scholarly journals Still Unifying? The Future of the Unified Patent Court

2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (9) ◽  
pp. 1143-1160
Author(s):  
Anna Wszołek
Keyword(s):  
Green Light ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Unified Patent Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Unitary Patent

AbstractSince its launching, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) project has faced obstacles and scepticism from some EU Member States. When the United Kingdom ratified the UPC Agreement in 2018, it seemed that there was nothing left but to wait for a positive decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany on the ratification by that country, so that finally the UPC could start its activity. Nevertheless, 2020 brought events that make one look back and reflect on the project itself. The UK withdrew its ratification and the Federal Constitutional Court ruled the German ratification process of the UPC Agreement unconstitutional. Then two new complaints were submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court, which this summer finally gave the green light to the ratification, but it seems the UPC project has already split Europe. The question that arises is whether, in the context of last year’s events and the fracture between the states, the unitary patent system can still be seen as unifying the European patent litigation system. This article discusses the examples of Poland, Hungary and the UK, as countries that refuse to participate in the system due to its interference in their internal legal systems and sovereignty, and other examples of fractures visible in the UPC.

Growth companies and procedural safeguards in European patent litigation

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista Rantasaari
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
Patent System ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Court System ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
Start Up ◽  
Unified Patent Court ◽  
Procedural Safeguards ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
Unitary Patent

The unitary patent system with the establishment of the Unified Patent Court will lead to unitary patent protection covering most European Union countries. Moreover, it will lead to litigation with the same geographical reach. One potential concern related to increasing litigation is the so-called ‘patent trolls’ (non-practicing entities) that purchase patents for the purpose of portfolio building or company financing. One of the key expressed justifications of the unitary patent system was to support small- and medium-sized enterprises by securing them easier and wider access to patents. The aim of this article is to examine procedural safeguards from the perspective of the start-up and growth companies. These safeguards protect start-up and growth companies when acting as defendants. As a corollary, they weaken the enforcement mechanisms from the perspective of the plaintiff. The safeguards addressed in this article are fee shifting, preliminary injunctions, and bifurcation. As the Unified Patent Court system is still evolving, the current state of European patent litigation in key jurisdiction countries (Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands) is analysed. This article explores how these safeguards evolve in the unitary patent regime and their potential to reduce uncertainty for start-up and growth companies when acting as defendants.

scholarly journals Features of transformation of legal entities in the conditions of Brexit

2021 ◽  
pp. 531-538
Author(s):  
Olha Ovechkina
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Actual Location ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Legal Entities

In connection with the decision to withdraw the UK from the EU a number of companies will need to take into account that from 1 January 2021 EU law will no longer apply to the United Kingdom and will become a "third country" for EU Member States, unless the provisions of bilateral agreements or multilateral trade agreements. This means that the four European freedoms (movement of goods, services, labor and capital) will no longer apply to UK companies to the same extent as they did during the UK's EU membership. The purpose of the article is to study, first of all, the peculiarities of the influence of Great Britain's withdrawal from the European Union on the legal regulation of the status of European legal entities. Brexit results in the inability to register European companies and European economic interest groups in the UK. Such companies already registered before 01.01.2021 have the opportunity to move their place of registration to an EU Member State. These provisions are defined in Regulations 2018 (2018/1298) and Regulations 2018 (2018/1299).British companies with branches in EU Member States will now be subject to the rules applicable to third-country companies, which provide additional information on their activities. In the EU, many countries apply the criterion of actual location, which causes, among other things, the problem of non-recognition of legal entities established in the country where the criterion of incorporation is used (including the United Kingdom), at the same time as the governing bodies of such legal entities the state where the settlement criterion is applied. Therefore, to reduce the likelihood of possible non-recognition of British companies, given the location of the board of such a legal entity in the state where the residency criterion applies, it seems appropriate to consider reincarnation at the actual location of such a company. Reducing the risks of these negative consequences in connection with Brexit on cross-border activities of legal entities is possible by concluding interstate bilateral and multilateral agreements that would contain unified rules on conflict of law regulation of the status of legal entities.

Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit:

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radovan Malachta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk

The paper follows up on the arguments introduced in the author’s article Mutual Trust as a Way to an Unconditional Automatic Recognition of Foreign Judgments. This paper, titled Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit: Overview discusses, whether there has been a loss of mutual trust between the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit. The UK, similarly to EU Member States, has been entrusted with the area of recognition and enforcement of judgements thus far. Should the Member States decrease the level of mutual trust in relation to the UK only because the UK ceased to be part of the EU after 47 years? Practically overnight, more precisely, the day after the transitional period, should the Member States trust the UK less in the light of legislative changes? The article also outlines general possibilities that the UK has regarding which international convention it may accede to. Instead of going into depth, the article presents a basic overview. However, this does not prevent the article to answer, in addition to the questions asked above, how a choice of access to an international convention could affect the level of mutual trust between the UK and EU Member States.

scholarly journals Some Kind of Right

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. 40-44
Author(s):  
Jud Mathews
Keyword(s):  
German Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Right ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional ◽  
Specific Reason

AbstractThe Right to Be Forgotten II crystallizes one lesson from Europe’s rights revolution: persons should be able to call on some kind of right to protect their important interests whenever those interests are threatened under the law. Which rights instrument should be deployed, and by what court, become secondary concerns. The decision doubtless involves some self-aggrandizement by the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC), which asserts for itself a new role in protecting European fundamental rights, but it is no criticism of the Right to Be Forgotten II to say that it advances the GFCC’s role in European governance, so long as the decision also makes sense in the context of the European and German law. I argue that it does, for a specific reason. The Right to Be Forgotten II represents a sensible approach to managing the complex pluralism of the legal environment in which Germany and other EU member states find themselves.

scholarly journals The United Kingdom (UK)

2020 ◽  
pp. 119-136
Author(s):  
Nina Amelung ◽  
Rafaela Granja ◽  
Helena Machado
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Dna Databases ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Criminal Intelligence ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Dna Database ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
The Uk

Abstract The UK is the possessor of the world’s oldest and largest DNA database by proportion of population: the National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database, established in 1995. As a nation-state that holds one of the world’s largest DNA databases, the UK has been dealing systematically with the societal effects triggered by various ethical controversies. In terms of bordering practices, the UK serves as an example of an ambivalent mode of re- and debordering. This ambivalence derives from the UK’s changing position regarding the Prüm system. In 2014, the UK government, driven by the parliament, decided to opt out of the Prüm Decisions. In 2015, after a Prüm-style pilot project run with other EU Member States, the UK decided to opt in. This decision, nonetheless, included the imposition of limits on other EU countries’ access to the UK’s data. Consequently, the UK’s debordering practices co-exist with rebordering attempts aimed at restricting access to their own data.

Eastern EU members hedge bets after Brexit vote

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Member States ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Migration Crisis ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Visegrad Group ◽  
The Eu

Subject Reactions to Brexit among eastern EU member states. Significance Leaders of the Visegrad Group (V4) of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia have called for a major institutional overhaul of the EU following the UK vote to leave the EU ('Brexit'). They singled out the EU's handling of the migration crisis as a key factor behind the 'Leave' victory in the UK referendum, and rejected calls from Brussels and several member states for closer integration, instead demanding that powers be repatriated to national capitals to restore citizens' trust and make the EU more democratically accountable. Impacts The V4 will seek to mend relations with Berlin, in the relatively favourable political constellation in Germany before the 2017 elections. V4 governments will aim to hold 'mini-lateral' consultations with the United Kingdom on the terms of its planned exit from the EU. Brexit will dominate Slovakia's EU presidency, with V4 coordinating their responses to help limit the negative fallout for the region.

EU Countries and the UK

2021 ◽  
pp. 295-306
Author(s):  
Mads Andenas
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court System ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter compares European Union countries to the United Kingdom. It aims at ascertaining not so much whether a common core exists but how it is shaped and evolves, also in response to influences by supranational legal orders. EU countries do not adhere to one model. Administrative law is subject to rapid development, and even countries that share many structures and general features do not develop at the same speed or in the same direction. In the UK, there is no specialized administrative court jurisdiction. There is one general court system that deals with civil, criminal, and administrative cases; but there are many administrative tribunals and appeals tribunals. Nearly all the EU countries have a specialised administrative court system, and the majority has a constitutional court. The chapter considers the perceived divide between civil law countries and the common law in the UK, in the light of the relationship between national law and EU and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) law. It also looks at the four main features of the legal systems selected for comparison: the constitutional relevance of judicial review; the limitations of judicial review; procedural errors or omissions; and annulment and damages.

4. Introduction to European Patent Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 99-119
Author(s):  
Justine Pila ◽  
Paul L.C. Torremans
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
European Patent ◽  
European Law ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
Unified Patent Court ◽  
Unitary Patent

This chapter introduces the European law of patents and related rights with a discussion of the nature of patents as limited-term monopoly rights granted in respect of new, inventive, and industrially applicable inventions and the routes to obtaining patent protection in Europe. It then considers the existing European patent system established by the European Patent Convention 1973/2000, including its basis in state-based conceptions of IP territoriality, and the challenges presented to that system by globalization and developing technology. And finally, it discusses the long-standing pursuit of a unitary patent and unified patent court for Europe, including the reasons for each, and the features of the proposed Unitary Patent Package of 2012/2013.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EIA AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE: REFLECTING ON 25 YEARS OF EIA PRACTICE IN THE NETHERLANDS AND THE UK

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (04) ◽  
pp. 1250025 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOS ARTS ◽  
HENS A. C. RUNHAAR ◽  
THOMAS B. FISCHER ◽  
URMILA JHA-THAKUR ◽  
FRANK VAN LAERHOVEN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Professional Literature ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Comprehensive Literature Review ◽  
The Uk

The European Union (EU) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive which was introduced some 25 years ago has had a major impact on decision-making practices in EU member states. In the professional literature, this impact has mostly been discussed under the heading of "effectiveness", with an emphasis being given in particular to procedural elements. The extent to which EIA has contributed to objectives, such as raising environmental awareness and leading to an incorporation of environmental values in decision-making has only been rarely investigated. This paper reflects on these latter two aspects of EIA effectiveness in two EU member states; the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Empirical evidence was compiled mainly on the basis of a comprehensive literature review and online surveys with EIA professionals in both countries. Our results indicate that overall the instrument is about equally effective in both countries with regards to the incorporation of environmental concerns in decision-making. As both countries have different governance mechanisms, further research is needed on why perceived effectiveness does not differ more.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document