Breaking: UPC agrees initial central division split

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

Breaking: UPC agrees initial central division split

EuropeNASA

Paris and Munich will share London’s lot of UPC central division cases when the court opens on June 1, but there is still no news on Milan

Cases before the Unified Patent Court’s central division will be split between Paris and Munich when the court first opens on June 1, it was announced today, May 16.

The UPC administrative committee has yet to make a final decision on whether Milan will eventually host the third central division seat that was originally assigned to London.

The UK withdrew from the UPC project in 2020, leaving the question of which country would be assigned the third central seat.

Milan has since been confirmed as the only contender, but German, French, and Italian officials are yet to agree on how to divide cases.

Under the UPC Agreement, disputes filed at the central division would have been split between the different countries based on the scope of the patent in question.

Disputes over patents concerning human necessities, chemistry, and metallurgy would have been heard in London.

According to today’s announcement, the Presidium of the UPC, a group of senior judges and the court’s registrar, agreed on May 8 to divide those cases between Paris and Munich initially.

From June 1, disputes falling under human necessities will be heard in Paris while chemistry and metallurgy matters will be assigned to Munich.

Italian politicians have lobbied for a Milan central division to hear all of those disputes. The path looked clear when the Netherlands withdrew its candidacy earlier this year.

But negotiations have since hit a snag.

In February, it emerged that French officials wanted the Paris division to hear any cases involving pharmaceutical patents for which a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) is in effect.

That solution would leave the Milan division with a much less significant share of the caseload than Italian lawyers had originally hoped for.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel reveal the lessons learned from a rejected amicus brief concerning Monster Energy that alleged ‘trademark bullying’
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
New guidelines from Canada's IP office will outline how specific IP owners must be when listing goods and services in applications
Panasonic aimed to coerce Xiaomi into accepting terms the court would not determine to be FRAND, according to two judges
A case heading to the England and Wales Court of Appeal raises interesting questions about the nature of the average consumer in trademark law
Barclay Damon has announced the appointment of six lawyers to its IP team, as Burns & Levinson shuts down operations
A Federal Circuit case could lead to more clarity on damages, but practitioners differ over how far constraints should go
David Hansel of Hansel Henson explains how he successfully defended two trademark cases brought by easyGroup
Andy Lee discusses how IP can encompass anything from football boots to Peppa Pig, his love for science fiction movies, and why the best lawyers are the boldest
IP and M&A partners explain how they keep tabs on referrals and why reciprocity is important for generating new business
Gift this article