Yesterday the discussion focused on the UPC, taking stock of the new system after three years of operation, at the event organized by AIPPI Italian Group, LES Italy, AICIPI, the Milan Bar Association, the Institute of Industrial Property Consultants, the Association of Chartered Accountants, Assolombarda and the Milan Court of Appeal. Below is my brief opening address:
“Our thanks go to the event organisers, the speakers and the audience. AIPPI took part in the debate on the creation of the UPC system, viewing it as an initial experiment in enhanced cooperation aimed at improving patent protection and, by extension — as the argument went — the competitiveness of the European market as a whole.
Now that the system has been in operation for a few years, we believe the issue of cooperation and participation has arisen, involving the entire chain of stakeholders: from companies to professionals to the judiciary, right through to society as a whole. We remain convinced that for this experiment to work — not only in Italy, but in all member states — it must be inclusive and offer a fair chance to compete to every operator, thereby implementing the original objectives of the European common market: to prevent, rather than encourage, concentrations and monopolies.
This is a matter of particular importance, as it concerns access to justice and the legal process. We must prevent the creation of a special jurisdiction reserved for a few privileged ‘users’ — be they the companies able to access the service, or certain experts in the field, such as lawyers or consultants, who, moreover, have started with an undeniable structural advantage.
In our view, it is profoundly mistaken to think of the UPC in terms of ‘users’, as this is a service that must benefit society as a whole. It would be equally incorrect, as well as short-sighted, to assess the merits of a judicial system such as the UPC solely on the basis of the satisfaction of those companies and professionals. Our principles, including constitutional ones, and common rules tell us, on the contrary, that the quality of the system must be measured in terms of democratic access to the high office of justice, the competitiveness of the patent ecosystem, and the system’s impact on society as a whole: small and medium-sized enterprises, consumers, and all professionals who have the qualifications and expertise to participate.
The real challenge today, therefore, is to make this system a service in the true sense of the word — a service rendered to the community, not to a clientele; and to do so, we must make choices that genuinely open up access at every level.”
