Will the Latest Snub of the European Patent Court Be Fatal?
The country's Federal Constitutional Court says a two-thirds vote of its parliament is necessary before Germany can get behind the long-running project.
March 20, 2020 at 07:21 PM
3 minute read
Germany's Federal Constitutional Court has dealt the latest blow to the plan to create a Unified Patent Court for Europe.
The German court ruled Friday that a two-third majority of the Bundestag is required to give Germany's approval to the project. Germany's parliament unanimously approved the proposal in 2017, but with only a small fraction of the legislators present and no quorum determined.
In a public notice explaining its decision, the court said that judicial power in Germany is exercised by the Federal Constitutional Court, the federal courts and the courts of the Lander. "Any conferral of judicial functions on international courts modifies this comprehensive allocation of jurisdiction and, in this respect, constitutes an amendment of the Constitution in substantive terms," triggering the two-thirds requirement, the court said.
Friday's decision was seen as a major setback, if not necessarily a fatal one, to a project that's been underway for some 40 years. Plans for a Unified Patent Court (UPC) gained momentum several years ago when 25 of the then-27 EU member states supported a UPC that would have exclusive jurisdiction over unitary patents, including infringement and validity proceedings. The agreement provided that at least 13 member states would have to ratify, including at minimum France, Germany and the UK.
Since then, Britain has pulled out of the project in the wake of Brexit, and now Germany's support is back at square one.
Jin Ooi, a London-based intellectual property partner with Kirkland & Ellis International, called the decision "a massive blow to UPC supporters."
"German ratification is a pre-condition to the UPC getting up and running," he said. "It is now back to the drawing board for Germany and whether or not they wish to proceed without the UK's involvement."
Christian Liedtke, an international IP litigator based in Costa Mesa, California, said he actually sees the German decision as providing the UPC a second lease on life. "Reading the court's judgment closely, dicta suggests the court is not at all convinced that the substantive concerns asserted against the UPC have merit," he said.
Industry sentiment about the idea remains positive, and putting together a two-thirds vote could be fairly do-able, he said. "Those that have gone into full mourning over this decision, calling it the death nail of the UPC, may rejoice finding the coffin to be far from shut," he said.
Ooi sounded less sanguine. Whether political willpower remains, "with what is going on in the world at the moment, the UPC project is likely to take a back seat for a long time," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand & Uncertainty
Big Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readHow Dana Rao Built a 'Yes' Culture at Adobe and Why He Walked Away
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250