European Commission would welcome swift German ratification of Unified Patent Court Agreement
July 16, 2020
The European Commission would welcome a swift ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement by Germany. Commissioner Thierry Breton for the Internal Market has written this in answer to questions of MEP Patrick Breyer.
Breyer, member of the European Parliament for the German Pirate Party, asked the European Commission on 5 May 2020 to confirm that, due to the Brexit, Germany no longer has the right to ratify the UPCA. Breyer argued: “According to EU case law (Court of Justice of the European Union Case 22/70), Member States must not enter into agreements with third countries that affect EU rules or alter their scope. The UK is now considered a ‘third country’ under Article 216 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. While the EU may jointly assume obligations with the UK with respect to patent litigation, Member States no longer have a right to do so.” See also this earlier blogpost.
The European Commission however, doesn’t agree. In a letter of 15 July 2020, Thierry Breton wrote:
“The unitary patent will be an effective tool for businesses to protect their inventions on the European market at a competitive price, and the Unified Patent Court will offer the possibility for these businesses to enforce their patents at a European Union level, thereby enhancing legal certainty and reducing costs. It will further boost innovation in Europe, which will be key for the economic recovery following the COVID pandemic.
The Commission is of the view that the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union does not affect the ratification process of the Unified Patent Court Agreement in Germany. The United Kingdom signed and ratified the United Patent Court Agreement when it was still an EU Member State and in its capacity of Member State. The United Kingdom has ceased to be an EU Member State and, therefore, will not participate in the unitary patent system after the end of the transition period, given that participation in that system, including the Unified Patent Court Agreement, is only open to EU Member States.
The Commission would welcome a swift ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement by Germany.”
In the meantime, Breyer sent similar questions to the European Council as well on 8 June 2020, according to a report by SIB.it. These questions “are still awaiting an answer”.
Last March, the German Federal Constitutional Court declared void the German ratification of the UPCA on formal grounds, but soon after the German government declared it will repeat and complete the ratification process in the proper way as soon as possible. Some observers think this could be before the end of this year.
Jan Van Hoey
Time for Boris to pull the plug and send its notification to the secretariat of the Council of the EU. That's what Mr Tillman was suggesting in its previous interview.
Jan Van Hoey
It is also strange to consider agreements not into force part of "Union law".
MaxDrei
Talk about deja vu. In the UK, in the run up to BREXIT, HMG flying on auto-pilot, deposited its instrument of accession to the UPCA. Now, the EU Commission, another craft flying on auto-pilot, happily announces that it would "welcome" ratification of the UPCA by Germany. Sometimes the ship, sailing on its pre-set course, is so enormous that it takes years to change course. Somebody on the bridge has first to issue an authoritative command. Those underlings who are responsible for Press Releases have no authority to do anything else but state what course the ocean-going liner is proceeding along.
Concerned observer
Well, the only way to describe that response is that is uses carefully selected language to make statements that, whilst not strictly untrue, are highly misleading. Most misleading of all is the statement that "participation in that system, including the Unified Patent Court Agreement, is only open to EU Member States". The trouble with this is that termination the UK's membership of the EU does NOT automatically terminate the UK's participation in the UPC Agreement. Whilst Mr Tilmann has (rather dubiously, in my opinion) suggested that a notification from the UK would serve to terminate its participation in the UPCA, not even he has suggested any plausible mechanism under the Vienna Convention for AUTOMATIC termination of the UK's participation at the end of the transitional period. There has certainly not been any "notification" from the UK to the other Participating Member States of the UPCA. Thus, the problem with the UPCA remains that the UK will be (and, arguably, already is) a "third country" under EU law. In this sense, Mr Breton's response simply does not address the legal issue underlying Mr Breyer's question. Whilst extremely disappointing, this is hardly surprising ... given the level of "political" support for the UPCA at the EU level. It remains to be seen whether national courts (such as the BVerfG) will be persuaded by such misleading responses. In my experience, courts tend not to be so easily misled. Also, given that Germany is proposing to ratify the UPCA by relying upon arguments that happen to work very nicely for their legal profession (by effectively dividing between Munich and Paris cases that would have gone to London), it remains to be seen whether the other Participating Member States (such as Italy) can be persuaded that this is acceptable. Whilst various carrots and sticks will no doubt be deployed, I doubt that it will be so easy to persuade all of the PMSs. Finally, I have my doubts about Jan's suggestion that the UK should formally withdraw from the UPCA. Recent years have seen many highly dubious (and sometimes contradictory) legal theories wheeled out to keep the UPCA "alive". In this respect, I have no doubt that Mr Tilmann would find some way of arguing the UK's formal withdrawal would not prevent the UPCA from coming into force. No doubt he would also concoct some arguments for salvaging the associated Protocols (on Provisional Application and Privileges and Immunities), regardless of the fact that those explicitly call for ratification by the UK...
Nonchalant Biped
The last thing the EU Commission wants is to re-open the can of worms that it created by not providing robust entry and exit of membership of the system, and by not really providing a flexible mechanism relating to the seat of the courts, instead relying, as usual, on a political compromise (one might be so unkind to say, "as usual"). The statement from a French commissioner is therefore totally unsurprising, given that France was the first country/major user of the UPC system to ratify. I do find that the comms unit adding on a Covid-crisis hanger as some sort of justification crass in the extreme, as it clearly indicates that the Commission will use anything it can to try and justify its position. It would be nice, for once, if the legal issues surrounding the UPC (and there are several) could actually be sorted out before the whole things gets ratified and dragged screaming into existence, but of course, that would take another umpteen years of negotiating and horsetrading...