20 The Brussels I Regulation and the
Unified Patent Court
| (35249)
12974/13
COM(13) 554
| Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
|
| Legal base | Articles 67(4) and 81(2) TFEU; QMV; co-decision
|
| Department | Ministry of Justice
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 24 November 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 83-xvi (2013-14), chapter 12 (9 October 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | December
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
20.1 The proposals intend to amend EU Regulation
No. 1215/2012 — the Brussels I (recast) Regulation —
by adding the Unified Patent Court (UPC) to the list of judicial
bodies which fall under the jurisdiction of the Regulation; by
clarifying the operation of the rules on jurisdiction in relation
to the UPC; by clarifying the operation of the rules about parallel
proceedings in relation to the UPC; and by clarifying the operation
of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the context of
the relationship between contracting and non-contracting Member
States to the UPC.
20.2 The Brussels I Regulation sets out rules relating
to the international jurisdiction of courts of the Member States
of the EU in civil and commercial matters. It covers, among other
things, litigation in the area of intellectual property, including
patents. The recast of the Regulation comes into force in January
2015.
20.3 One of the reasons for the present Proposal
is that the coming into effect of the UPC is linked to the recast
Brussels I Regulation. The Agreement which sets up the UPC cannot
come into effect before the amendments to the recast Brussels
I Regulation, which regulates the relationship between the two
instruments. The present proposal will ensure compliance between
the UPC Agreement and the recast Brussels I Regulation, thus enabling
the creation of the UPC.
20.4 An amendment to the Brussels I Regulation will
also be necessary to reflect the recently agreed Protocol involving
the Benelux Court of Justice. This Protocol allows for the jurisdictional
competence of the court to include specific matters which come
within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, in this case, intellectual
property litigation. The amendment will be needed to ensure that
the Benelux Court can be considered as a court of the Member State
under the terms of the Brussels I Regulation, ensuring that the
Regulation applies fully to the Benelux Court.
20.5 In our first Report we concluded that the proposed
revision was largely uncontentious but we asked the Government
to provide us with a further update before Council negotiations
concluded.
The Minister's letter of 24 November
20.6 The Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
attaches a revised copy of the draft Regulation. He highlights
the UK success in getting inserted recital 4a, which provides
clarity on the restricted grounds of jurisdiction of the UPC,
and its contribution to recital 5a, which again provides detail
about the circumstances in which it would be appropriate, for
example, to hear cases involving third country defendants.
He says the stakeholders that the Government has consulted are
content with this final draft. He also annexes his letter to our
sister Committee in the House of Lords relating to the extension
of jurisdictional rules to non-EU domiciled defendants.
20.7 He concludes that, overall, this is a good outcome
for the UK, whose economy will benefit from the creation of the
UPC and the establishment of one of the Central Divisions in London.
Conclusion
20.8 For the House's record we set out the revised
recitals to which the Minister refers:
· "(4a) The amendments to Regulation
(EU) No 1215/2012 provided for in this Regulation with regard
to the Unified Patent Court are intended to establish the international
jurisdiction of that Court and do not affect the internal allocation
of proceedings among the divisions of that Court nor the arrangements
laid down in the UPC Agreement concerning the exercise of jurisdiction,
including exclusive jurisdiction, during the transitional period
foreseen in that Agreement.
· "(5a) The common court should
be able to hear disputes involving defendants from third States
on the basis of a subsidiary rule of jurisdiction in the specific
case where an EU claimant brings proceedings against a third State
defendant before a common court relating to an infringement of
a European patent giving rise to damage as well inside as outside
the Union. In order to ensure access to court in the Union in
such a situation, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 should provide
for subsidiary jurisdiction for the common court in a way similar
to that of national courts. Such subsidiary jurisdiction should
be exercised by the common court where property belonging to the
third State defendant is located in a Member State party to the
agreement establishing the common court and the dispute in question
has a sufficient connection with such a Member State, for instance,
because the claimant is domiciled there or because the evidence
relating to the dispute is available there. In establishing its
jurisdiction on this ground the common court should have regard
to the value of the property in question which should not be insignificant
and which should be likely to make the enforcement of the judgment
possible, at least in part, in the Member States party to the
agreement establishing the common court."
20.9 We thank the Minister for his letter, have
no further questions to ask, and clear the draft Regulation form
scrutiny.
| 
