German constitutional court rules against adoption of UPC, and UK government confirms intention not to participate, but hope remains
At the end of March, the German constitutional court upheld a complaint that the German ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC Agreement) was unconstitutional. All is not lost, however, as the German government has indicated that it intends to pursue the project in the future.
In 2017, a complaint was filed by a German attorney on the basis that: (1) the ratification of the Agreement was in breach of the German constitution, (2) there is a democratic deficit inherent in the structure of the UPC, (3) the UPC judges lack independence, and (4) the UPC Agreement is irreconcilable with EU law.
The German constitutional court issued its decision on 20 March 2020. It dismissed the second, third and fourth elements of the complaint, on the grounds that they were inadmissible. However, it held that the ratification of the UPC Agreement was in contravention of the German Basic Law. Although the bill ratifying the UPC Agreement was adopted unanimously by the German federal parliament, only 38 delegates were present for the vote (out of 709). As a result, this did not provide the two-thirds majority required under the German Basic Law in relation to a decision involving a transfer of sovereignty.
The decision is a significant setback, as it further delays the introduction of the UPC and Unitary European Patent. It does, however, leave the door open for the adoption of the UPC in the future, provided that it is passed by the necessary majority. In a reaction to the decision the German Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection, Christine Lambrecht, promised to continue to work towards a single European patent and a European Patent Court and to examine the possibility of remedying the lack of form before the end of the current legislative period (which ends in 2021).
Due to the UK’s exit from the EU, and the British government’s decision not to try and pursue participation in the UPC (which was recently confirmed in a letter from the IP Minister to the House of Lords), it is unlikely that the UPC Agreement will come before the German parliament again in its current form.
Without the involvement of the UK, the Unitary Patent and UPC are a less attractive proposition. However, provided that there remains sufficient goodwill towards the project amongst the remaining participating states, the UPC Agreement could be renegotiated so that it does not depend on the involvement of the UK. There may even be an opportunity to address some of the issues that have been flagged in relation to the current Agreement and to widen its scope to allow participation by non-EU states.
Supporters of the unitary patent and UPC should therefore not entirely despair, but a further delay of at least several years looks likely.
Charlotte Duly writes for Intellectual Property Magazine on the implications of the Court of Appeal’s decision in SkyKick on both bad faith and specification drafting
Trademark law was dominated by SkyKick in 2020 and it was in the spotlight again in 2021 following a Court of Appeal judgment in July.
Nick White writes for Intellectual Property Magazine on the ever-expanding role of licensed content within the video gaming industry
Consumers’ unwitting assumptions: A [wh]iskey business in brand competition
Olivia and Anna look at the Liverpool Gin Distillery Ltd v Sazerac Brands LLC case and the question of 'indirect confusion'
Mark Hill and Lara Haidar write for The Legal 500 Country Comparative Guide on Intellectual Property in the United Arab Emirates
An overview of the latest intellectual property laws and regulations applicable in United Arab Emirates.
Charlotte Duly quoted by Intellectual Property Magazine on the implications of the Court of Appeal's decision in Sky Ltd & Ors v SkyKick, UK Ltd & Anor
The Court of Appeal offered clarification on bad faith trade marks, after issuing a decision in Sky Ltd & Ors v SkyKick, UK Ltd & Anor.
Blue Sky Linking
Daniel looks at Sky's recent success in obtaining interim protection from infringement of their broadcast rights
Mary Bagnall writes for Intellectual Property Magazine on the government’s consultation document on the future regime for exhaustion of UK IP rights
The UK government has published its consultation document on the future regime for exhaustion of UK IP rights.
Bullfighting ... as a copyright work?
Joint and several liability for IP infringement - Directors beware
Olivia takes an in-depth look at the recent Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed case in the Court of Appeal
Brexit: Trade Marks and Designs
Charlotte outlines all you need to know before the next post-Brexit deadline on trade marks and designs
Anna Sowerby writes for The Fashion Law on the new collaborative approach being taken by luxury brands and online platforms to fight fakes
Online platforms are now under pressure to be more proactive in their approach to tackling the ever-escalating issue of counterfeit goods.
Antiques Trade Gazette and eprivateclient cover this firm's hire of art and luxury asset specialist Chris Haywood in Dubai
Chris joins the firm as a Senior Associate in the Dubai office.
Pfizer, Ted Danson and the Olympic Vaccine Solution
#cake – a trial by social media
Brexit and intellectual property: Gibraltar, the Isle of Man and
Charlotte looks at where else trade mark and design protection may be required following Brexit.
Diversification of landed estates – a trade mark lawyer’s advice...
Mary looks at the diversification of landed estates and offers her expert advice from a trade mark perspective
Charlotte Duly writes for the Trademark Lawyer Magazine on the legal issues that tribute bands face when selecting a name
Picking a name for a tribute act that makes it clear what they offer whilst avoiding issues with the actual band can be a challenge.
Brexit and Intellectual Property: one month on
Charlotte looks at the impact of Brexit on intellectual property one month on
The Tricky Issue of Joint Authorship in Copyright Works
Where more than one person creates a work, it can be deemed ‘joint authorship’ and each has the same rights as a sole author would.