Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

UK gov: no plans to delay ‘disastrous’ EU law bill


Government rejects speculation that the deadline for repealing EU law will be extended, but counsel say more time is crucial

The UK government said on Tuesday, January 3, that it is ploughing ahead with plans to repeal or reform any EU-era laws – including around sixty pieces of IP legislation – by the end of this year despite rumours of a deadline extension.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which is responsible for the bill, said: “The programme to review, revoke and reform retained EU law is underway and there are no plans to change the sunset deadline for any government departments.”

In the last week, reports in national newspapers suggested that some government ministers are sympathetic to a delay.

The bill is expected to reach the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the UK’s parliament, in February where it could face further opposition.

The draft Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill 2022 was published in September last year. It set out plans to repeal all retained EU law by December 31, 2023, unless directly converted into national law or tweaked.

According to the reports this week, some departments are keen for the deadline to be extended until 2026. There is already a provision in the bill allowing for an extended deadline of 2026, but the intention was for this to only apply to the most complex laws.

At the time that the bill was first published, practitioners said it could spell a recipe for disaster.

Of the thousands of laws implemented during the UK’s membership of the EU, at least sixty were related to IP. Vast swathes of the UK’s trademark, designs, and trade secrets regime originate from EU statutes.

Despite the government’s insistence that it will stick to this year’s deadline, IP practitioners believe more time is crucial.

Joel Smith, partner at Hogan Lovells in London, said the government will find it extremely challenging to make sound decisions about which laws should be removed without proper consultation of stakeholders.

Annsley Merelle Ward, partner at WilmerHale in London, said an extension seems inevitable.

She added that it is still not clear what is and is not caught by the bill, particularly in relation to the treatment of case law.

“Doing that in the original time frame does not seem practical or wise given the immediate impact on business. Similarly, whether there are opportunities to improve areas of IP protection, for example in respect of SPC protection, is something that also warrants review.”

But a rushed job is only a gift to litigators, not business, she added.

Ward said the tight deadline in the bill is politically motivated.

“Delivering a ‘we got Brexit done’ message to an increasingly agitated and economically pressured electorate and a revolving door of prime ministers may have informed the arbitrarily short deadline.”

She added that the deadline was never realistic given the amount of work and hours required to analyse whether legislation is EU-derived and caught by the bill.

Smith noted that there are some areas of IP where the government has previously indicated that it may want to diverge from the EU, such as the interplay between copyright and designs and liability of hosting providers.

“All of these areas would require careful scrutiny and engagement with IP professionals, business and others,” he added.

The bill is currently in the report stage and there will then be a third reading in the House of Commons.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Sukanya Sarkar shares her thoughts on this year’s annual meeting in Singapore, where debates ranged from AI opportunities to improving law firm culture
The court’s ruling is a good reminder that US parties aren’t guaranteed attorney fees just because they win, say sources
With business confidence in a shaky state, Rachel Tan and Lisa Yong of Rouse discuss how in-house IP teams can manage their trademark portfolios through uncertain times
The Court of Appeal had stern words for Med-El’s representatives after they highlighted a deputy judge’s background as a solicitor
Funders and NPEs say asserting patent portfolios can minimise risk at the USPTO’s PTAB, where procedure remains a controversial topic
The US Supreme Court’s ruling wasn’t a surprise and reflects a trend that had already been bubbling away for a while, say tech and pharma counsel
Previous attempts at major transatlantic tie-ups have failed, so lawyers will keep their eyes firmly on Allen & Overy’s grand plans
INTA CEO Etienne Sanz de Acedo shares his plans if he were to win the EUIPO leadership race and says his application does not affect his INTA role
The French finance minister told António Campinos the timing of an EPO event in Lisbon could be seen as interference in the EUIPO leadership race