Appointment of the members of the Advisory Committee

Author(s):  
Peter Tochtermann

To guarantee equal representation of each Member State’s interests, each CMS proposes a member with expertise in patent matters to become a member of the Advisory Committee. It is the objective of the Advisory Committee to support the members of the Administrative Committee to appoint suitable judges and admit those who are suitably qualified (Art 48 UPC) as well as advising on setting up the training framework. As the members of the Administrative members are not necessarily experienced in patent law, it is of the utmost importance that the Member States only appoint patent experts with the highest recognized competence.

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-146
Author(s):  
Juliana Almeida ◽  
Guilherme Oliveira e Costa

Abstract For the last forty years, the European Union has been pursuing the goal of a unified system of patent law, which would make it possible for an invention to be protected, by EU law, throughout the territory of the Member-States, with a single application. This would simplify the patent protection system, making it easier, less costly and more secure, and would facilitate access to the internal market and promote scientific and technological development. However, problems might arise because of the plurality of legal sources that could be involved and due to the fact that not all countries want to be part of this new system. Nevertheless, the involvement of the majority of the Member-States in the Unitary Patent Package, through participating in an international agreement and in using the EU’s enhanced cooperation mechanism, is evidence of federalist manifestations of the EU as a sui generis organisation.


1966 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-100 ◽  

Budget Estimates for the Financial Year 1966 and Information Annexes; Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions: In its report to the General Assembly on the budget estimates for the financial year 1966, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions noted that the Secretary-General had proposed for 1966 a gross expenditure budget of $116,737,110, an increase of $8,361,405 over the total 1965 gross level of $108,375,705 recommended by the Committee. Of the total estimated income of $17,918,800 for 1966, income from staff assessment (for distribution to Member governments as credits through the Tax Equalization Fund) was calculated at $11,530,000 and income from all other sources (for deduction from gross appropriations for purposes of the assessment of contributions) at $6,388,800. After deduction of estimated income, the net expenditure level for 1966 would be $98,818,310, an increase of $7,402,505 over the total 1965 net level of $91,415,805 recommended by the Advisory Committee. In its report the Advisory Committee recommended reductions in the expenditure estimates totaling $2,130,590. These, together with adjustments in the income estimates, would reduce the net expenditure level for 1966 from $98,818,310, as proposed by the Secretary-General, to $96,814,220. After detailing the contributions made to other organizations in the United Nations family during the years 1961–1966, the Advisory Committee pointed out that, with the 1966 budget estimates submitted by the Secretary-General for the United Nations, the aggregate which member states of the various organizations would be asked to appropriate for the year 1966 would amount to approximately $254·3 million as against $234·7 million for 1965 and $213·3 million for 1964.


Author(s):  
Peter Tochtermann

Art 19 UPCA provides for a training framework which was included in the Agreement to help to improve the competence of judges and to ensure that knowledge of patent law and the UPC system is widely spread amongst the Member States of the UPC. The training framework will also be used to prepare applicants for their position as judges of the UPC as only nationals of a signatory state to the UPCA can be appointed as a judge of the Court. As noble as these goals may be, they must not fuel the possible misunderstanding that it would be sufficient to prove practical experience merely by participation in lectures, seminars, conferences, or mock trials. Such training elements are, of course, useful but can never compensate for lack of practical experience in handling patent cases.


Author(s):  
Tim Maxian Rusche

An Advisory Committee consisting of experts designated by the governments of Member States shall be attached to the Commission.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document