WIPR survey: No unitary patent by 2016
Two thirds of respondents to a WIPR survey have said that they do not believe the unitary patent will come into effect by 2016, despite the European Patent Office’s (EPO) prediction.
Last week WIPR asked whether the unitary patent and concurrent Unified Patent Court (UPC) would be implemented by 2016 now that it had cleared a challenge asserted by Spain that questioned the legality of the system.
On May 5, the Court of Justice of the European Union rejected Spain’s claim that the framework for the agreement was discriminatory because it requires patent disputes to be heard in English, French and German but not in Spanish.
The EPO, which will grant unitary patents, said after the judgment that it hoped the unitary patent package can “come into operation in the course of 2016.”
For the UPC to take effect, 13 EU member states, which must include France, Germany and the UK will need to ratify the agreement.
But a potential fresh challenge has been posed which centres on the UK’s membership of the EU.
A day after the Conservative Party won a majority in the UK general election Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed there will be a referendum on whether the UK should remain a member.
The vote is expected to take place in 2016, although no date has been confirmed.
Almost 70% of the respondents to the survey said the unitary patent will face further delays with some referring to the UK’s referendum.
One respondent said the “UK will delay it” while another added “I will be stunned if the UK ratifies in time [for 2016].”
But one respondent said uncertainty over the UK’s future would not halt the patent’s implementation.
They said: “A referendum is not going to put all EU related legislation on hold, so I see no reason for the UK’s ratification to be delayed”.
So far, seven nations—Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Malta and Sweden—have ratified the agreement.
For this week's survey, WIPR asks: "As negotiations surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership gather steam should there be greater transparency on how its provisions will affect intellectual property?"
We look forward to hearing from you.
