Review rejected of Registrar’s rejection of application to remove an unauthorised opt-out (Article 83(3) UPCA, R. 5A RoP).
Based on the submissions of the Applicant, it therefore, cannot be established that Polytech on 30 March 2023, when it filed the application to opt-out EP’193 from the exclusive competence of the Unified Patent Court under Art. 83(3) UPCA, was not entitled to be registered as proprietor of the patent in the national registers concerned at that time and, thus, must be considered to have been authorised to opt-out EP’193 from the exclusive competence of the Unified Patent Court pursuant to Art. 83(3) UPCA.
An application to remove an unauthorised application to opt out pursuant to R. 5A RoP must
a) either demonstrate that the person who filed the application to opt out, at the time of filing the application, was not the person shown in each national patent register for which the European patent was validated as the person entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the European patent, but that it was the applicant of the application to remove the unauthorised application to opt out, see R. 8.5(c) RoP,
or b) if the persons mentioned under a) are identical, demonstrate that at the time of filing the application to opt out, the person shown in each national patent register for which the patent was validated as the person entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the European patent, under the law of each Member State for which the European patent was validated, was not entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the patent, but that it was the applicant of the application to remove the unauthorised application to opt out, see R. 8.5(a) RoP.
IPPT20260629, President UPC CoA, Silimed v Health & Aesthetics
