Rule 5(1)1 of the Rules relating to unitary patent protection states: “At the request of the proprietor of the European patent, unitary effect shall be registered by the European Patent Office in the Register for unitary patent protection”
Who Can Request Unitary Effect?
We therefore recommend that if there is a change of proprietor then this is recorded at the EPO pre-grant if possible, or if this is not possible then it may be worth considering delaying recording the assignment until after the unitary patent has been registered. Otherwise, there is a risk that the request for unitary effect is refused because the requestor and proprietor don’t match. Because the period for requesting unitary effect is one month from the date of grant
This is the first of two newsletters; our October newsletter will present case studies that illustrate some issues considered in this newsletter.
Our previous newsletter introduced the Unitary Patent (UP) and Unified Patents Court (UPC) systems. This newsletter examines some potential issues around ownership and considerations for licensees and licensors relating to the UP and UPC.
The Unitary Patent and Unified Patents Court- Ownership Issues and Considerations for Licensees and Licensors
¹ https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2022/04/a41.html 下简称“我们之前新闻简报介绍了单一专利（以 UP ”）和统一专利法院（以下 简称“UPC”）体系。本新闻简报探讨了 UP 和 UPC 报，本文是第一篇，我们将针对这一主题发布两篇新闻简方面的一些潜在问题及注意事项。相关被许可方和许可方所有权 10 虑的一些问题。将提供案例研究，说明本篇新闻简报考月发布第二篇， 谁可以请求单一效力? 《单一专利保护实施细则》第 5(1)1 条规 （以下简称““经欧洲专利所有者请求，欧洲专利局定： EPO 情况，首选方案是授权前在因此，我们建议，如果有所有者变更的个月的纠正期（不可延长）。与登记簿上的所有者不相符，将提供一所有者提出。如请求书中所列的所有者效力登记之日欧洲专利登记簿中登记的交单一效力请求之日，或者最迟于单一因此，欧洲专利单一效力请求必须由提登记簿上将专利登记为单一效力””）应在单一专利保护 EPO 进行 权问题并在尽可能在授予专利之前解决所有的所有就会错失获得单一专利的机会，所以应是相当紧张的。如果错过了最后期限，可延长），所以要正确作出请求的时间一个月（并且申请纠正的一个月期限不请求单一效力的期限是自批准之日起的而导致单一效力请求被拒的风险。由于否则，就会面临因请求者与所有者不符案。单一专利登记之后，再进行转让变更备备案，如果无法实现，可能需要考虑在 EPO 一种很好的做法。批准后需要在多个司法管辖区备案都是备案。无论如何，避免
A request for a European patent to have unitary effect must therefore be made by the proprietor mentioned in the European Patent Register at the date of filing of the request for unitary effect or, at the latest, at the date of registration of unitary effect. If the proprietor listed on the request does not match the proprietor on the register, there is a non-extendable period of one month for correcting the deficiency.
1 www.hlk-ip.cn 单一专利与统一专利法院 题及注意事项被许可方和许可方的所有权问—
For a sole proprietor, if the applicant had their residence or principal place of business in a UP participating member state at the date of filing, the national law of that member state will apply. For example, for a French proprietor, French national law will apply to their UPs, so any assignments, licences, or security agreements involving the UPs will have to be compliant with French law.
例如，因为他们在 EPC 缔约国没有处所或营业地点 共同所有者 要求与所有为单一专利，前提是该专利的授权权利授予共同所有者的欧洲专利可以申请成 UP 样适用，但是如果某位所有者只是同）。关于指定一名共同代表的规定同一效力（如上所述，前提是权利要求相不同成员国的不同所有者也可以请求单表。排在首位的申请人已指定了一名专业代专业代表将被视为共同代表，除非姓名申请人有义务指定一名专业代表请人将被视为共同代表。如果其中一名一名共同代表，那么姓名排在首位的申期间，可能也会指定）。如果没有指定同代表的方式予以解决（而且专利审查权有些复杂，但是可以通过指定一名共参与国相同。共同所有2，则该 UPC 管辖范围外的 EPC 其不能请求单一效力或担任共同代表。成员国的所有者，则 单一所有者适用法律 交申请之日在对于单一所有者来说，如果申请人于提 UP 将适用于其例如，对于法国所有者，法国国家法律营业地，则适用该成员国的国家法律。成员国拥有处所或主要 UP，因此涉及 UP 律。让、许可或安全协议都必须遵守法国法的任何转
(and the one-month period for requesting deficiencies is non-extendable) this is a fairly tight timescale to get it right. If the deadlines are missed then the opportunity to get a unitary patent is gone, so all ownership issues need to be resolved and recorded at the EPO before grant if at all possible. This is good practice anyway to avoid the need for multijurisdictional recordal after grant.
2 www.hlk-ip.cn
Joint Proprietors
2 e.g., because they have no residence or place of business in an EPC contracting state
There are some complexities around joint ownership but these can be addressed by appointing a common representative (which might have happened for the prosecution anyway). If a common representative is not appointed then the first-named requester will be deemed the common representative. If one of the requesters is obliged to appoint a professional representative then that representative2 is deemed to be the common representative, unless the first-named requester has appointed a professional Differentrepresentative.proprietors in different member states can also request unitary effect (provided the claims are the same, as stated above). The same provisions around appointing a common representative apply but a proprietor who is only a proprietor for an EPC member state that is not covered by the UPC cannot request unitary effect or be a common representative.
Sole Proprietors
A unitary patent can be requested for a European patent granted to joint proprietors as long as the patent was granted with the same claims for all UP participating states.
Applicable Law
是 否 否 是 提交申请之日，申请人在 UP 成员国拥有处所或主 要营业地？ 提交申请之日，申请人在 UP 成员国拥有营业地？ EPO 总部所在国家（即德国）的国家法律适用。 申请人于提交申请之日在其中拥有处所或主要营业地的 UP 成员国的国家法律适用。 申请人于提交申请之日在其中拥有营业地 的 UP 成员国的国家法律适用。 Determining the applicable law for sole proprietors. 确定单一所有者适用的法律。 共同所有者 律将适用于个申请人在成员国有处所，所以法国法第二个申请人是法国公司，由于其中一所以，如果第一个申请人是美国公司，的顺序依次考虑所有申请人。个步骤中，需要按照专利申请所列姓名对共同所有者而言，规则相似，但在每 UP 中一个申请人在第二个申请人是英国公司，那么除非其相反，如果第一个申请人是美国公司，。 UP 否则德国法律将适用于成员国拥有营业地， UP 。
UP。 If the applicant does not have their residence or principal place of business in a participating member state, the national law of a member state in which the applicant had a place of business at the time of filing the application will apply. If neither condition applies, German law will apply to the UP.
National law of the UP participating Member State in which the applicant had its residence or principal place of business at the date of filing applies National law of the UP participating Member State in which the applicant had a place of business at the date of filing applies
The rules for joint proprietors are similar but at each step you move sequentially through the applicants in the order in which they are listed on the patent application.
3 www.hlk-ip.cn 将适用于如果这两种请求都不符合，则德国法律所在成员国的国家法律适用。业地，则申请人在提出申请时的营业地如果申请人在成员国没有处所或主要营
So, for an application where the first applicant is a US company and the second applicant is a French company, because one of the applicants had its residence in a participating member state then French law will apply to the UP. In contrast, if the first applicant is a US company and the second applicant is a UK company, then unless one of the applicants had a place of business in a UP participating member state, German law will apply to the UP.
Joint Proprietors
Applicant had its residence or principal place of business in a UP participating Member State at the date of filing? YES NO Applicant had a place of business in a UP participating Member State at the date of filing? YES NO National law of the State in which the EPO is headquartered (i.e. Germany) applies
提交申请之日，一个申请人在 UP 成员国拥有处所或主要营业地？ 提交申请之日，一个申请人 在 UP 成员国拥有营业地？ EPO 总部所在国家（即德国）的国家法律适用。 第一个（如果不可行，则下一个）被提及的申请人于提交申请之 日在其中拥有处所或主要营业地的 UP 成员国的国家法律适用。 第一个（如果不可行，则下一个）被提及的申请人于提交 申请之日在其中拥有营业地的 UP 成员国的国家法律适用。 否 否 Determining the applicable law for joint proprietors. 确定共同所有者适用的法律。
Why Does This Matter?
This is important is because different states have different laws of property (e.g. patents) which affect how property can be transferred, securitized etc., e.g. an assignment that is valid and effective under one country’s law might not be valid and effective in another. It is therefore important to consider: is your/your client’s preferred national law applicable to your/their UPs? There is some scope for choosing the applicable law if the proprietor doesn’t have a residence or principle place of business in a UP participating state but they do have a place of business in such a state (e.g. a retail outlet) on the date of filing. The request for unitary effect can include a voluntary indication as to the place of business on the date of filing the European patent application which could be useful for defining the applicable law – for example, a US-based applicant with places of business in Germany, France, and the Netherlands could indicate that any one of DE, FR, or NL was a place of business on the filing date to thereby ensure that the law of the indicated country applies to the UP. If no such indication is provided, then German law will apply. National law of the UP participating Member State in which the first, or if not possible, next, indicated joint applicant had its residence or principal place of business at the date of filing applies National law of the UP participating Member State in which first, or if not possible, next, indicated applicant had a place of business at the date of filing applies
An applicant had its residence or principal place of business in a UP participating Member State at the date of filing? YES NO An applicant had a place of business in a UP participating Member State at the date of filing? YES NO National law of the State in which the EPO is headquartered (i.e. Germany) applies
4 www.hlk-ip.cn 为什么这一点至关重要？ 的国家法律是否适用于您/您的委托人的因此，要重点考虑：下有效的转让在另一个国家可能无效。移、证券化等，例如，在某一国家法律利）法律，这些法律关系到财产如何转因为不同的国家有不同的财产（如专您/您的委托人偏好 UP 如果所有者在？ UP 从而确保所指明国家的法律适用于指明其在德国、法国或荷兰有营业地，业地的美国申请人，可在提交申请之日律指明营业地，这样有助于明确适用的法力时，可在提交欧洲专利申请之日自愿定的选择适用法律的余地。国有营业地（例如零售网点），则有一要营业地，但他们在提及申请之日在该参与国没有处所或主请求单一效——例如，在德国、法国和荷兰有营 UP。 如果没有指明，则德国法律适用。 选择退出有误的后果 能让一项欧洲专利/申请有效退出息至关重要，因为只有真正的所有者才在选择退出请求中提供正确的所有者信 UPC 请求符合形式要求，即予以正式登记。相关机构不会进行审查；只要选择退出的管辖。对于所提供的信息是否正确，
In theory, responsibility for European prosecution of applicants lies solely with the applicants. However license agreements can delegate responsibility for/control of prosecution to a licensee, and these can extend to the licensee taking decisions (in the name of the applicant) on deciding whether to validate granted applicants as UPs vs a bundle of national patents, or whether to opt out of the UPC jurisdiction. A licensee could therefore take action on UP/ national patents and/or opting out that the patentee does not agree with. Whilst some of these decisions may be reversed others may be irreversible, and validating a UP is an example of an irreversible decision; the patentee would not then be able to go back and ‘convert’ the UP into a bundle of national patents.
Control of Prosecution by a Licensee
Where an application or patent is in joint ownership, the opt out request should be filed by or on behalf of all applicants or proprietors. Our advice for these cases is to agree who will do it and get something in writing showing the consent of all the joint owners to the opt out to avoid future arguments over the validity of the opt out request.
5 www.hlk-ip.cn 争议。出，以免将来在退出请求有效性方面产生且所有共同所有人以书面形式表示同意退建议协商确定由谁提出选择退出请求，并交或其授权代表提交。在此情况下，我们退出请求应由所有申请人或所有者共同提如果一项申请或专利属共同所有，则选择 被许可方专利审查控制权 义）决定将授权申请登记为任可以扩大到由被许可方（以申请人的名查责任/控制权委托给被许可方，上述责请人负责。但是，可以通过许可协议将审理论上，申请人欧洲专利的审查完全由申 UP 还是一批 国家专利，或是否选择退出 UPC 管辖。 因此，被许可方可以进行 UP 为有些决定是不可撤销的，例如，登记成申请。虽然有些决定可能会被撤销，但登记，和/或选择退出专利权人不同意的/国家专利 UP 而是无法将就是不可撤销的决定；专利权人因 UP “转换”为一批国家专利 的。
It is important that the correct proprietor information is given in the opt out request, since only the true proprietor(s) can validly opt a European patent/application out of the jurisdiction of the UPC. There is no check that the given information is actually correct; the opt out is formally registered if the formal Therefore, an opt out request that contains incorrect proprietary information could be registered invalidly, and this may only be discovered when a central revocation action is brought at the UPC. This can lock a proprietor into the jurisdiction of the UPC (and into the risk of central revocation) since if a claimant can show the opt out was invalid it can’t be corrected because proceedings have already begun. true ownership of patents and applications (and EPO/national registers may not have up to date proprietor
■ If an EP patent application is validated as a bundle of national patents in the traditional way and not opted out of the UPC jurisdiction then the UPC will share jurisdiction with the respective national courts;
■ If an EP patent application is validated as a UP then the UPC always has exclusive jurisdiction;
■ If an EP patent application is opted out of the UPC jurisdiction then the national courts have exclusive jurisdiction.
6 www.hlk-ip.cn 效阶段决定）的控制权。许可方的协议，保留对审查（或至少对生我们建议申请人和所有者考虑更新其与被 诉讼 We recommend that applicants and proprietors consider updating their agreements with their licensees such that they retain control over prosecution (or at least the validation stage decisions). Litigation EP UP EP EP UP EP EP EP UP UPC Agreement comes into effect UPC 协议生效 National Courts of UP States UP UP 国家的国家法院 statesUPCwithinJurisdiction 国家共享管辖权UPC与 ofGrant EPA EPA批准 Request UP 请求 UP Provisional Application Period 临时适用期 Pre-launch Period 前启动期 Sunrise Period 日出期 Transitional period 过渡期 UPC – exclusive jurisdiction 过渡期 UPs can be requested 可提交 UP 请求 Opt-outs available 可选择退出 National Courts of UP States UP UP 国家的国家法院 National Courts of UP States UP UP 国家的国家法院 National Courts of UP States UP UP 国家的国家法院 EPAofGrant EPA EPA批准 EPAofGrant EPA EPA批准 EPAofGrant EPA EPA批准 Opt out EPA EPA EPA选择退出 您可能还记得我们 7 影响。会对专利的未来状况产生潜在的关键（上图来源于该文），初审法院可能月份的新闻简报 UPC 协议切实生效时，大体面 临有 3 种司法管辖情况： ■ 如果 EP 专利申请被登记为 UP，则 UPC 始终拥有专属管辖权 ■ 如果 EP UPC记为一批国家专利，且未选择退出专利申请被以传统方式登管辖，那么 UPC 国家法院共享管辖权；将与相应的 ■ 如果 EP 专利申请选择退出 UPC 退出传统一批国家专利，但未明确选择因此，在过渡期内，对于已登记为辖，则国家法院拥有专属管辖权。管 UPC 管辖的 EP 申请（在此情况 下，UPC 和国家法院共享管辖权），
You may recall from our July newsletter (from which the figure above is produced), the court of first action can have a potentially critical impact on the future of the patent. When the UPC agreement does come into effect, there will be essentially 3 jurisdictional scenarios:
Therefore, during the transitional period, for EP applications that have been validated as traditional bundles of national patents but not explicitly opted out of the jurisdiction of the UPC (and so where the UPC and national courts have shared jurisdiction), the first action will choose the litigation forum – the UPC or a national court. This is decision is not however available for any subsequent actions in respect of the patent, which must all use the same forum as the first action.
The decision may be taken out of the hands of the patent proprietor. Under the UPC Agreement, the default situation is that exclusive licensees have the right to litigate the patent they licence, after giving the proprietor prior notice, although this right can be removed under the terms of a licence agreement. The opposite applies for nonexclusive licensees, who do not have the right to litigate the patent they license, but who may be granted the right to litigate under the terms of the licence.
Accordingly, there is nothing to stop an exclusive licensee (or a non-exclusive licensee, if the license agreement permits it) from bringing proceedings in the UPC as long as they can provide evidence that they are entitled to do so and have notified the patent proprietor prior to bringing the proceedings. The decision of a licensee (potentially a nonexclusive licensee) could determine the forum for all subsequent infringement proceedings for a patent (including those undertaken by other licensees and the actual proprietor).
7 www.hlk-ip.cn 首次提出诉讼时，需选择诉讼法院—— UPC 院。专利所有者可能无法决定诉讼法相同的法院进行。权，这些后续诉讼必须在与第一次诉讼任何后续诉讼将不再拥有诉讼法院选择或国家法院。但是，有关该专利的 UPC 明他们有权在批准的普通被许可方）能够提供证据证因此，只要独占被许可方（或许可协议可以在许可条款下授予其诉讼权利。的专利提起诉讼的非独家被许可方，但去除这项权利。对于无权对其获得许可提起诉讼，但是可以在许可协议条款下事先通知所有者后对其获得许可的专利协议默认独家被许可方有权在 UPC 在提起诉讼之前通知专利权利人，其就能提起诉讼，并且在 UPC 如在法院的选择权。我们认为，所有者可能更愿意保留诉讼有者提起的诉讼）的起诉法院。讼（包括那些由其他被许可方和实际所选择可以决定相关专利后续所有侵权诉被许可方（也可能是普通被许可方）的提起诉讼。 UPC 因此，只要情况比没有被许可方的排他提起诉讼。该原告须在提交起诉状时，证明其有权所有者及任何被许可方提起诉讼），则讼的原告非排他所有者（例如任何共同提起侵权诉讼，并且提起诉
We consider it likely that the proprietor would prefer to retain control of this decision. Where infringement proceedings are initiated under the UPC, a claimant initiating litigation that is not a sole proprietor (e.g. any joint proprietor and any licensees that are initiating litigation) is required to prove, when filing the statement of claim, their right to Itlitigate.istherefore sensible in all situations more complicated than a sole proprietor with no licensees to make sure that there is a clear written agreement on who can initiate litigation. For licensees this may be covered in the licence agreement, as we discussed. For
co-proprietors this may be a bespoke written agreement that is prepared to deal with this eventuality, giving one proprietor the right to litigate with the written authority of the other proprietors for example.
If a European patent is opted out of the UPC regime, then who can decide if and when it is opted back in? Is the party funding prosecution of the patent best placed to make all decisions or is it the party responsible for enforcing the patent or exploiting the technology best to make that decision?
8 www.hlk-ip.cn 此外，建议及时更新书面授予一名所有者提起诉讼的权利。种可能性做好准备，例如，其他所有者说，可以定制一份书面协议，为应对这中作出这方面的规定。对共同所有者来样，对被许可方来说，可以在许可协议提起诉讼。正如我们在上文讨论的那所有者复杂，务必明确书面约定谁可以 EP 时可能会参考这些登记薄。相关的国家登记薄，因为评估诉讼权利登记簿和任何 专利审查程序/专利授予后程序许可注意事项 出哪些决定呢那么，在欧洲专利审查过程中，需要作可方的决定。响；专利权人也可以作出可能影响被许和撤销风险方面对专利权人产生重大影出有关决定，该决定可能会在后期实施因此，被许可方可以在专利申请方面作 ? 定是否退出统一专利法院体系？由谁来决决定将专利登记为一批国家专利，那么一专利，还是一批国家生效程序。如果首先，应决定在授予时将专利登记为单 ? 没有退出项欧洲专利提起撤销诉讼，而该专利还尽早做决定，因为如果在此期间针对一 UPC 如果一项欧洲专利选择退出讼。只能在统一专利法院就该专利提起诉体系，那么双方以后都 UPC 专利重新加入度，那么谁可以决定是否以及何时让该制 UPC 适专利审查的一方作出所有决定最为合制度？由出资进行 ? 一方作出这些决定最为合适还是由负责实施专利或开发技术的 ? 我们建议： ■ 予后作出决定；以及负责专利申请的审查和/或在专利授查阅现有的许可，以确定现在由谁 ■ 双方要解决将专利申请登记为 UP 选择退出，随后再加入或国家生效程序以及国家生效专利 UPC 体系的 这些问题是单方面决定还是由专利权人依据问题。
We recommend: ■ that existing licences are reviewed to establish who is currently responsible for prosecuting a patent application and/ or making decision about a patent postgrant; and ■ that the parties settle the basis upon which a patent application proceeds as a UP vs
Licence Considerations Patent Prosecution/Post Grant
If the patent will be validated as a bundle of national patents, then will they be opted out of the Unified Patent Court system and who will decide that? Never leave it too late, because if a revocation action is brought against a European patent in the interim, which has not been opted out of the UPC system, then the parties will be stuck litigating that particular patent in the Unified Patent Court forever.
A licensee could therefore take decisions regarding a patent application that could have significant repercussions for the patentee in terms of subsequent enforcement and revocation risks, and a patentee could make decisions that could affect licensees. Accordingly, what decisions will have to be made during the prosecution of a European Firstly,patent?it should be decided whether the patent is going to be a unitary patent at grant or validated as a bundle of national validations.
It is also advisable to ensure that the EP register and any relevant national registers are kept up to date, as these may be consulted when evaluating the right to litigate.
?
9 www.hlk-ip.cn 能达成一致意见，最后的决定权在谁和被许可方通过协议决定。如果双方不 ? 行这些决定的费用这些决定可能会产生费用。由谁承担执 ? 于即将实施的查，因为过去的一些条款可能并不适用位，但是需要对现有的许可规定进行审取决于谁在谈判过程中处于更有利的地这个问题可能完全 UP/UPC 之前，让所有现有的欧洲专利都退出因此，在这一点上，双方达成一致决定体系。 UPC 条文及/或订立新的协议。题达成一致意见后，可能需要修订现有双方就专利审查程序/专利授予后程序问体系可能会是比较谨慎的作法。 实施 我们建议：院的诉讼程序是否存在不同。以及统一专利法院的诉讼程序与国家法确定谁能够或应该能够提起侵权诉讼，同意情况下的未来诉讼策略，所以需要（和/或其他被许可方）在其未参与或未讼，那么由于该决定可能影响专利权人如果允许被许可方对侵权者提起法律诉 ■ 谁负责实施专利；对现有的许可进行审查，以确定目前 ■ 需要更改这些条款；以及由当事方根据诉讼发生地来决定是否 ■ 退出例如，一个独占被许可方可能想要选择施或无效攻击抗辩有关的法律费用。由当事方决定哪一方将支付与专利实 UPC 权人可能想要留在体系以避免集中撤回，而专利 UPC 地域承担实施费用否将代替专利权人在其拥有许可的每个但是，如果选择退出，那么被许可方是讼管辖权，那么诉讼费用可能会更低。用，因此如果统一专利法院具有专属诉根据许可条款，专利权人要承担诉讼费体系内，因为 ? 击的专利抗辩费用出后，谁将支付在国家法院针对无效攻法院进行单一诉讼的费用，所以选择退抗辩产生的费用很可能超过在统一专利与此有关的一个问题是，由于多次无效
national validations and the basis upon which nationally validated patents can be opted out of and subsequently back into the UPC system. Will these be unilateral decisions or decided upon by patentee and licensee by agreement. Who has the final say if the parties cannot Theseagree?decisions are likely to incur fees. Who will be responsible for the cost of implementing these decisions? This may entirely depend on who is in a better bargaining position, but the existing licence provisions will need to be examined, as there may already be some provisions in place which may now not be fit for purpose in light of the upcoming UP / UPC Itsystem.maytherefore be prudent at this point to opt all existing European patents out of the UPC system until a decision has been reached between the parties. Once the prosecution and post grant issues have been agreed by the parties, amendments may need to be made to existing provisions and/or new agreements will need to be entered into. Enforcement Where a licensee is permitted to take legal action against infringers, because this decision could dictate future litigation strategy of the patentee (and/or other licensees) without their involvement or consent, a decision needs to be made in relation to who can or should be able to bring infringement proceedings and whether there is a difference in approach depending on whether litigation is in the Unified Patents Court or national courts. We recommend: ■ again, that existing licences are reviewed to establish who is currently responsible for enforcing a patent; ■ that the parties decide whether those provisions need to be changed depending on where litigation will take place; and ■ that the parties decide which party will pay the legal fees associated with enforcing a patent or defending an invalidity attack. For example, an exclusive licensee may want
It is important that all the issues are looked at Finally, in a scenario where there are multiple licensees, the patent owner may find itself in a diffcult position if it has multiple licensees who have different views as to whether the licensed patents should be opted out. If there is more than one licensee, in circumstances where there are different exclusive licensees in different jurisdictions, this will make the negotiation of terms relating to an opt-out even more Acomplicated.patenteewill need to try and balance the interests of one licensee (whose preference may be to use a reputable national court to bring an action for infringement), against the interests of all other licensees who may prefer to select the UPC over smaller national courts where they happen to operate.
However, if there is an opt out, will that licensee then become responsible for enforcement costs in each territory where it has a licence instead of the A related point is who will pay the fees for defending a patent against invalidity attacks in national courts following opt-out, given that the cost associated with multiple invalidity defences is likely to exceed the cost of single proceedings at the Unified Patent Court?
Will the parties rely on existing provisions in the licence agreement or will something different For European patents, responsibility for the opt in/opt out mechanism will also play a large part in the provisions regarding enforcement a patent.
Some patentees have large portfolios of granted patents and large numbers of licensees. The time required to reach agreement for each case and/ or each relationship may be significant.
We recommend: ■ where there are multiple licensees or multiple
to opt out of the UPC system to avoid central revocation, and the patentee may want to stay in the system because under the terms of the licence it is responsible for litigation costs and they are likely to be lower if litigation can only be brought in the Unified Patents Court.
10 www.hlk-ip.cn 者说，是否需要约定一些不同的内容? 考虑所有问题非常重要。也是专利实施相关条款中的重要方面。全面对于欧洲专利，选择加入/退出机制的责任 地域 让授权专利退出最后，如果被许可方有很多个，并且对是否 UPC 在讼）与其他所有被许可方（可能倾向于选择倾向于在声誉良好的国家法院提起侵权诉专利权人需要努力平衡某一被许可方（可能更加复杂。独占被许可方，那么有关退出条款的谈判会方不止一个，并且不同司法管辖区有不同的利所有人可能会陷入两难境地。如果被许可管辖持不同意见，专 UPC 我们建议：可关系达成协议所需的时间可能会很长。大量的被许可方。就每项许可和/或每项许一些专利权人拥有大量的许可专利组合以及提起诉讼）的利益。而非其营业地所在国家的小型法院 ■ 如果有多个被许可方或多个所有人，
owners or both, it may be sensible to initially opt out all the patents until a decision has been made in relation to how the portfolio will be litigated;
周冠冲 合伙人 dchew@hlk-ip.com
11 www.hlk-ip.cn 诉讼之前，就选择让所有专利退出人，那么在决定如何对专利组合提起或者既有多个被许可方又有多个所有 UPC 管辖更明智； ■ 入委员会，用于考虑提起诉讼和重新加可以考虑成立一个由各方代表组成的 UPC 一致立场时解决争端的程序；以及的相关问题，并约定不能达成 ■ 议。如果有任何需要，请随时联系我们。际或潜在）所有权或许可问题为您提供建订现有安排，或者就可能出现的任何（实HLK了。生效，所以现在就可以开始相关谈判考虑到新体系最早可能会在今年年底非常乐意协助您制定新的条款或修
利敏 中国代表处首席代表 lmin@hlk-ip.com 联系我们
■ considering setting up a committee comprising representatives of all parties to consider issues relating to bringing proceedings and opting back in, with an agreed procedure for resolving disputes if a common position can’t be reached; and ■ given that the new system could take effect from as early as the end of this year, that any negotiations begin now. HLK would be delighted to assist you in relation to the drawing up of new provisions or amendment of existing arrangements, or advising on any issues (real or potential) that could arise regarding ownership or licensing. If this assistance is of interested please do not hesitate to get in touch with us.
Li Min Chief Representative China Office lmin@hlk-ip.com Contact us
Daniel Chew Partner, Head of Asia Group dchew@hlk-ip.com