UK gov: no plans to delay ‘disastrous’ EU law bill
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

The FRAND rate is only 5 cents higher than the per-device rate determined at first instance in 2023
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Nearly four months after joining Crowell & Moring, Edward Taelman reflects on starting afresh, new clients, and firm culture
Firms discuss the ebb and flow of life sciences IP work and explain how they help professionals pivot between specialities
Mercedes-Benz, Dolby Laboratories, and Panasonic discuss the merits and drawbacks of the USPTO's terminal disclaimer proposal
In-house counsel believe Chinese domestic firms are becoming as sophisticated as international firms, but they may not shift their portfolios just yet
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is looking to renew a ban that has prevented Judge Pauline Newman from hearing cases
The list of the top representative firms at the UPC may yield few surprises but their success did not come free
The German firms have accounted for 26% of all infringement actions, while US corporations appear interested in litigating at the forum, a report has revealed
Vincent Brault tells us how he fits kitesurfing into his lunchtime routine and why IP is no longer seen as ‘nerdy’
Gift this article