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
© 2025 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'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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