19 March 2012

German Patent Law Capacities Divided Over Articles 6 to 9 of the Unitary Patnet Regulation

In an article titled "In Defense of Articles 6 to 9 of the Unitary Patent Regulation" on the ksnh::law blog we discuss the diverding expert opinions of renown law Professors Rudolf Krasser (Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property) and Winfried Tilmann (Hogan Lovells LLP and Member of the Rules of Procedure Committee according to Article 22 UPC Agreement) concerning the attractiveness of the Unitary Patent and the question of whether or not Articles 6 to 8/9 should better be removed from in the  Unitary Patent Regulation.

Even though the Unitary Patent Regulation has already received green light from the EU Parliament’s legal committee (JURI) in late December (see press release) and the EU Council already began to linguistically finalise the Regulation text in early January, this highly political issue will presumably not disappear from the agenda as long as the Unified Patent Court Agreement is stuck over the question of which EU member state will receive the Central Division of the EU Unified Patent Court (see e.g. here, here, and here).

While Prof. Tilmann (opinion here) defends the current version of the Unitary Patent Regulation, Prof Krasser (opinion here) articulates the concerns of a strong and illustrious ‘opposition movement’ of legal professionals and their associations (e.g. EPLAW and Jochen Pagenberg, European Patent Judges and Sir Robin JacobProfessor KrasserCIPA), industry representatives (e.g. ICCIP Federation), and a few politicians (e.g. JURI member Cecilia Wikström (SE, ALDE) [123] and UK IP Minister Baroness Wilcox), all of which demanding Articles 6 to 8/9 to be removed from the Regulation to prevent substantive patent law from becoming subject to review by the European Court of Justice via referral questions according to Article 267 TFEU.