The Parliamentary History of the European "Unitary Patent"

German attorney and Certified Specialist for IP Law Ingve Stjerna is known to our readers as an alert and critical commenter of the UPC legislation process (see posts here, here, here, here, here ) and constitutional issues. I do not know what was the reason to abandon the Opt-Out-fee but I think that Ingve's convincing arguments might have played a role.

For those who want to recapture the fascinating parliamentary history of the UPC legislation or simply express their gratitude for Ingve's fight to saveguard our constitutional rights, PatLit recommends to invest one the saved Opt-Out-Fees into his new book:

The Parliamentary History of the European "Unitary Patent"  

Verbatim protocol of selected meetings in the European Parliament and its Legal Affairs Committee (English and original language)  

This book documents the course of the negotiations on the “Unitary Patent Package”. It reproduces the wording of statements made in selected public meetings of the European Parliament and its Legal Affairs Committee on the “Patent Package”, thus permitting a detailed review of the different stages and developments of the legislative procedure, for instance the perception of the European Court of Justice’s opinion 1/09 on the originally planned structure of the Patent Court system, the discussions about invoking the procedure of enhanced cooperation as well as the origins of the controversies about the former Articles 6 to 8 of the “Unitary Patent” Regulation, their escalation after the European Council summit decisions in June 2012 and their resolution according to the Cyprus Council Presidency compromise proposal. 

The book "The Parliamentary History of the European Unitary Patent" is available in two different language versions, German (ISBN 978-3-7345-1071-7) and English (ISBN 978-3-7345-1742-6), more information can be found here (German) and here (English)

Belgians challenge national ratification of UPCA

PatLit has learned from an informed source that in Belgium the ratification statute for the Unified Patent Court Agreement seems to have been challenged in that country's Constitutional Court. This information can be found on the weblog of ESOMA, the European Software Manufacturers' Association, here

There would appear to be three bases for this challenge:

• language discrimination against Dutch-speaking Belgian citizens, which is forbidden by the Belgian constitution, 

• the Rules of Procedure for the UPC and possible future amendments can pass into law without being confirmed by the Belgian legislator 

• the European Patent Office lacks judicial responsibility, in contradiction of the Rule of Law.

At least this third plea has a familiar ring to it ...

Jury trials in the US: will the creation of a PTAB cause constitutional headaches?

A short and quite provocative article, "IP jury trials—trouble ahead?" by Robert M. Kunstadt (R. Kunstadt, PC), has just been published online in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2014), a.k.a. JIPLP. According to the abstract:

"The creation of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to preside over quasi-trials of patent validity after the fact at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) raises substantial issues of constitutional law that have far-ranging implications for both patent jury trials in the US Federal district courts as well as IP trial practice in general.

Motions are regularly filed to stay district court litigation to await the outcome of PTAB proceedings. The patent owner therefore stands to be deprived of the right to a jury trial—in an actual case or controversy with a specific accused infringer—due to intervening invalidation of the patent-in-suit by an Article I tribunal acting without benefit of a jury.

Hence the jury trial right in patent cases, and by implication in other IP cases involving trade marks or copyrights, now logically seems in jeopardy of diminution. Success of the new PTAB proceedings in reducing the perceived exposure from patent jury trials could lead to similar pressure from perennial defendants in copyright- and trade mark-based industries to seek relief from perceived cost, delay and capriciousness of jury-trial proceedings; with the result being increasing reliance upon administrative determinations on validity by Article I judges acting without juries".

There's more on the PTAB here.

Do readers agree with Rob's hypothesis? Do let us know.