EU to adopt unified patent court system
European Union (EU) member states have agreed to the creation of a new Unified Patent Court, whose judgments will apply to all signatory countries, not just individual nations.
March 04, 2013 at 07:00 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
European Union (EU) member states have agreed to the creation of a new Unified Patent Court, whose judgments will apply to all signatory countries, not just individual nations.
Twenty-four of the EU's 27 member states signed on to the agreement on Feb. 19 in Brussels—with Poland, Bulgaria and Spain as the only holdouts.
The new system aims to cut litigation costs and increase consistency across the European Union, according to a paper by Latham & Watkins partner Laurence Cohen and associate Donald McCombie.
“The current system leads to duplication in litigation between European countries, leading to potentially inconsistent results and increased litigation costs,” the paper says. “The new reforms are intended to provide patentees and potential defendants with the ability to take a pan-European approach to patenting and freedom-to-operate strategies.”
Along with its advantages, however, the unified patent court could bring more patent trolls out of the woodwork, since successful plaintiffs will be able to recover damages in nearly all EU countries.
Under the new system, the EU will establish at least one local court in each signatory country, as well as central courts that will have jurisdiction throughout the EU. In an effort to avoid national prejudices, cases will be heard by multinational three-judge panels.
If patent holders are unhappy with the new system, they can opt out during a seven-year transition period, meaning that their patents can only be revoked on the country level.
The procedural rules governing the new courts will likely combine elements of the French, German and British systems, Cohen told Thomson Reuters. The target date for implementing the new system is Jan. 1, 2014.
Late last year, the EU also voted to establish a unitary patent—granted by the European Patent Office—which will be automatically enforceable in 25 member states.
For more IP stories on InsideCounsel, see:
European Union (EU) member states have agreed to the creation of a new Unified Patent Court, whose judgments will apply to all signatory countries, not just individual nations.
Twenty-four of the EU's 27 member states signed on to the agreement on Feb. 19 in Brussels—with Poland, Bulgaria and Spain as the only holdouts.
The new system aims to cut litigation costs and increase consistency across the European Union, according to a paper by
“The current system leads to duplication in litigation between European countries, leading to potentially inconsistent results and increased litigation costs,” the paper says. “The new reforms are intended to provide patentees and potential defendants with the ability to take a pan-European approach to patenting and freedom-to-operate strategies.”
Along with its advantages, however, the unified patent court could bring more patent trolls out of the woodwork, since successful plaintiffs will be able to recover damages in nearly all EU countries.
Under the new system, the EU will establish at least one local court in each signatory country, as well as central courts that will have jurisdiction throughout the EU. In an effort to avoid national prejudices, cases will be heard by multinational three-judge panels.
If patent holders are unhappy with the new system, they can opt out during a seven-year transition period, meaning that their patents can only be revoked on the country level.
The procedural rules governing the new courts will likely combine elements of the French, German and British systems, Cohen told Thomson Reuters. The target date for implementing the new system is Jan. 1, 2014.
Late last year, the EU also voted to establish a unitary patent—granted by the European Patent Office—which will be automatically enforceable in 25 member states.
For more IP stories on InsideCounsel, see:
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 All'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrending Stories
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