC CMS appears to have difficulties handling the number of opt-out requests that are being submitted. This does not appear to be a great start for the new system:

First, while the number of opt-out requests appears to be substantial (and appears to grow significantly as June 2023 approaches), this type of request does normally not involve significant data amounts. This leaves one wondering how well equipped the CMS is to handle the potentially simultaneous submission of several voluminous briefs in UPC field operation from June 2023.

Second, the number of opt-out requests appears to illustrate that there are many applicants and patentees who, at least as of now, are not yet convinced by the new system.

On the bright side, applicants and patentees appear to be aware of the options provided by the new system, and appear to pro-actively take the steps they deem appropriate for their patent portfolio.

Posted on

Patent with Unitary Effect

EPO search form

I just realized that the EPO has already updated the European Patent Register search form in view of the possibility to file a request for a unitary effect. The updated search form provides search fields for entering the request date and the registration date for unitary effect.

Posted on

Injunctive relief

Section 139 of the German Patent Act deals with the most important consequences of a finding of patent infringement, including injunctive relief. In the 2021 revision of the German Patent Act, section 139 was revised. Revised section 139(1) s. 3, 4 now specifies that there can be circumstances in which patentee is not entitled to injunctive relief. There was (and still is) some uncertainty as to how much of a change this amendment means as compared to the previous version which did not include these exceptional provisions.

A recent decision of the Regional Court Düsseldorf provides guidance on section 139 of the German Patent Act as revised in 2021. In the decision LG Düsseldorf of July 7, 2022, 4c O 18/21 – Sofosbuvir, the Regional Court Düsseldorf held that section 139(1) s. 3 is applicable only in very exceptional circumstances and only subsidiarily to compulsory license proceedings. Thus, based on this decision, it appears that injunctive relief is still available in all those cases in which the infringing party has not initiated compulsory license proceedings.

Posted on

EPO – strawman’s appeal fee

A new EPO Boards of Appeal decision T 84/19 deals with an interesting question relating to appeal fees. The decision holds that an opponent who is a natural person or otherwise entitled to benefit from the reduced appeal fee does not have to pay the full appeal fee, even if there is a secret sponsor (akin to the ‘real party in interest’ in post-grant proceedings in other jurisdictions). This holds as long as the opposition does not constitute a circumvention of the law regarding the entitlement to pay a reduced appeal fee.

By way of background for the readers familiar with or otherwise interested in USPTO post-grant proceedings: According to decisions G 3/97, G 4/97, it is not required that the ‘real party in interest’ be named in EPO opposition proceedings. Thus, the situation may (and does) occur in which an opponent as party to the EPO proceedings may be different from the person interested in the revocation or amendment of the patent.

Posted on

EUIPO design fees & priority

In the 2023 edition of the Guidelines, the EUIPO has introduced a paragraph ‘clarifying’ (in the EUIPO’s view) ‘that the Office will not begin examining the application, and therefore will not accord a filing date, until the fee has been paid.’ While the EUIPO ultimately has to determine whether a filing date can be accorded even when no fees are paid, the EUIPO wants users to know that it is possible that it can take months until a filing date is accorded. There is nothing that prevents the EUIPO from according a filing date only after expiry of the priority term (as explicitly stated in the EUIPO’s webinar on the Guidelines 2023 edition starting at 1:52:26).

Thus, while the EU design regulation stipulates that fee payment is not a requirement for according a filing date (in contrast to the EU trademark regulation), the EUIPO’s practice means that the only way to guarantee that an EU design application can serve as a basis for claiming a priority is to pay the fees.

For a German national filing it is not required to pay the fees for a design application to be accorded a filing date. Thus, applicants desiring to establish a priority date, while being uncertain whether they wish to proceed with the design registration, could consider filing with, e.g., the German Patent and Trademark Office. Unfortunately, this approach may have drawbacks for non-German applicants who wish to use the priority filing as basis for an international registration under The Hague design convention.

Posted on

EPO Opposition Matters 2022 conference

Very interesting professional training event at the EPO – Opposition Matters 2022. Lots of practical advice as regards opposition proceedings in general, and specifically oral proceedings and amendments of a party’s case. Very engaging presenters and very useful practical tips. The event materials and recordings of the key presentations will be made available at the EPO e-learning center. You may want to check this out if you are involved in EPO oppositions.