header-logo header-logo

29 November 2016
Issue: 7725 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Unified Patent Court to open in London despite Brexit

The UK will ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement, confounding speculation that the UK would pull out as a result of Brexit.

The government’s announcement this week means the London section of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is likely to open next year as planned. The UPC will be headquartered in Paris, with sections in London and Munich and local divisions in other EU Member States.

Alan Johnson, partner, Bristows, welcomed the news but warned of “uncertainty as to the long term participation of the UK”.

“Some say that it is possible for the UK to remain in the UPC if certain actions are taken including notably an EU-UK agreement to give the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) jurisdiction to take references from the UPC in its revised form as a court comprised of non-EU and EU states,” he said.

“Others say that nothing at all need be done save extend the unitary patent regulations to the UK. So there is a spectrum of views ranging from having to do virtually nothing to maintain membership, to it being impossible.

“And if the UK continued in the UPC without taking the right steps (whatever they may be), could the CJEU rule that the court was incompatible with EU law? Clearly, it could potentially. Even if that was thought an unlikely result the consequences could be very serious for patent owners. In that situation, what is industry to do about its existing rights? Can it safely leave them in the UPC system or should it opt them out? Is it safe to apply for unitary patents?

“What happens following ratification during the Brexit negotiations to ensure a legally solid basis for the UPC in the long term is just as important as the launch of the UPC in the first place.”

The UPC enables businesses to protect their patent rights across Europe through a single patent and a single patent court.

UK Minister of State for Intellectual Property, Baroness Neville Rolfe said: “The decision to proceed with ratification should not be seen as pre-empting the UK’s objectives or position in the forthcoming negotiations with the EU.”

Issue: 7725 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll