{"title":"Withdrawal of legal aid","authors":"Miriam Gundt","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0541","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0541","url":null,"abstract":"Pursuant to para 1, the Court can withdraw legal aid at any time if the applicant’s economic situation alters during the proceedings. The applicant must be heard beforehand.","PeriodicalId":308526,"journal":{"name":"Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115445897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rule 126 Start of proceedings for the determination of damages","authors":"Steffen Steininger","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0311","url":null,"abstract":"Rule 126 provides a period for lodging the application which initiates the proceedings for determining damages. Such a period is unknown in many domestic legal systems, for example Germany. Rather, German substantive law allows for initiation of the proceedings to determine damages until the end of the limitation period. The wording (‘lodge an Application’) clarifies that the procedure does not relate to proceedings on the merits but to the application procedure (for details, → Rule 125.4 UPCARoP).","PeriodicalId":308526,"journal":{"name":"Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115606272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Legal status","authors":"Winfried Tilmann","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0041","url":null,"abstract":"Para 1 is modelled on paras 1 and 2 of Art 5 EPC, which in turn corresponds to the current Art 335 TFEU. But while Art 335 TFEU refers to the ‘Union’ and Art 5 EPC to the European Patent Organisation (Art 4 EPC), and both confer legal personality on those associations of states and attribute to them extensive legal capacity, para 1 attributes these characteristics only to the Court (which under the EPC would correspond to the EPO). Consequently, the association of states itself does not possess any legal personality and as such does not have any legal capacity. Only the individual state participating in organizing the Court and the Court itself have legal capacity.","PeriodicalId":308526,"journal":{"name":"Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary","volume":"70 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120851997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Decision on the validity of a patent","authors":"M. Faehndrich, Alexander Klicznik, Max Tilmann","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0113","url":null,"abstract":"The Court shall decide on the validity of a patent on the basis of an action for revocation or a counterclaim for revocation.","PeriodicalId":308526,"journal":{"name":"Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114938743","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Keeping of the register","authors":"Peter Tochtermann","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0171","url":null,"abstract":"The rules on access to documents of the Registry are set out in the Rules of Procedure. According to Art 10(1) UPCA, the register is publicly available. Accordingly Rule 262 UPCARoP provides that written pleadings, written evidence, decisions, and orders made by the Court and recorded by the Registry are publicly available online unless a party to the proceedings requests that the documents are kept confidential and the Court agrees. However, unless forwarded to the applicant, protective letters are excluded (Rule 207(7) UPCARoP).","PeriodicalId":308526,"journal":{"name":"Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115195118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Written procedure when the central division deals with a Counterclaim for revocation under Article 33(3)(b) of the Agreement","authors":"Markus Kuczera","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0229","url":null,"abstract":"The Counterclaim for revocation is assigned to a panel of the central division. It can be inferred from the reference to Rule 17.3, and from there to Rule 345.3, that such assignment is made by the Registrar. Pursuant to Rule 38(a) in conjunction with Rule 17.3, the decisive factor for selecting the panel is the determination of the competent section pursuant to Art 7(2) UPCA in conjunction with Annex II UPCA","PeriodicalId":308526,"journal":{"name":"Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary","volume":"223 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115556520","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rule 71: Examination as to formal requirements and further schedule","authors":"Clemens Plassmann, Steffen Steininger","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0263","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0263","url":null,"abstract":"The Rule is self-explanatory. Refer to the commentaries on the Rules to which it refers.","PeriodicalId":308526,"journal":{"name":"Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116096734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rule 60: Value-based fee for the dispute including the Counterclaim for infringement","authors":"Clemens Plassmann","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0251","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0251","url":null,"abstract":"Rule 60 defines the procedure for determining the case value of the case consisting of a revocation claim and an infringement counterclaim and provides that the defendant must pay a value-based fee in addition to the fixed fee pursuant to Rules 53 and 370.2(a) where the case value is higher than €500,000. Rule 60 is very similar to Rule 22 providing the same for the infringement action. Therefore, refer to the comments on Rule 22 UPCARoP.","PeriodicalId":308526,"journal":{"name":"Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122982145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rule 243 Referral back","authors":"Tilmann Büttner","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0414","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0414","url":null,"abstract":"The Court of Appeal does not necessarily have to bring the appeal proceedings to a final decision. Pursuant to Rule 243, it can refer the action back to the Court of First Instance, but only in exceptional cases.","PeriodicalId":308526,"journal":{"name":"Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114562432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Transfer of the patent or patent application during proceedings","authors":"Clemens Plassmann, S. Dorn","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198755463.003.0480","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198755463.003.0480","url":null,"abstract":"The enforcement of a patent or a patent application in proceedings before the Court does not prevent the transfer or licensing of a patent or a patent application. The patent proprietor has the power to license or transfer the patent with the consequence of adding a new party or substituting the new party as a successor during the UPC proceedings. Rule 312 deals with the consequences of such licensing or transfer on proceedings before the UPC.","PeriodicalId":308526,"journal":{"name":"Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122023801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}