English
 
User Manual Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Opinion

Comments of the Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Preliminary Set of Provisions for the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons51199

Hilty,  Reto M.
MPI for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons51200

Jaeger,  Thomas
MPI for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons51216

Lamping,  Matthias
MPI for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons53776

Romandini,  Roberto
MPI for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons51254

Ullrich,  Hanns
MPI for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Max Planck Society;

Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts available
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Hilty, R. M., Jaeger, T., Lamping, M., Romandini, R., & Ullrich, H. (2013). Comments of the Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Preliminary Set of Provisions for the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0014-A9A9-1
Abstract
This text is a re-formatted version of comments submitted by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law in the public consultation on the 15th draft for Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court conducted between June and October 2013. The comments focus on those Rules and do, in particular, not duplicate criticism for the Unitary Patent Package voiced elsewhere. Three fundamental aspects of particular importance for the functionality of the procedural regime are identified: Warranting uniformity, safeguarding autonomy and establishing an adequate balance of rights and obligations between the parties. The comments underline that, within the strict bounds imposed by the Unitary Patent Package, the Rules offer a well elaborated and substantially comprehensive framework for patent litigation procedures. Nonetheless, certain parts fall short of answering to the requirements imposed by the complexities of the system in which they are embedded. In particular, the Rules should not shy away from suggesting solutions in politically delicate areas if essential for the overall balance and functioning of the system. This concerns, for example, the exercise of discretion regarding the choice of options pursuant to Art. 33(3) UPC or the balancing of interests in the context of granting injunctive relief.