ECJ Advocate General rejects proposal for unified European patent litigation system
The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has declared that plans to form a European Patents Court are incompatible with EU treaties, marking a setback in the long-running campaign to create a centralised patent litigation system in Europe. The Council of the European Union requested the opinion of the ECJ last June, with the Advocate General's response on 2 July stating that: "As it stands at present, the envisaged agreement creating a unified patent litigation system is incompatible with the treaties."
August 23, 2010 at 11:12 AM
2 minute read
The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has declared that plans to form a European Patents Court are incompatible with EU treaties, marking a setback in the long-running campaign to create a centralised patent litigation system in Europe.
The Council of the European Union requested the opinion of the ECJ last June, with the Advocate General's response on 2 July stating that: "As it stands at present, the envisaged agreement creating a unified patent litigation system is incompatible with the treaties."
The proposed system, recently renamed the European and European Union Patents Court, was put forward in an effort to centralise the patent litigation system under one court in Europe and cut down on jurisdictional issues.
Bristows intellectual property partner Alan Johnson said: "This issue has been under negotiation for an absolute eternity. Most of the industry would like to see a centralised European approach so it is not necessary to litigate in multiple jurisdictions.
"The Advocate General's opinion is very disappointing when so much effort has gone into this. If the court agrees, it will be difficult to see how it will be workable from here and might be the death knell of the dossier."
The question of language has raised concerns in some quarters, in particular from native Spanish speakers, as the proposal includes the requirement for the court to conduct litigation in English, French and German.
The Advocate General's opinion is non-binding and will be considered by the ECJ later this year.
This content has been archived.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 AllBird & Bird CEO Christian Bartsch: ‘We Aim to Become a Billion-Euro Firm’
Newly-Appointed Kirkland Clinches Victory at Supreme Court in Longrunning Sky Feud
3 minute readLatham Suffers Latest Departure as Skadden Swoops for London IP Head
2 minute readKirkland & Ellis Triumphs in High Court Cancer Treatment Patent Case
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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