The UK will not participate in the UPC confirms IP Minister responding to House of Lords’ letter

IP Minister Amanda Solloway has written to the House of Lords in response to their letter formally requesting confirmation that the UK would not be participating in the UPC. This request by the House of Lords followed a response given by the Government in February to a parliamentary question (recorded on Hansard) which said this was the case (see our post here); no formal statement had otherwise been made.

The IP minister’s response was confirmatory – the UK will not take part in the UPC system. See the extract from her letter (of 24 March) below:

As you will be aware the Government published our approach to negotiations with the EU on 27th February. This set out our vision for future cooperation between legally autonomous sovereign equals. It ruled out any obligation for our laws to be aligned with the EU’s, or for the EU’s institutions to have any jurisdiction in the UK. That explicitly included the Court of Justice of the EU.

Continued participation in the Unified Patent Court would mean ceding jurisdiction over key patent disputes in the UK to a court that is bound to apply and respect the supremacy of EU law, including judgments of the CJEU. Participating in such a system would be incompatible with our overall approach to future relations with the EU that I have set out above.

Consequently, the Government will not be seeking the UK’s continued participation in the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court.”

Background

The House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee took evidence of the impact of the UK’s non-participation in the UPC at a session on 10 March at which Daniel Alexander QC (leading patent barrister) and Julia Florence (then President of CIPA) spoke.  Subsequently the Committee wrote to the IP Minister to request formal confirmation of the UK’s intentions in relation to the UPC.

The future of the UPC

On 20 March, the German Constitutional Court released its decision by which it found, by a 5:3 majority, that the Act by which Germany was to accede to the UPC Agreement was void, because it was not passed with the required parliamentary majority. Without Germany’s ratification, the UPC Agreement cannot come into force. This decision, along with the UK’s formal withdrawal as well as the uncertainties arising from Brexit, has thrown the future of the UPC into some doubt (see our post  What’s next for the UPC project? Our analysis following the German Federal Constitutional Court decision). 

Author

Rachel Montagnon
Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Consultant, IP, London
+44 20 7466 2217

Update on IP rights in the UK during the Brexit transition period and beyond

The UK has left the EU, but for IP rights in the UK everything is very much the same for the duration of the transition period (currently ending at 23.00 on 31 December 2020) during which the UK continues to be treated as part of the EU from the point of view of EU legislation. At the end of transition, the UK Government will provide replacement rights for what were previously EU-wide rights that were current at the end of transition, but all is not as straightforward as that might sound.

Read our updated guide to Intellectual Property and Brexit  (February 2020).

For more on Brexit generally, see the Herbert Smith Freehills Brexit Legal Guide 2020. 

Authors

Joel Smith
Joel Smith
Partner, Head of Intellectual Property, London
+44 20 7466 2331
Jonathan Turnbull
Jonathan Turnbull
Partner
+44 20 7466 2174
Laura Deacon
Laura Deacon
Of Counsel, IP, London
+44 20 7466 2045
Rachel Montagnon
Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Consultant, IP
+44 20 7466 2217

Patent and Pharma Update, February 2020

Key recent developments in the United Kingdom and Europe relating to patents and the pharmaceutical sector

In this issue we report on the Supreme Court decision of Shanks v Unilever on employee inventor compensation. We update on two CJEU decisions relation to public access to documents submitted to the EMA and a key competition decision on “pay-for-delay” agreements. We cover a string of patent-related UK Court of Appeal cases, including Ablynx v VHSquared on jurisdiction, Anan Kasei v Neo on insufficiency and joint tortfeasorship and L’Oreal v Liqwd on claim amendments and admission of late evidence. We provide brief updates from the EPO on the recent CRISPR priority decision, as well as its AI inventorship decision. We have bumper SPC and FRAND updates covering key Court of Appeal and CJEU decisions in respect of SPCs and a string of interesting interim decisions in the UK in the case of FRAND. We round off the issue with a link to our new IP podcast series and updates on Brexit and the UPC. Continue reading

Brexit & IP – status quo for the transition period; changes to come post-transition

From 23.00 on 31 January 2020, the UK will no longer a member state of the EU, although it will be treated as such for the duration of the transition period. From an IP point of view, the status quo will be maintained during the transition period (currently until the end of December 2020). Here we look at how the Withdrawal Agreement acts to preserve IP rights in the UK which were previously based on EU rights, and what changes are anticipated post-transition, as well as the aspirations of the Political Declaration.

The Withdrawal Agreement

Articles 54 to 61 of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) deal with EU-wide intellectual property rights and their replacement in the UK at the end of the transition period (end of December 2020). Until the end of transition the status quo is maintained, with applications for registered EU unitary rights – EU trade marks, EU registered design and Community plant variety rights – continuing as normal and all rights having effect and being enforceable throughout the EU as usual.

The WA confirms that all these registered EU-wide rights (registered before the end of the transition period) will automatically be replaced by UK rights, equivalent in every respect including term, first renewal date at no cost to the right owner and without re-examination.  The trade mark replacement right will be known as “comparable trade mark (EU)” and the registered design one as “re-registered design”. Community plant variety rights in the UK will be replaced and become UK registered “plant breeders’ rights”. If the equivalent EU right is invalidated, revoked or cancelled etc. then the UK one will also be. In relation to trade mark and registered design applications pending at the end of the transitional period, there will be a 9 month period within which an application can be made for the equivalent right in the UK, with priority (and, where appropriate, in relation to trade marks, seniority) being maintained. See the UK Government’s guidance on trade marks issued on 30 January 2020 here. The WA also states that the UK will take measures to ensure that protection obtained via international registration systems (such as the Hague system for designs and the Madrid Protocol for trade marks) will be recognised in the UK. This will be done before the end of the transition period. See also the UK Government guidance in this respect, issued on 30 January here (which also covers registered designs).

Unregistered community design rights (UCD) which arise before the end of transition will be recognised in the UK with the same level of protection and term as the UCD would have had.  These new rights will be termed “continuing community unregistered designs”. To fill the gap left by the lack of UCD protection (which differs in scope and application from the UK’s own UK unregistered design protection) post-transition, the UK Government will create a “supplementary unregistered design right”. Where designs are first disclosed will be significant post-transition. UCDs arise when the design is first made available in the EU. Qualification for the new UK right, supplementary unregistered design, will be dependent on first disclosure in the UK, or other qualifying country, but first disclosure in the EU will not establish the right and may destroy the novelty in the design should registered rights be sought subsequently.  See the UK Government’s guidance on these changes, issued on 30 January 2020, here.

In relation to exhaustion of IP rights in goods lawfully placed on the market in the EU before the end of transition – rights in these will continue to be exhausted post-transition.  The WA says that goods in the distribution chain at the end of the transition period will be allowed to continue to end-users without interference. However, IP rights in goods placed on the market in the UK post-transition will not be exhausted vis-a-vis the EU. Thus holders of IP rights in EU Member States will be able to use those rights to prevent entry of goods into their jurisdictions. See the UK Government’s guidance on exhaustion of IP rights here (which is silent on whether the UK will apply exhaustion to goods entering the UK from the EU post-transition – although the UK SI which deals with exhaustion of IP rights – the Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of rights) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 which will come into force at the end of the transition period – provides for continued UK recognition of exhaustion of IP rights in goods put on the market in the EU post-transition).

Geographical indications protected in the EU prior to the end of the transition period will continue to be able to be used in the UK by the persons to whom they are granted, from the end of the transition period, without any re-examination, and will be granted at least the same level of protection under the law of the United Kingdom, unless or until they cease to be protected in the EU. This also applies to protected designations of origin, traditional specialities that are guaranteed and traditional terms for wine. The European Commission’s publication Questions and Answers on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union published on 31 January 2020, states that “This agreement will also benefit the geographical indications bearing a name of UK origin (e.g. Welsh lamb): they will also obtain protection under UK law in the United Kingdom and maintain the existing protection under EU law in the EU“.

Sui generis database rights are more problematic as qualification for these is dependent on the creator being EEA-based. The Withdrawal Agreement allows for these rights, if they arise before the end of the transition period, to be maintained in the UK for at least the same period as they would have done but for Brexit whether their creators are UK or EEA-based and sui generis database rights existing at the end of the transition period which were created by UK-based entities will continue to be effective in the EEA. At the end of the transition period, sui generis database rights in the EEA will not arise where the creators are not EEA-based although an equivalent right will be created in the UK for databases created by UK entities. See the UK Government’s guidance issued 30 January 2020 here. To protect rights in the EEA in relation to databases created by UK entities post-transition, the UK Government has previously recommended that UK entities consider relying on other forms of protection, such as restrictive licensing agreements, or copyright (where applicable).

Copyright is an area where there is little clarity. It does not feature in the WA since it is not a (truly) harmonised right and there is no unitary EU copyright.  There are issues relating to qualification for copyright and in particular in relation to broadcasting and rights clearance which we deal with in our other Brexit publications. The UK Government recently made a statement confirming that it would not be required to implement the Digital Copyright Directive since the implementation deadline is beyond the end of the transition period, and that it had no plans to implement it. This leaves the UK’s position on copyright open for now, although the UK is still bound by the various international copyright treaties to which it is party independently of any EU status. See the UK Government’s copyright guidance issued 30 January 2020 here.

Patents: There is little in the way of patent provision in the WA as the unitary patent is not yet available (awaiting the introduction of the Unified Patent Court to enforce it, which in turn appears to be awaiting the outcome of Brexit, and perhaps even subsequent UK-EU trade negotiations). The EPO system for central application for European patents will continue unaffected. Supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for both plant protection and medicinal products are dealt with in the WA however. These are national rights granted by national IP offices under rules set out in EU Regulations. As such they will continue as national rights in the UK if granted before the end of transition. Where there are applications which were submitted to the UK IPO before the end of transition they will be judged according to the current EU Regulation rules and any certificate granted will give the same protection. See the UK Government’s guidance on patent law and SPCs issued on 30 January 2020, here.

UK Statutory Instruments

UK Government has already made provision for these changes via a series of statutory instruments which will come into force at the end of transition, whether there is a deal with the EU or not.  See the Intellectual Property and Pharma section of the HSF Legal Guide to Brexit for details of these SIs and details of other changes that impact on the pharmaceutical sector.

The Political Declaration

The Political Declaration which sets out a framework for future agreements on post-transition relations between the UK and the EU, states:

VII. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
42. The Parties should provide for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights
to stimulate innovation, creativity and economic activity, going beyond the standards of the
WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the World
Intellectual Property Organisation conventions where relevant.
43. This should preserve the Parties’ current high levels of protection, inter alia, of certain rights
under copyright law, such as the sui generis right on databases and the artists’ resale right.
Noting the protection afforded to existing geographical indications in the Withdrawal
Agreement, the Parties should seek to put in place arrangements to provide appropriate
protection for their geographical indications.
44. The Parties should maintain the freedom to establish their own regimes for the exhaustion of
intellectual property rights.
45. The Parties should establish a mechanism for cooperation and exchange of information on
intellectual property issues of mutual interest, such as respective approaches and processes
regarding trademarks, designs and patents.

Note the freedom to establish independent exhaustion regimes; the UK Government has in the past talked about recognising all goods put on the market in the EU as exhausted for a period post-transition (possibly in order to prevent undue restrictions on movement of goods at that time) but has not committed to this in the long term. The emphasis on copyright related rights, database rights and geographical indications reflects the aspiration for longer term solutions to the application of these rights across Europe.

 

Author

Rachel Montagnon
Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Consultant, IP
+44 20 7466 2217

Patent and Pharma Update, October 2019

Key recent developments in the United Kingdom and Europe relating to patents and the pharmaceutical sector

In this issue we provide updates from the CJEU on SPCs: in one case the CJEU has declined to consider a referral from the UK while in another the Advocate General has issued his opinion on the interpretation of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation. We take a look at the decision in Takeda v Roche and the requirements for an enabling disclosure. In France, we consider a second attempt to secure a preliminary injunction as well as an update to the law on reimbursement. In another decision, the CJEU has considered the requirements of the Enforcement Directive in the context of a wrongly awarded preliminary injunction. On the RAND side, a Court of Appeal decision has also pulled back on the court’s exercise of its jurisdiction. There are a number of important procedural updates relating to: parallel UK and EPO proceedings; the Disclosure Pilot Scheme; and transfers from the IPEC to the Patents Court. We round off this issue with updates on the Patents Court judges; Brexit guidance on IP and the Pharma Sector; and the Unified Patent Court.

 

1. SPC updates

We report on the recent decision of the CJEU not to consider a referral from the High Court on the interpretation of Article 3(b) of the SPC Regulation, which related to the ability of an applicant for an SPC to rely on a third-party MA. The CJEU ruled that the referral was manifestly inadmissible. We also report on the recent AG’s Opinion on the interpretation of Article 3(a) of the SPC regulation.

Read more


2. Novelty – what needs to be enabled? A closer look at Takeda v Roche

In a dispute relating to monoclonal antibodies, Mr Justice Birss finds the patent-in-suit invalid on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step and insufficiency. We consider Birss J’s analysis of the requirements for an enabling disclosure in the context of novelty.

Read more


3. Updates from France

In a decision concerning animal health products, Bayer was permitted to apply for a preliminary injunction for a second time given that the circumstances had changed since its first application, although it was ultimately unsuccessful. We also provide an update on new French legislation relating to reimbursement of medicinal products, generic products and biosimilars.

Read more


4. Green light for damages compensation in case of lifted PI? Not always, says the CJEU

In a referral from the Hungarian Courts, the CJEU provides guidance on the requirements of the Enforcement Directive to compensate a party where a preliminary injunction has been granted but the patent subsequently revoked.

Read more


5. ‘Jurisdictional imperialism’ – the Court of Appeal pulls back

In the latest instalment of TQ Delta v ZyXEL the Court of Appeal rules that a RAND trial should not proceed in circumstances where ZyXEL has purported to waive its RAND rights. This reverses the decision of Mr Justice Birss, which we reported in the last edition of this update.

Read more


6. Procedural updates

We consider the High Court’s application of the IPCom Guidance in ordering UK patent proceedings to go ahead while opposition proceedings run in parallel in the EPO; over the summer there have been two patent cases applying the rules of the new Disclosure Pilot Scheme; and His Honour Justice Hacon considers an application to transfer proceedings from the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court to the Patents Court.

Read more


7. The Patents Court judges

We provide a brief update on the judges in the Patents Court.

Read more


8. Brexit – updates to the Brexit legal guide

Following further Brexit guidance from the UK government on IP and the Pharma Sector we have updated the Herbert Smith Freehills Brexit Legal Guide.

Read more


9. The Unified Patent Court

We reflect on the progress of the Unified Patent Court and the steps that remain for it to come into effect.

Read more


10. Table of patents decisions

 

Read more


11. Table of other relevant decisions

 

Read more


Key contacts

Jonathan Turnbull
Jonathan Turnbull
Partner
+44 20 7466 2174
David Webb
David Webb
Associate
+44 20 7466 2629
Rachel Montagnon
Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Lawyer
+44 20 7466 2217

Updated HSF Legal Guide to Brexit published (including IP and Pharma sections)

Today our updated Brexit Legal Guide was released which contains a section on intellectual property and pharmaceutical regulation. Below is a message from our Chair and Senior Partner James Palmer which accompanied the updated guide.

Dear clients and professional colleagues,

The outcome of the June 2016 UK referendum on EU membership ushered in a period of increasing political turmoil in the UK. When I wrote an introduction to the first edition of this legal guide my colleagues and I had a clear view that leaving the EU would take far longer and be far more complex than most other commentators were saying, but I did not anticipate then that over three years later we would have so little clarity on the UK and EU’s long term relationship with each other.  Nor that polarisation of views on all sides would have increased still further, leading to political deadlock. This updated Brexit Legal Guide addresses the legal position if the UK leaves the EU with or without a deal and picks out the key pieces of legislation that will soon be in force if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.  I hope you will find it useful.

Throughout the Brexit process our team at Herbert Smith Freehills have worked across our firm to help clients in all markets and parts of the world in preparing for this major change.  For those who had to make significant changes in order to continue to carry on business in the EU, particularly financial institutions, many of these changes were made in time for the original leaving date of March 29th this year.  Across a range of sectors, clients have set up new subsidiaries, acquired new regulatory approvals in the EU or the UK, prepared for changed distribution channels and sought to protect their people working across countries. For businesses that trade in goods between the UK and the EU, however, although careful plans have been laid, the time of testing will not come until the rules at the frontiers and within the EU and the UK actually change – this could be at the end of next month or potentially as late as the end of 2022.

At the time of writing, the Government in the UK has lost its parliamentary majority and Brexit is dominating the political context, driving out other factors which of course may also be relevant if, as seems likely, a general election is held within the next couple of months.  The political situation is so fluid that anything I say about the options to resolve the crisis, and how they may affect the timing and nature of Brexit,  is likely to be out of date by the time this message goes out.  We are all experiencing unusually uncertain times.

What I can say, is that we have worked in depth across our practice from offices across Europe, Asia and around the world, as well as from the UK, to help clients across sectors on a wide range of Brexit issues since before the 2016 referendum.  Our differentiating expertise has been recognised both by external commentators and by our close involvement in working with governments and regulators to develop solutions to Brexit related challenges for businesses.  Our long tradition of involvement at the interface of law and public policy development is one to which we remain committed.

If you would like to discuss specific arrangements for support through the risk of a no-deal exit or on dispute risks that may arise, or on any other questions or challenges you have, please do contact your regular Herbert Smith Freehills relationship contacts, or otherwise any of our experts listed here.

Yours faithfully,

James Palmer

James Palmer
Chair and Senior Partner
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP

Herbert Smith Freehills’ Brexit Legal Guide updated – comparison of IP and pharma provisions in the draft Withdrawal Agreement versus the No Deal provisions promised by the UK Government

See the updated IP section of the revised Herbert Smith Freehills Brexit Legal Guide which reviews the IP and pharma elements of the draft Withdrawal Agreement endorsed by the EU Council on 25 November 2018 and the no deal provisions as set out by the UK Government in its technical notices and draft SIs issued towards the end of last year.

Summary

  • IP rights which are designated as applying across the EU (EU trade marks, Community plant variety rights, Community registered designs and Community unregistered designs) and those, qualification for which involves activity within the EU (such as sui generis database rights), are all at risk of termination in relation to the territory of the UK once the definition ‘EU’ no longer includes the UK.
  • However, the Withdrawal Agreement endorsed by the EU Council on 25 November 2018 (the Draft WA) provides for replacement IP rights to be provided by the UK and for coordination of information between the MHRA and EMA in relation to marketing authorisations.
  • If there is no deal, the UK Government’s own no deal technical notices state that registered rights will be replaced with equivalent rights in the UK and draft statutory instruments have been published confirming this.
  • Should the UK leave the EU with no deal, ie not agree the Draft WA or any other arrangements, the SIs will provide amendments to UK IP law to take account of this, just as they would at the end of the transition period if there were no further agreement in the interim.
  • The Draft WA does not make provision for patents or the UPC, nor for pharmaceutical regulatory issues. These latter were covered in some detail however in a series of no deal technical notices issued by the Government in August 2018 on what the implications of a no deal Brexit would be.

No deal

No deal arrangements for IP rights effectively mirror the provisions set out in the Draft WA in any case, as they provide for replacement of registered rights and the recognition of unregistered rights that are existing in the UK at the date the UK leaves the EU. The main exception is for Geographical Indications. These will no longer be recognised in the UK if originating from the EU. The UK would set up its own geographical indication protection system. In either a no deal or Draft WA situation, UK originating Geographical Indications would not apply in the EU post-Brexit. Similarly the provision made in the Draft WA for the exchange of information between the EMA and the MHRA would not be agreed and would need to be negotiated separately.

The UK Government has said that, in relation to exhaustion, if there is no deal “the UK looks forward to exploring arrangements on IP cooperation that will provide mutual benefits to UK and EU rights holders and we are ready to discuss issues the EU wishes to raise in the negotiations on our future relationship, including exhaustion of IP rights”; whereas the Draft WA provides that IP rights that were exhausted both in the EU and in the UK before the end of the transition period under the conditions provided for by EU law shall remain exhausted both in the EU and in the UK post-transition. If there was no deal, this would mean that whilst exhaustion within the EU (as it is then constituted) will continue, the UK courts would be able to exercise local or international exhaustion as they see fit. Historically the UK has taken an international exhaustion approach pre-EU membership.

Read more in the Herbert Smith Freehills Brexit Legal Guide – Intellectual Property and Brexit (including pharmaceutical sector provisions)

Authors

Rachel Montagnon
Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Consultant
+44 20 7466 2217

Preparations for the UPC continue despite an “unpredictable environment”

The UPC Preparatory Committee has issued a “Status of the Unified Patent Court Project” statement and review of 2018, confirming that there are now 16 states which have ratified the UPC, and that German ratification is still awaited (dependent on the outcome of the complaint pending before the Constitutional Court in Germany) before the project can move into provisional application phase. This latter phase is allows the courts to be prepared and judges to be appointed.

 

Despite the current, somewhat unpredictable environment, the technical and operational preparations are continuing allowing for the project to move at pace in the event of a positive outcome from the German Constitutional Court“.

The press release says nothing more than was already known, but it does confirm that the status of the project is constantly being reviewed, stating that the Chairman of the UPC Preparatory Committee “continues to meet with the Executive Group and the operational team on a monthly basis” and noting that those that have applied for judicial positions in the Unified Patent Court are being contacted separately.

Author

Rachel Montagnon
Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Consultant, London
+44 20 7466 2217

Patent and Pharma Update – December 2018

Key recent developments in the United Kingdom and Europe relating to patents and the pharmaceutical sector

This issue reports on several ground-breaking decisions from the UK courts on second medical use patents and skinny labels, infringement by equivalents and the possibility of global FRAND licences for standard essential patents (SEPs).  We also look at some significant decisions from the CJEU on SPCs and reimbursements in relation to medicinal products and a few developments at the European Patent Office. Finally, we provide our usual round-up of the latest UPC developments (this time from Italy) and Brexit-related developments relevant to the pharma sector. Continue reading

Draft Withdrawal Agreement Approved by UK Cabinet – IP and Marketing Authorisation Provisions Summarised

As was widely reported yesterday evening, the Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (the Draft Withdrawal Agreement (14 November 2018)), detailing the arrangements for the UK to leave the EU has now been agreed by the UK Cabinet. The draft is as agreed between the UK and the EU’s negotiators. As stated in HSF’s Brexit Withdrawal Agreement webinar invitation here, a special European Council, anticipated to be held on 25 November 2018, will be asked to approve the Draft Withdrawal Agreement and the full text of the political declaration. The deal will also have to pass through the European Parliament. However, the main challenge to a deal being ratified is the requirement for approval by the UK Parliament. The first vote by the UK Parliament is expected within two weeks of the European Council.

We set out below a summary of the Draft Withdrawal Agreement’s provisions on intellectual property. The situation is not much changed from the previous draft issued in March 2018 although the provision for geographical indications has now been agreed: EU-wide rights will be replaced or recognised in the UK and provision has been made for pending applications, including for supplementary protection certificates (SPCs). The sharing of information for assessment of marketing authorisations between the MHRA and the EMA and vice versa is also provided for.

The Draft Withdrawal Agreement provides for an implementation/transition period from the date the UK leaves the EU (29 March 2019) to end of 31 December 2020. If the Draft Withdrawal Agreement is agreed, this transition period will mean that effectively the UK will continue to be treated as part of the EU from a legislative point of view. As the Commission’s press release puts it,”During this period, the entire Union acquis will continue to apply to and in the UK as if it were a Member State”. IP registrations and enforcement will carry on as normal during this period. Until the end of the transition period you will still be able to acquire/register and maintain EU-wide IP rights that will have effect in the UK. See the detail in our summary section below.  However, “as of the withdrawal date (i.e. including during the transition period), the UK, having left the EU, will no longer be part of EU decision-making. It will no longer be represented in the EU institutions, agencies and bodies, and persons appointed, nominated, or representing the UK, and persons elected in the UK, will no longer take part in the EU institutions, agencies, and bodies“.

The accompanying political agreement document “Outline of the political declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom” (currently a summary version, with a fuller version to follow) looks to the future relationship between the UK and the EU post-transition. There is mention of IP in the section on Economic Partnership, but all that is said is: “Protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights beyond multilateral treaties to stimulate innovation, creativity and economic activity”.  Under ‘Basis for cooperation’, the political agreement states that “Terms for the United Kingdom’s participation in Union programmes, subject to the conditions set out in the corresponding Union instruments, such as in science and innovation, culture and education, development, defence capabilities, civil protection and space”. There is also mention of “Cooperation in matters of health security”.  For more on the impact of no deal on the pharma industry see our post on the UK Government’s “no deal technical notices” published on 23 August 2018.

Summary of the Draft Withdrawal Agreement’s provision for IP and marketing authorisations:

Continue reading