New CMS Unified Patent Court starts functioning next month

search-result-placeholder.jpg

The Unified Patent Court has announced a ‘major milestone’ in the implementation of the Case Management System (CMS).

Image
upc
Starting mid or end of September, the CMS login process will be based on a strong authentication scheme. According to a report on the UPC’s website, ‘an electronic IDentification certificate (compliant with EU Regulation No. 910/2014, also called “eIDAS”) will be required instead of the current account + password system. The new eIDAS-compliant authentication scheme will provide the highest level of security in accessing the CMS, while the use of a qualified electronic signature will be required to electronically sign legal UPC documents.”

The UPC points out that a physical secure device – a smart card or USB token - will be needed. This must be acquired from one of the authorized providers, which can be found on the EU Trust Services portal.

A specific enrollment procedure will be available, as well as a test page in order to check the authentication certificate.

The preparations for the Unified Patent Court, for which an opening date of March 2023 has regularly been mentioned, are continuing. Last month, the UPC published a consolidated English version of  the Rules of Procedure on its website. A consolidated version in French and German should become available before the Rules’ entry into force on 1 September.

The recruitment of UPC judges is also on track. According to JUVE Patent, several candidates ‘have received letters confirming their ascension to the court's judicial system. Unsuccessful candidates are also being informed.’

German challenge

And finally some news which broke earlier this summer: the German Federal Constitutional Court has formally dismissed and closed the second round of constitutional complaints against the UPC system, which had been lodged by Düsseldorf lawyer Björn Ingve Stjerna and, probably, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), its president Benjamin Henrion and un unknown company. It was a formality after the FCC had already rejected two applications for an interim injunction against the UPCA ratification bills last year.

Comments (12)
Your email address will not be published.
default-avatar.png
Joeri Beetz
August 30, 2022 AT 10:12 AM

How will this work for non-EU representatives? Why not add EPO smart cards as a possible authentication device?

default-avatar.png
LightBlue response to Joeri Beetz
August 30, 2022 AT 2:52 PM

Since representatives will primarily be solicitors, why should the UPC concern itself too much with EPAs who have the opportunity to obtain a proper qualified signature card through the indicated commercial channels.

default-avatar.png
Concerned observer response to Joeri Beetz
August 30, 2022 AT 6:30 PM

Indeed ... although the problem there is that EPO cards are not issued by an EU-recognised provider. The "detailed" information provided by the UPC Prep Committee perhaps provides a ray of hope: "qualified electronic certificates do require a strong identification process. Such process USUALLY imposes the physical presence of the requestor during the identification. However, some providers are certified to use “online” identification means (like video conferencing) but for a limited choice of qualified signature creation device. PROVIDING such vendors are certified and recognized by competent national authorities". The EU Trust Services Dashboard does not provide a specific search option for vendors certified for "remote" issuance of qualified signature creation devices. It would therefore have been nice if the Prep Committee could have pointed us towards some qualified vendors (assuming that there are any). Looks like we will all need to do a lot of research ... and possibly even make trips to the EU just in order to obtain a device loaded with the relevant certificates. Oh joy!

default-avatar.png
LightBlue response to Concerned observer
August 31, 2022 AT 8:56 AM

@Concerned - my understanding is that the identification process is the procedure to be followed to obtain the necessary eID card, where the identify of the requester needs to be established through a physical check with supporting documentation such as a passport or national ID card.

default-avatar.png
Concerned observer response to LightBlue
August 31, 2022 AT 2:24 PM

Well, that begs the question of whether just the supporting documents need to be seen "in person" by the eID card provider, or whether the requester needs to be seen in person too. Those possessing the necessary qualifications to act before the UPC (at least by filing opt-outs) will come from most, if not all, EPC Contracting States. Many of those Contracting States will not have any providers of suitable eID cards. From what little I have learned so far, it seems likely that countries lacking such providers will also include a number of EU Member States ... and possibly even Member States that are set to participate in the UPC. The few providers of suitable eID cards are therefore likely to be overwhelmed in the short term. Bearing all of this in mind, how is all of this supposed to work out in the limited time available, and without forcing thousands of individual attorneys to make long journeys just to secure the ability to file opt-outs?

Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published.
Clear all
Become a contributor!
Interested in contributing? Submit your proposal for a blog post now and become a part of our legal community! Contact Editorial Guidelines