MIP Spring PDF: uncertain future for UPC
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

MIP Spring PDF: uncertain future for UPC

cover-image-for-online-editorial-note.jpg

The Unified Patent Court takes centre stage in our latest PDF

Our latest quarterly PDF leads on the Unified Patent Court, a project that has been tantalisingly close for so long now that its launch still seems more like fiction than reality. However, as the new court really does appear to be on the path to creation – probably by early next year – intellectual property stakeholders are beginning to dust off their notebooks and revise what it all means for them.

The problem for those running the UPC is that any appetite for the new project and its associated unitary patent doesn’t appear to be healthy – at least from in-house counsel. There is marginally more desire from non-practising entities, but even they want to watch from the side-lines and see how things pan out before they act. In short, everyone is waiting for everyone else to make the first move.

This, I think, should worry those working to implement the UPC. A huge amount of time and resources have been focused on bringing the court to life. It has faced many twists and turns, not least a long-running constitutional saga in Germany. It will, unbelievably, be 10 years in February 2023 since the UPC Agreement was signed in Brussels. A decade on, the countries and authorities backing this new framework must be very careful that it doesn’t become a white elephant, because there is a risk of that happening – at least at first.

In the long term, I suspect, the UPC has a strong chance of becoming a hub for European patent litigation as companies become familiar with the new system. But there’s no telling how many years we will have to wait. In the meantime, the metaverse and blockchain are also hot topics in IP, as are diversity and inclusion and the America Invents Act – and you can read expert articles on these issues and many more in the following pages.

The crisis in Ukraine is also having a major impact on IP, with several law firms and IP offices cutting ties with Russia and the Russian government responding to sanctions by blithely removing core IP legal protection. We at Managing IP are watching with horror the suffering of the Ukrainian people amid the unconscionable invasion of their country. Although we and our parent company Euromoney Institutional Investor are stopping all business in Russia both with customers and with suppliers, Managing IP’s journalists are continuing to report on events as they pertain to IP.  

 

  

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article