EU approves creation of unitary patent system
After nearly 40 years of discussion, a unitary patent system for the European Union is set to become a reality.
March 25, 2013 at 08:00 PM
5 minute read
After nearly 40 years of discussion, a unitary patent system for the European Union is set to become a reality. In December 2012, the European Parliament approved the legislation necessary to create a streamlined system for obtaining EU-wide patent protection and a complementary unified patent court system.
Twenty-five EU member states have agreed to take part in the new regime, with Spain and Italy currently opting out. On Feb. 19, 24 EU member states signed an international agreement setting up a unified patent court, with Spain, Bulgaria and Poland opting out of this single, specialized patent jurisdiction. Many of the details of the new unitary patent and unified patent court are yet to be determined, and the system will go into effect in 2014 at the earliest, although it's more than likely to take a few additional years before it goes live.
“Any new system will come with a ton of growing pains … but it's going to be a wonderful tool,” says Alain Villeneuve, a shareholder at Vedder Price in Chicago. “Essentially, the system is going to be the same as in the U.S.: You won't need to go to the court in London and then the court in Paris … just as if I win in Illinois I don't have to go to Hawaii and get another ruling. My read on it is that it's not only a step toward the future, but it's a step toward Europe becoming the United States of Europe.”
Streamlined Process
The unitary system means that patentees will have the option to apply to the European Patent Office (EPO, a body of the European Patent Organisation) for an EU unitary patent valid across the 25 participating member states.
The unitary patent will significantly streamline the process and reduce the costs of obtaining an EU-wide patent (see “Big Savings”). Previously, applicants only had the option to file for a “classical” European patent, which required separate approval from each member state, or to file separately in each member state for a national patent. Both of those options, which patent applicants will retain, result in multiple patents in multiple languages. The new regime will have a cohesive, truly unitary effect that the EU previously lacked.
The unified patent court, which will have jurisdiction not only over the new unitary patents but over existing European patents as well, promises to eliminate multiple parallel court proceedings and potentially clashing results across jurisdictions and eventually to enhance legal certainty.
It will have exclusive jurisdiction over civil litigation related to infringement and validity for the unitary patents and the classical European patents. The court system will consist of a Court of First Instance (comprising local/regional divisions and a central division with sites in Paris, London and Munich) and a Court of Appeal (sited in Luxembourg), and it will refer questions of EU law to the European Court of Justice.
Growing Pains
Although the new system will have its benefits, it also has its share of drawbacks.
The new court system will provide a uniform decision that applies across all the participating countries. The clearest downside there is the risk that the uniform decision will be an adverse one. A patentee could see a single court revoke its patent, or deliver a finding of noninfringement, not just in a single member state, but across the EU.
Layer on top of that concern a host of uncertainties about the new, untried and untested regime: Lawyers point out that neither judges nor litigators designed the system, and it isn't clearly based on any of the existing European systems. It's yet to be determined how judges will be appointed, and they may have varying levels of experience in patent law. Nokia Corp. and Ericsson are among the critics that say the system could encourage forum-shopping and favor nonpracticing entities.
“At the moment, if you go talk to a U.S. lawyer or a U.K. lawyer or a German lawyer—a lawyer in most developed legal systems—they can give you a pretty good idea of how it's all going to work, and some idea of what the outcome will be,” says Philip Westmacott, a senior partner at Bristows in London. Westmacott had an active role in discussions regarding the drafting of the new patent and court system. “When you're starting, as we are here, with a new system … you can see that a typical patent counsel in a major patentee company, particularly in the early years, is going to be saying, 'I'm not sure that I want to risk my patent portfolio in a court where I'm so uncertain as to how it's going to work.'”
Fractured Effects
Westmacott says he's heard that some companies, particularly pharmaceuticals, are very likely to file national patents so as not to risk losing their valuable patents across the EU.
Companies that opt to do so will retain some level of predictability, at least in the major jurisdictions. Of course, if this becomes a common practice, it will lead to less harmonization across member states—just the opposite of what the new system is intended to do.
“It remains to be seen how the new system overcomes the initial hurdles and the skepticism of the users,” says Gerd Jaekel, a partner at Jones Day in Munich and Düsseldorf, Germany. “It is all a glass bowl in front of us. People are very interested in such a system, and it will be a very good tool for us; however, it may take some years until we get there.”
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 AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
2024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending Stories
- 1A&O Shearman, Hogan Lovells and the Stories That Shaped Africa This Year
- 2Borden Ladner Gervais Cyber Expert Warns of AI-Boosted Ransomware Attacks
- 3Phila. Judge Upholds $68.5M Verdict Over Construction Worker's Death
- 4Biden Vetoes Bill to Create More Federal Judgeships
- 5Memories of a Straight Shooter
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