UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Matthew Howell, Jamie Rowlands, Greg Ward and James Ward, Haseltine Lake Kempner
In contrast, companies based in UPC contract - ing states with operations in non-UPC states in which a European patent could be validated should be aware that their operations in such states will not necessarily escape the UPC’s reach, and should take appropriate steps to ensure their freedom to operate in all the ter - ritories of commercial interest to them. Such steps might include freedom to operate searching, to check for relevant patent rights prior to the launch of a product in an EPC mem - ber state. If necessary, pre-emptive measures could be taken to invalidate any such patent rights by opposing the patent at the European Patent Office, bringing a revocation action at the UPC or at a relevant national court or both.
Alternatively, a declaration of non-infringement could be sought, again from the UPC or a rel - evant national court. Pre-emptive proceedings in a national court in relation to a European patent that has been opted out of the UPC’s jurisdiction may be an effective way to escape the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, as once such proceedings have been brought, the opt out cannot be withdrawn, meaning that the patent is locked out of the UPC and any future infringement proceedings must be brought before the relevant national courts.
147 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook