Italy and the Unified Patent Court signed an agreement last week to formalize their cooperation on bringing the third seat of the UPC central division to Milan.
As was announced in a press release of the Italian ministry of foreign affairs and international cooperation, the agreement was signed on behalf of Italy by the director general for Europe of the ministry, Nicola Verola. Klaus Grabinski, president of the Court of Appeal, signed on behalf of the UPC. The ceremony was also attended by representatives of the Italian ministries of justice, of enterprises and Made in Italy, and of economy and finance, as well as a representation of the Italian judges of the UPC.
According to Italian deputy prime minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Antonio Tajani, “the signing of this agreement represents another significant step in the Italian Government’s efforts to promote the protection of industrial property, a crucial element for the growth and competitiveness of our country”.
Last June, the Administrative Committee of the UPC unanimously decided to set up a section of the central division of the UPC in Milan. Originally the third seat of the UPC’s central division was planned in London, but due to the Brexit and the UK’s departure from the EU and the Unitary Patent project this was no longer an option.
The technology areas of competence of the Milan section will be less than those originally assigned to the London section. Milan will have jurisdiction over disputes about IPC Section A patents (human necessities), without supplementary protection certificates. This comprises health, agriculture, tobacco, food, home appliances, clothing, furniture, sports and gaming, among others.
According to a report of IP Kat, the Milan central division will open its doors as planned on the first of June of this year.
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
Yet another dubious legal basis.
Could anybody tell me what is the legal basis of the formal agreement on the Headquarters of the third seat of the UPC Central Division in Milan?
How can it be that a court purposedly ignores the terms of the treaty under which it has been set up?
Art 87(2) UPCA has also been flagrantly misused. It was never concieved to adapt a treaty without any exit clause to the “withdrawal” of the UK!
`And MILAN for the third section of the Central Division, you know. There’s glory for you!’
`I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t– till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice, legally waterproof, knock-down argument for you!”‘
`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice, legally waterproof, knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.
`When I use a word – or indeed a legal provision,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you CAN make words or legal provisions mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master– that’s all.’
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They’ve a temper, some of them– particularly the provisions of the UPCA, they’re the proudest– Article 84 EPC you can do anything with, but not the UPCA–however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’
`Would you tell me, please,’ said Alice `what that means?’
`Now you talk like a reasonable child,’ said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by “impenetrability” that we’ve had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you’d mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don’t mean to stop here all the rest of your life.’
`That’s a great deal to make one word mean,’ Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.’
`Oh!’ said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
As a precondition for discussing such “Agreement” and a “Milan Central Division”, would the UPC Administrative Committee – or maybe some of their friends from the UPC Advisory Committee? – mind letting the potential UPC users know
a) on which legal basis the UK is supposed to have “withdrawn” from the UPCA and its protocols,
and
b) on which date this is supposed to have taken effect?
https://www.stjerna.de/upca-uk-withdrawal/?lang=en
What does the ongoing silence on these simple, but central questions tell you?
whats the problem here? who is the aggrieved party? certainly not the public, who cannot care if a class is in one country instead of another. and if there is one, why don’t you let it express first? i don’t understand what is behind all this rancour, there must be reasons or interests of some other kind, it just doesn’t make sense or logic, sorry for the direct words
You mean, why doesn’t everyone do, what she/he wants unless someone else proves that there is an “aggrieved party”? Hey, who needs laws or rule of law. Ever though of applying for a management job at the EPO 😉
There is no rancour at all.
What is at stake here, is no more, but no less, than the rule of law.
By tolerating what is happening here, one decides to brake any law if it contains rules.
By braking the law, the door to the jungle is opened!
Do you want to live under those conditions?
I do not!
How can it happen that a court willingly ignores the wording of the law which has created it?
The presidium of the UPC did exactly this.
Patents are the result of the contract between the public at large!
By behaving like this, the public is literally set aside
It makes thus great sense and logic to query what is going on at the UPC.
Lobbies wanted the UPC. They got it by concealing certain disastrous effects, and now their helpers go as far as to ignore up to the text of the treaty.
I would add: even if moving the London section to Paris and then Milan would have not violated Art. 7(2) UPCA, e.g. because of Brexit London was not available anymore, according to which legal basis the IPC classes of Annex 2 UPCA had to be changed? Brexit has nothing to do with it!