IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
EU Update
Subscribe to EU Update's Posts

UPC Court of Appeal Rules on Suspending First Instance Enforcement, Managing Director Liability

by | Nov 21, 2024 | ,

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) addressed a request for suspensive effect of an appeal and ruled that managing directors of an alleged patent-infringing company cannot be held liable as “intermediaries” under Article 63 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA). Koninklijke Philips NV v. Belkin GmbH, UPC_CoA_579/2024, ORD_53377/2024 (UPC CoA Oct. 29, 2024) (Rombach, J.)

In contrast to German law (for example), appeals before the UPC generally do not have suspensive effect (See Article 74(1) of the UPCA). Thus, first instance decisions are immediately enforceable under Article 82 of the UPCA and Rule 354 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), which can have significant economic implications, particularly in the context of injunctions against the affected companies. To mitigate such effects, an application for suspensive effect may be filed under Rule 223.1 of the RoP.

In the present case, Philips initiated an infringement action against the Belkin Group before the Local Division Munich (CFI_390/2024), targeting not only the Belkin Group but also its subsidiaries’ managing directors. In its first instance decision, the Munich court ruled in favor of Philips and granted an injunction against Belkin and its subsidiaries’ managing directors, classifying the latter as “intermediaries” within the meaning of Article 63(1), Section 2 of the UPCA. Belkin appealed and requested suspensive effect under Rule 223.1 of the RoP.

The CoA partially granted this request, ordering suspensive effect with regard to the injunction against the managing directors. The CoA ruled that the suspensive effect of an appeal is an exception that can only be ordered in special circumstances. This involves determining whether the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision of the appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent’s interest in enforcement. The CoA clarified that such circumstances exist where the decision being appealed is manifestly wrong. Whether this is the case – and whether there is, therefore, an evident violation of the law – is assessed on the basis of the factual findings and legal considerations of the first instance decision. If these findings or legal considerations prove to be untenable on summary examination, suspensive effect must be ordered.

In the present case, the CoA found a manifest error of law in the classification of the managing directors as “intermediaries” within the meaning of Article 63 of the UPCA and Article 11 of Directive 2004/48. It reasoned that managing directors, acting in their official capacity, represent the company itself and are not external to it. Therefore, the appellant company cannot be a “third party” in relation to its CEO. Accordingly, liability under Article 63(1), Section 2 of the UPCA as an intermediary cannot arise solely from the CEO functioning as a managing director.

Consequently, the CoA granted suspensive effect for the injunction against the managing directors but dismissed the application for suspensive effect in all other respects.

Practice Note: Practitioners should carefully consider the rule exception framework when applying for suspensive effect before the UPC. To be successful, a convincing, case-specific justification [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Data Mining for AI Systems Training Permitted Under German Law

by | Nov 7, 2024 | ,

In a landmark decision, a German district court recently decided that copying images to create a data set that can potentially be used for training generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems does not infringe German copyright law. Robert Kneschke v. Large Scale Artificial Intelligence Open Network, Case No. GRUR-RS 2024, 25458 (Hamburg District Court Sept. 27, 2024)

The nonprofit Large Scale Artificial Intelligence Open Network (LAION) created a data set containing 5.85 billion image-text pairs publicly available on the internet. This data set can be used to train generative AI systems. For the creation of the data set, LAION accessed a preexisting data set with uniform resource locators (URLs) referencing images and their descriptions. First, LAION extracted the URLs and downloaded the referenced images, including a copyrighted work by photographer Robert Kneschke, even though a reservation of use against web scraping was declared on a subpage of the website. LAION analyzed the image descriptions with a software application. The application excluded image-text pairs where text and image content did not match sufficiently. LAION only added validated image-text pairs to its data mining.

Robert Kneschke claimed copyright infringement based on LAION’s download of his images.

The district court explained that LAION’s mere downloading of Kneschke’s images did not encroach on his right of reproduction under German copyright law. The district court further held that LAION’s actions were justified under and in compliance with Section 60d(1) of the German Act on Copyright and Related Rights (UrhG) – a scientific research exception.

Section 60d(1) authorizes reproduction of text and data mining for scientific purposes by research organizations. The district court clarified that the creation of the data set was data mining, even if the purpose of the creation was AI training. As the district court explained, analysis of an image to compare it with a preexisting description is analysis for the purpose of obtaining information. The district court held that even the creation of the data set, which could form the basis for training AI systems, should be regarded as a scientific purpose (i.e., activity in pursuit of new knowledge irrespective of an immediate knowledge gain or subsequent research success). The creation of the data set was found to be a fundamental step for the purpose of using the data set to gain knowledge later. Of note, the data set was published free of charge and thus also made available to researchers involved in AI. According to the district court, because the training and development of AI systems (even by commercial enterprises) is still scientific research, it was irrelevant that the data set could additionally be used by commercial enterprises to train or develop their AI systems.

Although not legally relevant to the outcome, the district court considered the reservation of use declared in natural language (English) on a subpage to be machine-readable and therefore effective.

Practice Note: This judgment will have far-reaching implications for the use of copyright as a barrier to training AI systems.



read more

No Leave, No Appeal: UPC Court of Appeal Denies Request for Discretionary Review

by | Oct 24, 2024 | ,

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled that if a party wishes to appeal against a procedural order, and leave to appeal has not already been granted in the order, the party must first apply to the Court of First Instance for leave to appeal. Only if such an application is rejected is it then possible to request a discretionary review by the CoA (pursuant to Rule 220.3 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP)). Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation (_586/2024, APL_ 54732/2024) (UPC CoA Oct. 9, 2024) (Simonsson, Standing J.)

In the proceedings between Suinno and Microsoft before the UPC Central Division Paris (Court of First Instance in these proceedings), the latter ordered the claimant, Suinno, to provide security for costs. There was no indication in the order that it could be appealed.

Suinno did not request that the Court of First Instance grant leave to appeal, but instead directly lodged a request for discretionary review of the order with the CoA.

The CoA deemed this request inadmissible and dismissed the appeal. The standing judge (see Rules 345.5 and .8 of the RoP) noted that the Court of First Instance had neither granted nor denied leave to appeal and the first instance order did not contain any reference to Article 73 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) and Rule 220.2 of the RoP, contrary to Rule 158.3 of the RoP.

However, this did not relieve Suinno from its obligation to request a grant of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance. Absent an express grant or refusal of a grant, there is no implied grant of leave to appeal, notwithstanding that the Court of First Instance did not mention the possibility of requesting leave to appeal. The CoA cited Rule 158 of the RoP but noted that the absence of the indication referring to Article 73 of the UPCA and Rule 220.2 of the RoP cannot be understood as an implied grant.

Practice Note: A discretionary review by the CoA pursuant to Rule 220.3 of the RoP is only permissible if the Court of First Instance has expressly granted or expressly refused to grant leave to appeal, which is in line with other CoA decisions on this issue (See, e.g., CoA, Order of August 21, 2024; UPC_CoA_454/2024, APL_44552/2024, para 21; Order of October 15, 2024, CoA_UPC 01/2024, ORD_41423/2024 in the main proceedings ACT_588685/2023, UPC_CFI_440/2023, para 6).

Even if, contrary to the RoP, a first instance decision of the UPC does not contain any indication that an appeal may be filed in accordance with the UPCA and the RoP (but is silent on the issue of appeal in general), there is no positive effect for a party wishing to appeal the decision; it is still necessary to request a grant of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Boundaries? European UPC Confirms Its International Jurisdiction

by | Oct 3, 2024 | ,

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled that the UPC has international jurisdiction for alleged infringement actions that originate outside the UPC’s Member States. Dish and Sling v. AYLO, Case No. UPC-CoA-188/2024 (CoA UPC Sept. 3, 2024) (Grabinski, Pres. CoA; Barutel, Blok, JJ.)

In its ruling, the CoA upheld the order of the Court of First Instance Local Division Mannheim. In the main proceedings, Dish and Sling brought an infringement action against AYLO. The patent in dispute concerned a method for presenting rate adaptive streams from a media player. AYLO was accused of indirectly infringing the patent in numerous UPC Member States, including Germany, by offering and supplying the video files made available for streaming and the media players for streaming videos. AYLO lodged a preliminary objection requesting that the infringement action be dismissed for lack of UPC jurisdiction, Rule 19.1(a) of the UPC Rules of Procedure. After the preliminary objection was rejected, AYLO lodged an appeal against the order of the Local Division Mannheim.

AYLO argued that the UPC does not have international jurisdiction on the basis of Article 7(2) in conjunction with Article 71b(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation because the harmful event would not occur in a UPC Member State since AYLO’s servers are located in the United States. The CoA disagreed, explaining that the Article 7(2) phrase “place where the harmful event occurred or may occur” is intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to the damage. Consequently, the alleged infringer can be sued in either place.

The UPC has international jurisdiction with respect to an infringement action under two conditions:

  • The European patent in suit has effect in at least one contracting Member State.
  • The alleged damage may occur in that particular Member State.

Therefore, irrespective of the location of AYLO’s server, the UPC had jurisdiction over the infringement action because AYLO’s websites are accessible in Germany where the patent has effect. This access was sufficient to satisfy the likelihood of damage, which was allegedly caused via the internet. Users in Germany can obtain means (media players and video files) that allegedly relate to an essential element of the patented invention and are suitable and intended for putting the invention into practice. The CoA clarified that it is not necessary for a website to be directed at users in the territory of the concerned Member State. The actual availability of access to the website and damage to the European patent owner in a Member State are decisive.

Practice Notes:

  • While UPC courts may consider infringement allegations in a case when evaluating UPC jurisdiction, that consideration is limited to the context of what the patent owner must prove to establish its allegations. Argument as to the specific requirements of the infringement allegations is not necessary. In the reported case, which was based on allegations of indirect infringement, it was not necessary to determine whether AYLOS’s alleged [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

UK Court of Appeal Increases FRAND Rate, Applies It Outside Limitations Period

by | Aug 1, 2024 | ,

The UK Court of Appeal found that the UK High Court of Justice applied flawed reasoning in setting a global fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate for a patent portfolio essential to 3G, 4G and 5G cellular technologies. Interdigital Tech Corp. et al. v. Lenovo Group Limited, Case Nos. CA-2023-001489; -001492 (July 12, 2024) (Arnold, Nugee, Birss, LJ.) The Court of Appeal not only concluded that a higher rate was appropriate but applied the rate to sales prior to the limitations period.

In March 2023, the High Court issued its decision in InterDigital v. Lenovo, concluding that Lenovo should pay InterDigital a FRAND rate of $0.175 per cellular unit for a worldwide license to InterDigital’s portfolio. The High Court also found that Lenovo should pay the FRAND rate for all previous unlicensed sales, even if those sales occurred before the statutory damages limitation period. The High Court calculated that the $0.175 rate yielded a lump sum payment from Lenovo to InterDigital of $138.7 million for sales from 2007 to the end of 2023. The High Court’s FRAND rate determination was closer to Lenovo’s offered rate of $0.16 per unit than to InterDigital’s demand of $0.498 per unit. Both parties appealed.

Lenovo argued that the High Court wrongly found that Lenovo should pay a royalty for sales made outside of the six-year limitation period. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the statute of limitations period has no role to “play in a determination of FRAND terms between (necessarily) a willing licensor and a willing licensee.” The Court of Appeal explained that a willing licensor would not “refuse to pay whatever license fees were eventually determined to [be] applicable” to products outside the limitations period and would not be considered willing if it refused. The Court of Appeal concluded that a willing licensee would not try to benefit from delay in agreeing FRAND terms or payment of FRAND royalties and, therefore, would pay with respect to all past units. From a policy perspective, the Court of Appeal noted that there should not be an incentive for the licensee to delay negotiations to minimize the amount it should be required to pay.

InterDigital challenged the per unit rate set by the High Court, including the rate derived from one of the comparable licenses and the adjustments made to reflect Lenovo’s position vis-à-vis the licensee. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court’s rate determination was internally inconsistent because it found that InterDigital had been forced to heavily discount past sales and this aspect was not FRAND while also declining to make any correction to the blended rate that had been derived from the license to account for non-FRAND factors. The Court of Appeal also found that the High Court did not properly justify rejecting InterDigital’s allocation of the lump sum paid by the licensee between past sales and future sales, which would have led to a higher rate.

The Court of Appeal conducted a detailed review of the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

European UPC Issues Its First Decisions on the Merits

by | Jul 18, 2024 | ,

Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v. Bette GmbH & Co. KG

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued its first decision on the merits, granting the first-ever permanent injunction covering seven UPC member states. Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v. Bette GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf Local Division, July 3, 2024).

The UPC found that the asserted patent was invalid in its granted form due to obviousness but upheld as valid an auxiliary request on which the injunction is based. Among other things, the Düsseldorf Local Division discussed procedural lapses around a missed deadline (denying the defendant a submission of certain documents one day prior to the oral hearing), jointly hearing the infringement case, and a counterclaim for revocation and inventive step. In this regard, the Court proceeded pragmatically and flexibly, as the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) did in 10x Genomics, but unlike the European Patent Office (EPO) with its focus on the closest prior art and building a problem-solution approach thereon.

The decision further dealt with claims for information on the scope of infringement, claims for recall or removal from the channels of commerce, and considerations against requiring security for enforcement of a judgment on the merits in the given case.

Regarding so-called contributory infringement (i.e., indirect use of the invention), the UPC held that there is a double territorial requirement: the offer and/or delivery of the essential element must take place within UPC territory, and the invention must also be used within UPC territory. The Court left open the question of whether it is sufficient that the offering/delivery exists in a member state and the invention is intended for direct use in another, different member state. Further case law will have to clarify this point. Regarding the prior use defense, it follows from the decision that there is no “UPC/European” prior use. The existence of a right of prior use must be asserted for each member state according to its national law, and the respective defendant must provide the relevant information for each country individually.

Practice Notes:

  • The UPC has shown that it is capable of dealing efficiently with both infringement and invalidity questions within the short timeframe it has set itself. The UPC delivered on its promise to issue a decision on the merits in just over a year and only a few weeks after the oral hearing.
  • Regarding claim interpretation, the Düsseldorf Local Division referred to the CoA’s decisions on February 26, 2024, and May 13, 2024, stating that the principles of Article 69 EPC apply to both validity and infringement proceedings.

DexCom, Inc. v. Abbott et al.

The day after the UPC’s decision on the merits in Franz Kaldewei granting a permanent injunction, the Paris Local Division delivered its first decision on the merits and declared the patent in suit invalid in 17 UPC member states. DexCom, Inc. v. Abbott et al. (Paris Local Division, July 4, 2024).

The Paris Local Division also ruled on both infringement and validity questions and [...]

Continue Reading



read more

UK High Court Issues Landmark Global FRAND Rate Decision

by | Apr 6, 2023 | ,

The UK High Court of Justice issued its long-anticipated decision establishing a global Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate for a patent portfolio essential to 3G, 4G and 5G cellular technologies. InterDigital Tech. Corp. et al. v. Lenovo Group Limited, Case No. HP-2019-000032, [2023] EWHC 529 (Pat) (Mar. 16, 2023) (Mellor, J.)

InterDigital owns a portfolio of standard essential patents (SEPs) that have been declared essential to the European Telecommunications Standard Institute’s (ETSI) 3G, 4G and 5G cellular technology standards. InterDigital sought to license the SEPs to Lenovo, which implements these cellular standards in its mobile phones, tablets and PCs. After the parties could not agree on the terms under which Lenovo should take a license, InterDigital filed a lawsuit. The High Court held several technical trials in which it found that Lenovo infringed certain of the patents.

Based on the result of the technical trials, the High Court determined that InterDigital had established the right to a FRAND determination of its portfolio. The parties presented two issues regarding FRAND. The first issue was whether the InterDigital license offer was FRAND, and if not, what terms would be FRAND for a license to Lenovo of the InterDigital patent portfolio. The second issue was whether InterDigital was entitled to an injunction based on the parties’ negotiation conduct, including whether InterDigital acted as a willing licensor and whether Lenovo acted as a willing licensee.

The High Court concluded that Lenovo should pay InterDigital a FRAND rate of $0.175 per cellular unit for a worldwide license to InterDigital’s portfolio. The $0.175 rate yields a lump sum payment of $138.7 million for sales from 2007 to the end of 2023. The Court’s FRAND rate determination was closer to Lenovo’s offered rate of $0.16/unit than to InterDigital’s demand of $0.498/unit.

In determining the appropriate FRAND rate, the High Court analyzed whether InterDigital’s proposed rate was comparable to the rate in InterDigital’s other license agreements for SEPs. InterDigital argued that its license offer to Lenovo was consistent with “program rates” under which it had already licensed its SEPs to other companies. The Court, however, rejected InterDigital’s program rates as comparable because the other licenses included volume discounts ranging from 60% to 80% of InterDigital’s program rate. InterDigital argued that Lenovo was not entitled to the same type of steep volume discount and, therefore, those licenses with discounts applied were not comparable licenses for Lenovo. The Court disagreed, finding that the volume discounts applied to those licenses “do not have any economic or other justification” and that their primary purpose was to “shore up InterDigital’s chosen program rates.” The Court further observed that the primary effect of the volume discount in the other licenses was to discriminate against smaller licensees, which is exactly what FRAND is supposed to avoid.

InterDigital tried to bolster its argument that its program rate was FRAND by applying a top-down cross-check. The top-down approach starts with the cumulative value of all royalties that should be paid on FRAND [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Are You Ready for the UPC? Act Now to Prepare for its Opening on June 1

by , and | Mar 1, 2023 | ,

On February 17, 2023, Germany ratified the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and triggered the UPC’s entry into force on June 1, 2023. The UPC will revolutionize patent enforcement across Europe and impact companies around the world that hold European patents or conduct business in Europe.

Owners of existing European patents or pending applications can “opt out” of the UPC’s jurisdiction for an initial transitional period of at least seven years. Companies must act now if they want to opt out before the court officially opens.

Understanding the UPC

The UPC will have exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement and invalidity actions in its member states for patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), including existing European patents and new European patents with unitary effect (unitary patents). There are currently 17 EU Member States participating in the UPC (Germany, France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and Slovenia). Additional EU Member States may join the UPC in the future.

The UPC will have local and regional divisions in its member states, with a central division in Paris and Munich and a Court of Appeal in Luxembourg.

As a streamlined patent enforcement venue, the UPC will provide several new benefits to patent owners, including faster decisions with limited discovery and lower cost, and the possibility of injunctive relief throughout the member states. At the same time, the UPC will allow revocation of a patent in a single action with effect for all member states, alongside the possibility to oppose a European patent before the EPO.

European Freedom to Operate

Because of the UPC’s structure and incentives, patent litigation will likely increase in Europe, which will heighten the intellectual property (IP) infringement risk for companies doing business in Europe. If a company has not already done so, it should promptly review its competitors’ European patent estates to assess the potential risks and develop a defense strategy to avoid a surprise attack from a competitor after June 1, 2023.

European Enforcement Actions

Although the UPC is new and untried, it has the incentive to provide strong relief for those who trust it. If a company needs to bring a patent infringement action against a competitor and would like to do so in a fast, cost-effective manner, with the possibility of significant remedies, the UPC should be considered as a potential venue. The company should review its portfolio and infringement evidence to assess its opportunities.

Deciding Whether to Opt Out

The right to opt out European patent filings from the UPC’s jurisdiction will be available for an initial transitional period of seven years, which may extend to 14 years. It will be possible to reverse an opt-out, but not if the patent has been enforced or attacked in national court.

McDermott’s UPC Resource Center explores the various advantages and disadvantages of both staying in and opting out of the UPC.



read more

2023 IP Outlook: What to Watch in Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law

by , , , , , , , , , , , , , and | Feb 7, 2023 | , , , , ,

Coming out of 2022, developments around the globe are shaping the intellectual property (IP) landscape in the new year. We are seeing cases at the intersection of IP law and NFTs, the opening of the Unified Patent Court in Europe, and decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affecting innovators and brand owners.

McDermott’s 2023 IP Outlook examines the top trends and decisions in IP law from the past year and shares what you and your business should look out for in the year ahead.

The Latest in SEP Licensing

Amol Parikh

The uncertainty surrounding standard essential patent (SEP) licensing persisted in 2022 and shows little sign of clearing in 2023. SEPs must be licensed to technology implementers on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. Because there is no formal definition of FRAND terms, however, legal decisions involving FRAND have historically been determined by courts and non-governmental standard-setting organizations (SSOs). Disputes are frequent—especially between patent owners and technology implementers—and are becoming even more so as advanced wireless technologies such as 5G and WiFi 6 proliferate. Read more.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Improper Inventorship in US Patent Litigations

Mandy H. Kim | Cecilia Choy, Ph.D.

Inventorship issues can have serious implications in patent litigation, leading to invalidation or unenforceability of the patent at issue, as seen in several notable 2022 cases. In the coming year, patent owners should take steps to minimize risks related to improper inventorship challenges. Read more.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Patent Decisions Affecting Pharma and Biotech Companies

Douglas H. Carsten | Anisa Noorassa

The past year brought many developments in the life sciences patent legal space. Three decisions in particular hold potential ramifications for drug makers and patent holders in 2023. This year, the Supreme Court of the United States is also expected to consider standards patents claiming a genus must meet to withstand a validity challenge under Section 112—a ruling that could have a significant impact on patent holders in the biotech industry. Read more. 

—————————————————————————————————————————

Trends in the Western District of Texas

Syed K. Fareed | Alexander Piala, Ph.D. | Christian Tatum

Over the past year, two developments infiltrated the Western District of Texas (WDTX) which may decrease the success of venue transfers and keep case volume steady in 2023. These developments could also give plaintiffs more control over where litigation takes place, including more control over having a case tried before Judge Alan Albright in the Waco Division of the WDTX.
Continue Reading



read more

EU Unified Patent Court Announces Intent to Launch on April 1, 2023

by and | Oct 20, 2022 | ,

The EU Unified Patent Court (UPC) announced a launch date of April 1, 2023, however, the announced date should be regarded as a statement of intent for it could change. The launch timing has been the subject of various delays and setbacks, several due to unresolved legal issues. The UPC has also published an almost final list of judges. German Federal Court of Justice Judge Klaus Grabinski, who played a key role in drafting the UPC Rules of Procedure, will head the UPC. The majority of UPC judges will only be engaged with their UPC activities part-time (about 50% or 20% of their total work commitment).

The UPC judges are set to receive special training starting in March 2023, only one month prior to the announced launch date of the UPC, leading many to doubt that the April 1 date will be met. Once the new court is operational, owners of European patents will be able to litigate patent disputes across most EU Member States in a single proceeding, eliminating the need to proceed on a country-by-country basis.

Assuming the announced launch date is maintained, the “sunrise period” before the UPC becomes fully operational will commence on January 1, 2023. This sunrise period will last for three months, during which patent owners that do not wish for their existing European patents to be subject to UPC jurisdiction may opt out of such jurisdiction by filing a formal notification to that effect. The European Patent Office has also announced that during the sunrise period, European patent applicants whose applications are ready for grant will, if they wish, be able to delay the formal grant of the application until the UPC becomes operational so that unitary patent protection can be obtained.

The UPC has issued an implementation roadmap for events leading up to the entry into force of the UPC Agreement, with the court opening its doors and starting to receive cases as of April 1, 2023.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES