The UPC has opened its doors for field operation more than two weeks ago. When checking the UPC public proceedings register in the CMS, I can see 12 proceedings (three revocation actions and nine infringement actions). The nine infringement actions include three infringement actions in Munich, two in Dusseldorf, two in Hamburg. This suggests that either the CMS electronic register is not fully operational or the case numbers are much lower than the 100 cases expected to be filed within the first week according to the (optimistic) ipwatchdog blog of 31.5.2023 entitled “Countdown to the Unified Patent Court, Part V, Five Predictions for the UPC on Day One.”
UPC isolated revocation action
When testing some of the functionalities provided by the UPC CMS search tools, I came to realize that an isolated revocation action (i.e., a revocation action that is not a revocation counterclaim in an infringement action) has been lodged with the UPC central division in Munich on June 2, 2023, i.e., the second day of field operation. The patent is a bundle patent (i.e., no unitary effect, as it has been granted prior to June 1, 2023).
The value in dispute is 100 Mio. EUR. A lawsuit between the same parties regarding a U.S. patent family members of the patent now challenged before the UPC was recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Amgen vs. Sanofi. The U.S. case dealt with the interesting question of enabling disclosure over the full claim scope or, stated differently, the degree to which independent claims may be generalized as compared to the specific embodiments (which were considered to be disclosed in an enabling manner in the U.S. case).
This is a worthy start for the UPC system, which clearly attracts interesting cases.
It is a bit unfortunate that, notwithstanding all efforts to set up a modern, all electronic system, the revocation action appears to have been filed in paper form pursuant to R. 4.2 UPC (UPC CMS not working properly).
Technically qualified judges at the UPC
A couple of days ago, one of the technically qualified judges (a colleague from France who is highly respected and very well-known in the community) announced that he will resign from the position as technically qualified judge (TQJ). In his view, the recently published UPC Code of Conduct makes it difficult to discharge of the duties as a TQJ in a manner that is compatible with an attorney’s work for his/her clients.
While this resignment is a significant loss for the bench of the UPC, this ethics and level of reflection is to be applauded. It also contrasts nicely with the “the part-time judge system works for the Swiss Federal Patent Court, hence it is going to work for the UPC”-attitude that I have sometimes heard in the past. (Just to be clear: Of course, such a system can work, but concerns as regards potential conflicts of interest are to be taken seriously.) It will be interesting to see whether this resignment will remain an isolated event or whether more TQJs are going to re-consider the situation in the weeks or months to come.
UPC Case Management System (CMS)
At present (mid-May 2023), the UPC CMS appears to have difficulties handling the number of opt-out requests that are being submitted. This does not appear to be a great start for the new system:
First, while the number of opt-out requests appears to be substantial (and appears to grow significantly as June 2023 approaches), this type of request does normally not involve significant data amounts. This leaves one wondering how well equipped the CMS is to handle the potentially simultaneous submission of several voluminous briefs in UPC field operation from June 2023.
Second, the number of opt-out requests appears to illustrate that there are many applicants and patentees who, at least as of now, are not yet convinced by the new system.
On the bright side, applicants and patentees appear to be aware of the options provided by the new system, and appear to pro-actively take the steps they deem appropriate for their patent portfolio.
Patent with Unitary Effect
I just realized that the EPO has already updated the European Patent Register search form in view of the possibility to file a request for a unitary effect. The updated search form provides search fields for entering the request date and the registration date for unitary effect.
Judges panel in UPC conference
The EPO co-hosted a conference on the new unitary patent system in the mid- November 2022. Part of the conference was a judges panel featuring some of the prominent figures that were recently elected to the UPC bench. Various topics were discussed. Just some examples: There appeared to be consensus among the panelist judges that it will be rare for a revocation counterclaim to be separated from infringement proceedings and be sent to the central division (unless there are plural revocation counterclaims before different local/regional divisions). The judges’ current views appeared to be less aligned with regard to issues such as disproportionality of injunctive relief. A recording of the conference is still available online – worth watching if you are interested in this topic.
UPC judges announced
The names of (a first group of) UPC judges were published on the UPC website. Additional judges are yet to be named. The list of judges has been widely discussed, e.g. on Juve and Managing IP.