Showing posts with label intellectual property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intellectual property. Show all posts

Tuesday, 6 December 2022

REUL Bill First Update

Intellectual Property Office
Crown Copyrights  Open Government Licence

 







Jane Lambert

In Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (26 Oct 2022), I mentioned the introduction and second reading of that bill.  In that article, I wrote that the purpose of the bill s to enable the government to remove the special features of retained European Union law ("REUL") from the English and Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish legal systems by the end of 2023.  I added that the bill if passed was likely to affect intellectual property law in the United Kingdom because much of that law implements EU legislation and case law.  For that reason, I offered to follow the progress of the bill and its application to intellectual property law.

According to the UK Parliament's website, the bill has completed the report stage and is now at the report stage.  A copy of the bill as amended in committee can be found here.   Anyone interested in what was said in Parliament about the bill can consult Hansard here.

On 29 Nov 2022, the Intellectual Property Office published updated guidance on the bill.   It consists of a list of retained EU law, as defined in s. 6 (7) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.  Such law relates to intellectual property within the policy remit of the IPO and does not address issues that lie outside such as plant varieties or rights arising at common law.  The list covers copyrights, designs, patents, trade marks and enforcement.  Readers will see that it is quite long enough.

I shall continue to monitor the progress of the bill and report any other useful materials on the topic that come to my attention.  In the meantime, anyone who is interested in the topic may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Sunday, 12 June 2022

Extension of NZ Copyright Term

 Flag of New Zealand.svg

Jane Lambert

New Zealand is a country of just over 5.1 million people on the other side of the world.  It was, however,  the third-largest music streaming market for UK artists in 2020 according to the Department for International Trade (see DIT News Story UK music execs hail benefits of UK-New Zealand trade deal  16 April 2022). It adds: "the enhanced protections secured in this forward-looking trade agreement will strengthen this creative cultural relationship." 

The enhanced protection to which the news story refers is art 17.48 (1) of the UK-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement which provides:

"Each Party shall provide that the rights of an author of a work within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention shall run for the life of the author and for 70 years after the author’s death."

As s.12 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 already complies with art 2 of Berne, art 17.48 (1) of the FTA requires the amendment of s.22 of the New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 to extend the duration of copyright protection in New Zealand for another 20 years.

The DIT considers this extension of sufficient importance to place it on the front page of its website.  It quotes Geoff Taylor, Chief Executive BPI, BRIT Awards and Mercury Prize as follows:

"We are grateful to the Government for their dedication to promoting our world-leading IP standards and hope that this will continue to be a priority in further negotiations taking place around the world.”  

The news story is not just about the extension of the duration of copyright in New Zealand.  It also features a business that makes guitars. 

Readers who want to know more about the IP provisions of the free trade agreement may refer to my article The New Zealand Free Trade Agreement: IP Provisions of 24 Oct 2021 in which I discussed the IP provisions of what was then the proposed agreement.  In the agreed treaty the IP provisions are to be found in section 17.  I have indexed my articles on New Zealand here.

 Anyone requiring further information about copyright protection outside the UK should call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Monday, 3 January 2022

Intellectual Property Articles of the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: General Provisions

Wallaby


 














Jane Lambert

On 20 Dec 2021, I introduced the UK's free trade agreement with Australia.  I reported that it consists of 32 chapters and that one of those chapters (namely Chapter 15) is on intellectual property.  Chapter 15 consists of 96 articles divided into 11 sections.  I indicated that I would consider the various sections of that chapter in due course.

Today I consider Section A of the chapter which is headed "General Provisions".  It consists of the following articles:

  • Art 15.1 Definitions
  • Art 15.2 Objectives
  • Art 15.3 Principles
  • Art 15.4 Understandings
  • Art 15.5 Nature and Scope of Obligations
  • Art 15.6 Understandings Regarding Certain Public Health Measures
  • Art 15.7 National Agreements
  • Art 15.8 National Treatment
  • Art 15.9 Transparency
  • Art 15.10 Application of Chapter to Existing Subject Matter and Prior Acts
  • Art 15.11 Exhaustion of Intellectual Property Rights, and
  • Art 15.12 Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions.
The only definition that I need to consider at this stage is the meaning of "intellectual property." For the purpose of this agreement, the term refers to all categories of intellectual property that are the subject of Sections 1 through 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. That is to say, copyright and related rights, trade marks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, semiconductor topography designs and undisclosed information.

The objectives of the agreement are set out in art 15.2:
"The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations."

Each party is required by art 15.5 (3) to give effect to Chapter 15 but is free to determine the appropriate method of implementing it within its own legal system and practice.

Under art 15.5 (1), the parties affirm their existing rights and obligations with respect to each other under the TRIPS Agreement. They also confirm at art 15.7 that they have ratified or acceded to the following agreements:

(a) TRIPS Agreement;
(b) Paris Convention;
(c) Berne Convention;
(d) Rome Convention;
(e) WCT;
(f) WPPT;
(g) Marrakesh Treaty;
(h) Madrid Protocol;
(i) Nice Agreement;
(j) Singapore Treaty;
(k) Budapest Treaty;
(l) UPOV 1991;
(m) PCT; and
(n) PLT.

Each of those agreements is identified in art 15.1.

In art 15.4, the parties recognize the need to:
"(a) promote innovation and creativity;
(b) facilitate the diffusion of information, knowledge, technology, culture, and the arts; and
(c) foster competition and open and efficient markets,
through their respective intellectual property systems, while respecting the principles of transparency and due process, and taking into account the interests of relevant stakeholders, including right holders, service providers, users, and the general public."

The Parties acknowledge the importance of adequate, effective and balanced protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in art 15.5 (2) but are conscious of the need to prevent measures to enforce intellectual property rights from becoming in themselves barriers to legitimate trade. Accordingly, art 15.3 (2) provides:

"Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter, may be needed to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology."
Another important qualification to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights concerns public health. Art 15.3 (1) permits each party in formulating or amending its laws and regulations, to adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development. Each party affirms the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health at art 15.6 (1) with the following understandings:
"(a) the Parties affirm the right to fully use the flexibilities as duly recognised in the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health;
(b) the Parties agree that this Chapter does not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health; and
(c) the Parties affirm that this Chapter can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of each Party’s right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all."
It is specifically agreed in art 15.6 (2) that Chapter 15 does not and should not prevent the effective utilisation of Article 31bis of the TRIPS Agreement, and the Annex and Appendix to the Annex to the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, by art 15.6 (3) the parties recognize the importance of contributing to the international efforts to implement art 31bis of the TRIPS Agreement, and the Annex and Appendix to the Annex to the TRIPS Agreement.

In respect of all categories of intellectual property covered in Chapter 15, art 15.8 (1) requires each party to accord to nationals of the other party treatment no less favourable than it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights subject to the exceptions already provided for in, respectively, the Paris Convention, the Berne Convention, the Rome Convention, the WPPT, and the TIPRIC (the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits, adopted at Washington on 26 May 1989). Art 15.1 (2) provides that "nationals" for this purpose means "a person of a Party that would meet the criteria for eligibility for protection provided for in the agreements listed in Article 15.7 (International Agreements) or the TRIPS Agreement". In respect of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations, the above obligation applies only in respect of rights provided under the free trade agreement. However, art 15.8 (3) provides that art 15.8 (1) does not apply to procedures provided in multilateral agreements concluded under the auspices of WIPO relating to the acquisition or maintenance of intellectual property rights. A party may also derogate from art 15.8 (1) in relation to its judicial and administrative procedures, including requiring a national of the other party to designate an address for service of process in its territory, or to appoint an agent in its territory, provided that this derogation is:
(a) necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations that are not inconsistent with this Chapter; and
(b) not applied in a manner that would constitute a disguised restriction on trade.

Art 15.9 requires each party to endeavour to publish online:
(1)   its laws, regulations, procedures, and administrative rulings of general application concerning the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights;
(2)   subject to its law information that it makes public concerning applications for trade marks, geographical indications, registered designs, patents, and plant variety rights; and
(3) subject to its laws online information that it makes public concerning registered or granted trade marks, geographical indications, designs, patents, and plant variety rights, sufficient to enable the public to become acquainted with those registered or granted rights.
Both the Intellectual Property Office and IP Australia seem to satisfy this requirement already.

Art 15.10 (1) provides that unless otherwise provided, Chapter 15 gives rise to obligations in respect of all subject matter existing at the date of entry into force of the free trade agreement and that is protected on that date in the territory of a party where protection is claimed, or that meets or comes subsequently to meet the criteria for protection under that chapter. A party shall not be required to restore protection to subject matter that on the date of entry into force of the agreement has fallen into the public domain in its territory. Chapter 15 does not give rise to any obligation in respect of acts that occurred before the date of entry into force of the free trade agreement.

Section A ends with two miscellaneous provisions. First, art 15.11 states that nothing in that agreement prevents a party from determining whether or under what conditions the exhaustion of intellectual property rights applies under its legal system. Secondly, Australia and the UK affirm their commitment to work together through discussion and by the exchange of information at the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore under art 15.12.

I shall address Section B on Cooperation which runs from art 15.13 to art 15.19 inclusive shortly.   In the meantime, anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during normal business hours or send me a message through my contact form. 

Monday, 20 December 2021

The Free Trade Agreement with Australia

Discovery House, Head Office of IP Australia
Author Bidgee Licence CC BY-SA 3.0 Source Wikimedia Commons

 









Jane Lambert

On 16 Dec 2021, the Secretary of State for International Trade signed the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement (see the Department for International Trade's press release of 16 Dec 2021). The Agreement had been agreed in principle by the Prime Ministers of the two countries as I noted in The Proposed Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement on 17 June 2021. The full text of the Agreement can be found on the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.

The Agreement consists of a Preamble, 32 chapters of substantive provisions some of which have their own annexes, four annexes and several side letters. The chapters cover:

Chapter 15 consists of 96 articles on intellectual property starting with "Definitions" in art 15.1 and finishing with "Environmental Considerations in Destruction and Disposal of Infringing Goods" in art 15.96.  The Chapter is divided into the following sections:
  • A.  General Provisions: includes definitions, objectives, principles, understandings in respect of the objectives etc.;
  • B. Cooperation: committee on IP rights, patent cooperation and work-sharing etc.;
  • C. Trade Marks and domain names;
  • D: Geographical indications;
  • E: Patents and data;
  • F: Undisclosed data;
  • G: Registered industrial designs;
  • H: Copyright and related rights;
  • I:  Trade secrets; and
  • J:  Enforcement.
I shall consider the various provisions of Chapter 15 and how they might affect IP practice in the UK in due course.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form at other times.

Wednesday, 30 December 2020

The IP Provisions of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Author Furdur Source Wikipedia





















"The draft trade and cooperation agreement is 1,246 pages long and consists of the body and a very large number of annexes. The body is just under 400 pages long and is divided into 7 Parts subdivided into Titles and in some cases further divided into chapters. The remaining pages are the annexes."

I added that the most important part of the draft agreement appeared to be Part Two which governs trade in goods and services. Title V of that Part covers intellectual property. 

In contrast to Title IV of Part Three of the Withdrawal Agreement (Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community) which provides for the continued protection under national law of intellectual assets that are currently protected by EU law, Title V of Part Two of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement will not require immediate changes to national law.  "Intellectual property" is not even mentioned in the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill which was published late last night and which will ratify the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

The quite extensive changes to UK intellectual property legislation which will come into force at 23:00 on 31 Dec 2020 were agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement,  Indeed, some of these changes would have come into effect even if the UK had withdrawn from the European Union without a withdrawal agreement.  I have mentioned those changes in previous articles in this publication and in NIPC Law and I shall no doubt do so again,   In the meantime, the best summary of those changes is Intellectual Property after 1 Jan 2021 which is published on the British Intellectual Property Office website.  That article was last updated on 17 Dec 2020.

Title V of Part Two of the EU-UKTrade and Cooperation Agreement consists of 57 articles between page 125 and page 147 of the draft agreement.  The articles in that title are helpfully identified by the initials "IP".They cover the following topics:

  • Chapter 1 (arts IP1 to IP6) general provisions
  • Chapter 2  (arts IP7 to IP37) standards concerning intellectual property rights
    • Section 1 (arts IP7 to IP17) copyright and related rights
    • Section 2 (arts IP18 to IP26) trade marks
    • Section 3 (arts IP27 to IP31) designs
    • Section 4 (arts IP32 to IP33) patents
    • Section 5 (arts IP34 to IP IP36) undisclosed information
    • Section 6 (art IP37) plant varieties
  • Chapter 3 (arts IP38 to IP54) enforcement of intellectual property rights
    • Section 1 (arts IP38 to IP39) general obligations
    • Section 2 (arts IP40 to IP51) civil and administrative enforcement
    • Section 3 (art IP52) civil judicial procedures and remedies of trade secrets
    • Section 4 (arts IP53 and IP54) border enforcement
  • Chapter 4 (arts IP55 to IP57) other provisions.
The objectives of the title which are set out in art IP1 are as follows:
"(a) facilitate the production, provision and commercialisation of innovative and creative products and services between the Parties by reducing distortions and impediments to such trade, thereby contributing to a more sustainable and inclusive economy; and 
(b) ensure an adequate and effective level of protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights."
Art IP2 (1) provides that the title "shall complement and further specify the rights and obligations of each Party under the TRIPS Agreement and other international treaties in the field of intellectual property to which they are parties." 

In general, the title is structured very similarly to TRIPS which is of course annexe to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization to which the UK, the EU and all its member states are party.  That includes the key provisions of the Enforcement and Trade Secrets Directives.  It should be remembered that s.3 (1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporates direct EU legislation into national law.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or Title V of Part Two of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.  In the meantime, I wish all my readers a happy and prosperous New Year.

Wednesday, 28 October 2020

An Introduction to and Overview of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan

Source Independent  Licence Standard YouTube Licence


On 23 Oct 2020, the Secretary of State for International Trade signed an Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Japan for a Comprehensive Economic Partnership in Tokyo.  The body of the agreement is 406 pages long divided into 24 chapters together with 3 volumes of annexes which can be accessed from UK/Japan: Agreement for a Comprehensive Economic Partnership [CS Japan No.1/2020].

The structure of that agreement is very similar to the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement:

EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement

UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement

Chapter 1    General provisions

Chapter 1   General provisions

Chapter 2    Trade in goods

Chapter 2 Trade In goods 

Chapter 3    Rules of origin and origin procedures

Chapter 3 Rules of origin and origin procedures 

Chapter 4    Customs matters and trade facilitation

Chapter 4 Customs matters and trade facilitation

Chapter 5    Trade remedies

Chapter 5 Trade remedies

Chapter 6    Sanitary and phytosanitary measures

Chapter 6 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures

Chapter 7    Technical barriers to trade

Chapter 7 Technical barriers to trade

Chapter 8    Trade in services, investment liberalisation and electronic commerce

Chapter 8 Trade in services, investment liberalisation and electronic commerce 

Chapter 9    Capital movements, payments and transfers and temporary safeguard measures

Chapter 9 Capital movements, payments and transfers and temporary safeguard measures 

Chapter 10  Government procurement

Chapter 10 Government procurement

Chapter 11  Competition policy

Chapter 11 Competition policy

Chapter 12  Subsidies

Chapter 12 Subsidies

Chapter 13  State-owned enterprises, enterprises granted special rights or privileges and designated monopolies

Chapter 13 State-owned enterprises, enterprises granted special rights or privileges and designated monopolies 

Chapter 14  Intellectual property

Chapter 14 Intellectual property

Chapter 15  Corporate governance

Chapter 15 Corporate governance 

Chapter 16  Trade and sustainable development

Chapter 16 Trade and sustainable development

Chapter 17  Transparency

Chapter 17 Transparency

Chapter 18  Good regulatory practices and regulatory cooperation

Chapter 18 Good regulatory practices and regulatory cooperation 

Chapter 19  Cooperation in the field of agriculture

Chapter 19 Cooperation in the field of agriculture

Chapter 20  Small and medium-sized enterprises

Chapter 20 Small and medium-sized enterprises

Chapter 21  Dispute settlement

Chapter 21 Trade and women's economic empowerment 

Chapter 22  Institutional provisions

Chapter 22 Dispute settlement

Chapter 23  Final provisions

Chapter 23 Institutional provisions 


Chapter 24 Final provisions


The only difference in structure appears to be the insertion of a chapter on  "Trade and women's economic empowerment" in the UK's agreement with Japan.  The only chapters of either agreement that I have read in full are Chapters 14 of the EU and British agreements which cover intellectual property.  I shall write a separate article on the IP provisions of the UK-Japan agreement shortly.   

According to the British government, the UK-Japan agreement is not an exact copy of the EU-Japan agreement,  There are said to be some provisions in the UK-Japan agreement that have been tailored to British needs.  These may have been identified in the Final Impact Assessment of the Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NorthernIreland and Japan for a Comprehensive Economic Partnership and The UK–Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Benefits for the UK.   For an independent view of the agreement from an international trade policy consultant and fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatorysee Minako Morita-Jaeger  UK-Japan trade deal will provide political cover - but only a limited trade boost of 27 Oct 2020 on the politics.co.uk website.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or any of its contents should call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Tuesday, 6 February 2018

Brexit Briefing - January 2018

Michel Barnier
Author Foto-AG Gymnasium Melle
 Licence CC BY-SA 3.0
Source Wikimedia Commons























Jane Lambert

The month started quietly with a period of contemplation on the terms of the interim agreement on citizens' rights, the Irish border and the financial contribution and ended in a ruckus with BuzzFeed's publication of a leaked government memo that predicted bad outcomes for every type of Brexit (see Alberto Nardelli This Leaked Government Brexit Analysis Says The UK Will Be Worse Off In Every Scenario 29 Jan 2018 BuzzFeed). That led to ministers' dissing their own civil servants and a back bench Tory MP accusing HM Treasury of all kinds of skulduggery.

That same back bencher provided the only drama of the month when he asked the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union whether the UK would be a vassal state between 29 March 2019 and 31 Dec 2020 at a hearing of the House of Commons Select Committee on Exiting the European Union on 24 Jan 2018 (see  Will the UK be a Vassal State during the Implementation Period? 30 Jan 2018). Surprisingly Mr Davis came close to admitting to the committee that it would though only for a short period. Mrs May subsequently intervened to say that we would not admit new arrivals from the EU member states on the same terms as before and that we would seek a new mechanism to challenge any new laws that would harm our interests.

As to the relationship that will subsist between Britain and the EU after the 31 Dec 2020, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Brexit called for "a new economic partnership with the EU – the most ambitious in the world – that recognises the extraordinary levels of interconnectedness and cooperation that already exist between us" in a joint article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung." To continental eyes that looks very like cherry picking or having your cake and eating it.  Michel Barnier anticipated that speech and warned
"A country leaving this very precise framework and the accompanying supervision gains the ability to diverge from it but by the same token loses the benefits of the Internal Market. Its financial service providers can no longer enjoy the benefits of a passport to the Single Market nor those of a system of generalised equivalence of standards."
In other words we can have a free trade agreement and it may even have some provisions for the supply of services but it will fall far short of the frictionless trade conditions that we now enjoy (see Davis and Barnier set out their Negotiating Strategies for the Next Phase of Brexit Talks 11 Jan 2018).

On 17 Dec 2017 Daniel Alexander QC, Chair of the Intellectual Property Bar Association, together with the Chair of the IP Law Committee of the Law Society of England and Wales and the Presidents of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys ("CIPA") and the IP Federation, signed a memorandum to the Government entitled Intellectual property (IP) law and Brexit Summary of main requests for the UK government a copy of which can be downloaded from the CIPA website (see IP and Brexit - Key Requests to Government).  One of those requests is ratification and continued UK participation in the Unified Patent Court but that looks increasingly unlikely as exit day approaches. The question for now is what if anything can be salvaged from the UPC Agreement. I wrote about that topic on 26 Jan 2018 in NIPC Law and I am due to talk about it to Queen Mary University London on 12 Feb 2018 (see Implications of Brexit on Intellectual Property Law 19 Jan 2018 NIPC Law).

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or Brexit in general should call me on +44 (0)29 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Thursday, 7 September 2017

Commission Position Paper on Intellectual Property Rights including Geographical Indications











Jane Lambert

Even before the EU referendum, IP lawyers in the United Kingdom wrote articles and gave talks on what would happen to intellectual property rights if we voted to leave the EU. I penned my first thoughts in Were we to go - what would Brexit mean for IP? 26 Feb 2016 NIPC Law and returned to the subject immediately after the referendum in What Sort of IP Framework do we need after Brexit and what are we likely to get? 3 July 2016. I have written a lot of other articles on the subject since then many in the context of the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court,  as have a lot of other people. However, until today we did not know much about the thinking of the Commission and the remaining 27 member states.

Now we have a position paper dated 6 Sept 2017 from the European Commission, Task Force for the Preparation and Conduct of the Negotiations with the United Kingdom under Article 50 TEU which has been transmitted to the remaining member states on Intellectual property rights (including geographical indications) for discussion today. It is not a particularly weighty document either in the word count or in its ideas. Above all, it does not address the issue upon which businesses upon both sides of the English channel (and indeed the rest of the world) want an answer namely, can a way be found to keep the United Kingdom in the Unified Patent Court and unitary patent system if we leave the European Union?

The document, which is 5 pages long including the cover page, begins with the following statement:
"The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union will create uncertainty for UK and EU27 stakeholders alike in relation to the scope of protection in the United Kingdom of certain intellectual property rights; to the treatment of applications for certain rights and to the exhaustion of rights conferred by intellectual property rights. This uncertainty will significantly affect the conditions under which goods that are placed on the market in the Union before the withdrawal date could continue to circulate between the EU27 and the UK."
Well, they can say that again.  I don't think even the most extreme Eurosceptic would disagree with that.

They suggest that any withdrawal agreement that we make with the remaining member states should ensure that:
"(a) the protection enjoyed in the United Kingdom on the basis of Union law by both UK and EU 27 holders of intellectual property rights having unitary character within the Union before the withdrawal date is not undermined by the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union;
(b) procedure-related rights (e.g. right of priority) in relation to an application for an intellectual property right having unitary character within the Union still pending on the withdrawal date are not lost when applying for an equivalent intellectual property right in the United Kingdom;
(c) applications for supplementary protection certificates or for the extension of their duration in the United Kingdom on-going before the withdrawal date are completed in accordance with the conditions set out in Union law;
(d) databases protected in the EU27 and the UK before the withdrawal date continue to enjoy protection after that date and
(e) exhaustion before the withdrawal date within the Union of the rights conferred by intellectual property rights is not affected by the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union."
I think the EU negotiators will find themselves pressing on an open door for most if not all of that.

My heart leapt a little when I saw the paragraphs headed "Intellectual property rights having unitary character within the Union" and  "Applications for Intellectual property rights having unitary character within the Union" because the words "unitary patent" are a shorthand for the expression "European patent having unitary effect". It sank, however, when I read the text of those paragraphs because the Commission seeks only the transposition of rights granted under EU regulations into national law and that is going to happen automatically under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

As the Intellectual Property Bar Associaton ("IPBA"), of which I am a member, said at paragraph 10 of Paper 16 of the Brexit Papers on Intellectual Property:
"Intellectual property services are currently a flourishing area in the UK and the UK has significant influence in this area. Rights are well protected but subject to sensible defences. The intellectual property bar is very active and the excellence of the courts is widely appreciated, making a significant positive contribution."
The IPBA suggested that the UK Government should do the following to ensure that that remains the case:
 Securing rights to provide professional services
1. Rights of representation/practice - The IPBA joins and endorses the recommendations and requests set out in the Bar Council Position on Access to the EU Legal Services Market Post-Brexit.
1.1.1 UK as forum of choice - HMG should explore ways to ensure that the UK retains its position as a forum of choice for intellectual property matters in Europe. This should include steps to ensure that the UK remains more efficient and quicker as a litigation forum than other EU countries and EU courts. It should also include attempts to ensure that the UK is able fully to participate in the UPC post-Brexit and that, if the UK is not able to do so, the UK is nonetheless well-placed to remain a first-choice forum for resolution of patent disputes in Europe.
1.1.2 Prioritisation - HMG should ensure that the area of specialist legal services, including rights of representation in intellectual property cases, is given no less priority than that given to any other area of services provision in Brexit negotiations in which rights of access to the EU may be important.
1.1.3 Avoidance of approaches to Brexit which would be most likely to damage this sector - The UK should avoid any general approach to Brexit which would make such arrangements harder to secure. 
2. Ensuring that post-Brexit there is equivalent protection for intellectual property in the UK as currently exists under harmonised EU law, that there is no gap in protection with regard to existing rights and that defences which currently exist to infringement of intellectual property rights continue to apply unless and until specifically altered.
2.1. Ensuring continuing influence on substantive and procedural EU law which may affect industry in the UK. 2.1.1. HMG should take steps to ensure that the UK perspective continues to be heard by EU legislative and judicial authorities, where decisions are made that may have an impact on UK law and practice.
2.1.2. This may involve ensuring that HMG makes timely responses to EU consultations on legislative change and that it intervenes (and ensures generous rights of intervention for others) in CJEU cases which may have a direct impact on UK undertakings and an indirect impact on UK law after Brexit."
The IPBA has said that we would be happy to assist HMG in formulating appropriate strategies to that end. The government would be wise to take up that offer. If there is one thing that barristers know a lot about, it is negotiation.

Should amplification or clarification of any part of this article be required, call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Post Script

The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys are much more kind to the Commission's position paper than I have been (see CIPA welcomes EC Position on IP Rights - Post Brexit 7 Sep 2017). The Institute's President, Tony Rollins, says:
“The paper only deals with EU unitary rights, that is, trade marks, registered and unregistered designs, plant variety rights and protected geographical indications, and does not deal with patents.
“This is because the European patent system is not a European Union institution and so will be entirely unaffected by Brexit. For UK-based patent attorneys carrying out European patent work it will continue to be business as usual."
I do wish I could agree with him but I can't.  Regulations 1257/2012 and 1260/2012 are EU instruments, art 84 (1) of the UPC Agreement makes clear that it is open to signature only for EU member states and art 20 spells out:
"The Court shall apply Union law in its entirety and shall respect its primacy."
If it were otherwise, the optional Litigation Protocol to the European Patent Convention would have been up and running by now.  

UPC Court of Appeal upholds the Mannheim Local Division's Decision on the Court's Jurisdiction in Fujifilm v Kodak

Musée de l'Élysée ,   Lausanne, World's First Photographic Museum Author Sandro Senn   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commo...