Cheat Sheet: A 5-minute guide to the EU’s new unitary patent system
In December 2012, the European Parliament approved legislation for a new unified patent court system, and on Feb. 19, 24 EU member states signed an agreement to participate in the new structure.
April 26, 2013 at 05:15 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In December 2012, the European Parliament approved legislation for a new unified patent court system, and on Feb. 19, 24 EU member states signed an agreement to participate in the new structure. InsideCounsel's April issue took a look at the new system, which may go into effect as soon as 2014 (though it's likely to take a little longer).
For companies interested in protecting their IP in Europe, an understanding of the unitary patent system will be paramount. Never fear, though, we've broken it down for you here, answering all the questions you're sure to have about the advantages, drawbacks and potential savings:
How is the unified patent court going to work?
Simply put, applicants will be able to seek a patent from the European Patent Office, and get a patent that's valid across all the participating member states. In the past, innovators had to apply for a “classical” European patent and get approval from each member state, or file separately in each state for a national patent.
The new, unified court will have jurisdiction over all existing European patents, as well as new ones, including for any civil litigation related to the infringement of those patents. There will be a Court of First Instance, with local and regional divisions and a central division with sites in Paris, London and Munich. Its Court of Appeal will be in Luxembourg, and the European Court of Justice will deal with any questions of EU law.
What are the advantages of the new system?
The unified patent court will save in-house counsel time, as they only have to apply to one entity to get a patent for all participating member states. The uniformity is also an advantage—no more worrying that what's protected in one country might not be in another. For lawyers based in the U.S., the unified patent court will make the EU feel more familiar. Just as you don't have to apply for patents in multiple states, you won't have to apply for patents in multiple EU countries.
“[The unitary patent system] is a step toward Europe becoming the United States of Europe,” says Alain Villeneuve, a shareholder at Vedder Price.
There has to be a downside, right?
Well, the risk you run with getting a uniform decision is that you might not like what the court decides. Companies could see their patents revoked in one court and thus be dealt a serious blow across the continent.
The other disadvantage is that the system is still new and untested. It doesn't resemble any of the existing European systems, and it wasn't designed by judges or litigators. Some experts are concerned that judges may have differing amounts of experience with patent law, and it's yet to be determined how they will be appointed.
What effect will the new system have on the cost of filing for patents?
It is going to be way, way cheaper. Currently getting patent protection through a “classical” European patent for all the participating member states would cost about €32,119. According to the European Parliament, the unified patent court will reduce that cost by up to 80 percent. During a preliminary “transitional period,” which will last for up to 12 years, the cost of a unitary patent will be €6,425, and will drop to about €4,725 after that time.
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
How Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Immigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 2Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 3Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 4Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
- 5Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
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