英国脱欧与统一专利法院的法律合法性

Nicolas Binctin, C. Nard
{"title":"英国脱欧与统一专利法院的法律合法性","authors":"Nicolas Binctin, C. Nard","doi":"10.1093/grurint/ikae004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n At no time in recent history has it been more exciting to be a student of European patent law. Over the past ten years Europe has sought to create and restructure a significant portion of its patent law apparatus, including the introduction of a ‘Unitary Patent’ (‘UP’) that has effect in 17 European Union Member States (and counting), and the creation of a Unitary Patent Court (‘UPC’) that entered into force on 1 June 2023. The compelling policies underlying these dramatic changes are well documented, including enhanced uniformity, cost reductions, and other efficiencies. Indeed, the European patent system is poised to welcome international patent actors with a well-thought-out procedural regime.\n Yet all good policies must be supported by a legitimate legal foundation. The United Kingdom’s highly publicized and often dramatic departure from the EU has reverberated throughout the European establishment, affecting issues relating to the economy, trade, immigration, labor, and Northern Ireland, to name just some of the most obvious. Perhaps what is not so evident, however, is the adverse legal effect that Brexit has had on the UPC, to such an extent that we are dubious about the court’s legitimacy. Make no mistake, even if we prefer a fully integrated EU solution, we support the creation of UPC and the entire unitary initiative. However, in this paper we argue that it must be done in a manner that is legally principled, which requires an amended and re-ratified Unitary Patent Court Agreement.","PeriodicalId":432164,"journal":{"name":"GRUR International","volume":" 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brexit and the Legal Legitimacy of the Unitary Patent Court\",\"authors\":\"Nicolas Binctin, C. Nard\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/grurint/ikae004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n At no time in recent history has it been more exciting to be a student of European patent law. Over the past ten years Europe has sought to create and restructure a significant portion of its patent law apparatus, including the introduction of a ‘Unitary Patent’ (‘UP’) that has effect in 17 European Union Member States (and counting), and the creation of a Unitary Patent Court (‘UPC’) that entered into force on 1 June 2023. The compelling policies underlying these dramatic changes are well documented, including enhanced uniformity, cost reductions, and other efficiencies. Indeed, the European patent system is poised to welcome international patent actors with a well-thought-out procedural regime.\\n Yet all good policies must be supported by a legitimate legal foundation. The United Kingdom’s highly publicized and often dramatic departure from the EU has reverberated throughout the European establishment, affecting issues relating to the economy, trade, immigration, labor, and Northern Ireland, to name just some of the most obvious. Perhaps what is not so evident, however, is the adverse legal effect that Brexit has had on the UPC, to such an extent that we are dubious about the court’s legitimacy. Make no mistake, even if we prefer a fully integrated EU solution, we support the creation of UPC and the entire unitary initiative. However, in this paper we argue that it must be done in a manner that is legally principled, which requires an amended and re-ratified Unitary Patent Court Agreement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":432164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GRUR International\",\"volume\":\" 23\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GRUR International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikae004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GRUR International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikae004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作为欧洲专利法的学生,近代史上没有任何时候比现在更令人兴奋。在过去十年中,欧洲一直在努力创建和重组其专利法机构的重要部分,包括引入在17个欧盟成员国(还在继续)生效的 "统一专利"(UP),以及创建于2023年6月1日生效的统一专利法院(UPC)。这些巨大变革所依据的令人信服的政策有据可查,包括加强统一性、降低成本和提高其他效率。事实上,欧洲专利制度已经做好准备,欢迎拥有深思熟虑的程序制度的国际专利参与者。然而,所有好的政策都必须有合法的法律基础作为支撑。英国脱离欧盟的事件广受关注,而且往往是戏剧性的,这在整个欧洲都引起了反响,影响到了经济、贸易、移民、劳工和北爱尔兰等相关问题,这只是其中最明显的几个例子。然而,也许不那么明显的是,英国脱欧对 UPC 产生了不利的法律影响,以至于我们对该法院的合法性产生了怀疑。毫无疑问,即使我们更倾向于完全一体化的欧盟解决方案,我们也支持 UPC 的创建和整个统一倡议。然而,在本文中,我们认为必须以符合法律原则的方式进行,这就需要修订和重新批准《统一专利法院协议》。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Brexit and the Legal Legitimacy of the Unitary Patent Court
At no time in recent history has it been more exciting to be a student of European patent law. Over the past ten years Europe has sought to create and restructure a significant portion of its patent law apparatus, including the introduction of a ‘Unitary Patent’ (‘UP’) that has effect in 17 European Union Member States (and counting), and the creation of a Unitary Patent Court (‘UPC’) that entered into force on 1 June 2023. The compelling policies underlying these dramatic changes are well documented, including enhanced uniformity, cost reductions, and other efficiencies. Indeed, the European patent system is poised to welcome international patent actors with a well-thought-out procedural regime. Yet all good policies must be supported by a legitimate legal foundation. The United Kingdom’s highly publicized and often dramatic departure from the EU has reverberated throughout the European establishment, affecting issues relating to the economy, trade, immigration, labor, and Northern Ireland, to name just some of the most obvious. Perhaps what is not so evident, however, is the adverse legal effect that Brexit has had on the UPC, to such an extent that we are dubious about the court’s legitimacy. Make no mistake, even if we prefer a fully integrated EU solution, we support the creation of UPC and the entire unitary initiative. However, in this paper we argue that it must be done in a manner that is legally principled, which requires an amended and re-ratified Unitary Patent Court Agreement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Authorship Status Derived from the Complementarity of Contracts Determining a Country Where a Satellite Broadcast Has Been Made Resale Price Maintenance Practices as a Continuing Offence Clarifying the Revocation Right and the 14-Day Objection Period in Terms of Statutory Exceptions Imposing Administrative Pecuniary Sanctions under the GDPR
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1