As reported earlier, there is a strong desire of (parts of) industry [1, 2] and patent professionals [1, 2, 3], politically supported by JURI member Wikström and UK IP Minister Baroness Wilcox, to remove Articles 6 to 8 dealing with substantive patent law on patent infringement from the proposed Regulation. The fears of those groups are that otherwise substantive patent law would become part of EU legal order causing costs, delays, legal uncertainty. A related resolution of the European Patent Lawyers Association EPLAW expressed such concerns recently in a rather pointed way:
If one wants a really unattractive, inefficient, unpredictable and probably extremely expensive patent court system, then we will get it; one must only give the ECJ a chance to receive as many referrals in patent law as possible.
If one wants to see substantive patent law in Europe to be decided by judges without any solid knowledge and experience in this field, then one must involve the ECJ whenever possible.
And if somebody intended to lay a solid ground for failure of this – at some time very promising – project, then he will probably succeed.
Now there is evidencs (see e.g. this tweet) suggesting that Ms Wikstrom has lost the battle over Articles 6 to 8, so that the provisions dealing with substantive patent law on patent infringement will remain part of the Unitary Patent.
First of all, the question of what constitutes infringement is to be made will not be decided by the new Unified Patent Court which be obliged to refer many questions of interpretation to the European Court of Justice. In other words: the new Unified Patent Court cannot decide on its own the subject matter it is created for – a rather alarming result given the uncertainty, delay and cost that this will create for future litigants, since judges of the European Court Justice have no patent experience. [...]
Secondly, for obvious reasons, any court can only be as good as its’ judges. Despite this simple insight, it is currently absolutely unclear how it can be ensured that the Unified Patent Court with its numerous local and regional divisions could ensure that all cases are handled by experienced judges. To the contrary, it seems rather likely that in the proposed system of national proportionality ["quotas"] will out-weigh qualification.
Thirdly, after a short transitional period, patent owners will be forced to decide upfront whether they would enforce their existing European patents through the new Unified Patent Court or – as now – through the national courts. Such decision will have to be made without knowledge of whether the new system will be more efficient and less costly than the existing system of national courts having regard to each individual case. However, if this new system is created to help industry and offers at least the same quality, why is it not offered as a choice in addition to the existing system, such that each company can pick the best option for each case? In other words: what is the point, for example, of expensively litigat-ing small, local acts of infringement before a large European court? By members of Parliament, by the Commission and by the Council small and medium sized enterprises (so-called SMEs) are constantly mentioned as the main target groups which should benefit of the new system; so far there is very little in the texts which could be attractive for them.
Finally, and somewhat surprising for a system which is supposed to be designed to save costs: the costs of filing cases in the new system are unknown. So far, not even the court fees and the procedural rules are fixed and hence even these basic issues remain unresolved, although reduction of cost and efficien-cy have been advertised as the main attractions of the new system.
Thus concluding that “the deficiencies of the current proposal are so fundamental that the system is bound to fail“, that “industry cannot afford a failing system as the only means for the protection of their greatest assets”, and that “after 40 years of work it is surely worth taking a few more months to get it right and avoid disaster.
It remains to be seen whether or not the political forces in charge for this project can be impressed by such definite language. It at least appears doubtful in case of JURI Rapporteur Bernard Rapkay, who once commented on such expert opinions:
Experts seem to be unanimous. But here, allow me to assess that in a political way. I could probably find a unanimous agreement of experts of a different view. This impression that experts are all singing from the same hymn sheet and that they want this, I think I have to say that’s not an impression I’ve gained. I’ve talked to experts — I am not suggesting that they are saying the complete opposite — but those I have asked have said “No, it does not make any sense to get rid of [Articles 6 to 8].”
It is the unanimous view of some experts. There are always interests at play. I have received letters from the German Association of Translators saying “Well what you are doing is terrible. This question of three languages. No, no -we need all languages”. One can understand where they are coming from. I mean, what we are not doing is guaranteeing the future of German translators. Everyone has got their interests. Now, I have a vague idea of what interests are at play. I know what one interest group is about and what the other interest group is about and at the end of the day we have got to arbitrate a decision… I think we should not tinker with the structure too much.
Volker 'Falk' Metzler
European Patent Attorney, German 'Patentanwalt', European Trademark and Design Attorney, Computer Scientist, PhD, IP Blogger, Father of Two, Mountain Enthusiast
The k/s/n/h::law blog
Some of the patent attorneys of the KSNH law firm have joined their efforts to research what is going on in the various branches of IP law and practice in order to keep themselves, their clients as well as interested circles of the public up to date. This blog is intended to present results of such efforts to a wider public.
- November 2013 (2)
- October 2013 (1)
- September 2013 (1)
- August 2013 (2)
- July 2013 (3)
- June 2013 (5)
- March 2013 (5)
- February 2013 (4)
- January 2013 (5)
- December 2012 (5)
- November 2012 (5)
- July 2012 (5)
- June 2012 (8)
- May 2012 (5)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (4)
- February 2012 (5)
- January 2012 (6)
- December 2011 (12)
- November 2011 (9)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (4)
- August 2011 (7)
- July 2011 (4)
- June 2011 (1)
- business methods (6)
- EPC (7)
- EPO (12)
- EU law (92)
- European Patent Law (37)
- German Patent ACt (PatG) (1)
- German patent law (5)
- Germany (6)
- Pirate Party (3)
- International Patent Law (4)
- PCT (2)
- IP politics (10)
- licenses (2)
- Litigation (5)
- Patentability (7)
- Patents (12)
- Piratenpartei (2)
- Software inventions (10)
- Uncategorized (9)
- Unitary Patent (24)
- US Patent Law (4)
- kelle on Germany: Copyright Protection More Easily Available For Works Of “Applied Arts”
- Time Limits & Deadlines in Draft UPCA RoP: Counting The Days - KSNH Law - Intangible.Me on Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- Time Limits & Deadlines in Draft UPCA RoP: Counting The Days | ksnh::law on Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Cou... on Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- European Commission Takes Next Step Towards Legalising Software Patents in Europe | Techrights on EU Commission publishes Proposal of amendend Brussels I Regulation for ensuring Enforcement of UPC Judgements
- No public Twitter messages.
- Ist Verschlüsselung passé? September 6, 2013Auf verschiedenen Feldern beruflicher Praxis ist dafür zu sorgen, dass Kommunikation vertraulich bleibt. Die trifft beispielsweise für Ärzte zu, aber auch für Anwälte, darunter auch Patentanwälte. Einer der zahlreichen Aspekte, die in diesem Zusammenhang eine Rolle spielen, ist die Technik, um die Vertraulichkeit beruflicher Kommunikation sicherzustellen. Wa […]
- EU-Einheitspatent: Demonstrativer Optimismus und Zahlenmystik allerorten – Naivität oder politische Beeinflussung? June 26, 2013Nach mehreren vergeblichen Anläufen zur Schaffung eines EU-weiten Patentsystems wurde 1973 als Kompromiss das Europäische Patentübereinkommen unterzeichnet, welches unabhängig von der seinerzeit noch EWG genannten Europäischen Union System zur zentralisierten Patenterteilung mit nachgeordnetem Einspruchsverfahren durch das Europäische Patentamt schuf. Wie wi […]
- Moderne Zeiten oder: DPMA und Patentgericht streiten über die elektronische Akte April 25, 2013Bekanntlich hat das Deutsche Patent- und Markenamt (DPMA) im Jahre 2013 mit der rein technischen Fertigstellung der Einrichtungen zur elektronischen Akteneinsicht einen wichtigen Meilenstein seines Überganges von der Papierakte zur “elektronischen Akte” erreicht. Im DPMA werden aber bereits seit dem 01. Juni 2011 Patente, Gebrauchsmuster, Topografien und erg […]
- Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2013 March 11, 2013Unter dem Datum vom 28. Februar 2013 ist die Bundestags-Drucksache 17/12611 veröffentlicht worden Sie trägt den Titel Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung - Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2013. Die Bundesregierung legt dem Deutschen Bundestag seit dem Jahr 2008 […]
- 3D-Printing: Zum Filesharing von 3D-Modelldaten February 25, 2013In meiner kleinen zuvor angekündigten Reihe über rechtliche Aspekte des 3D Printing komme ich heute auf die Frage zu sprechen, ob die Hersteller von Gerätschaften es hinnehmen müssen, wenn Ersatztreile davon – vom Brillengestell über Smartphone-Gehäuseteile bis hin zu Rastenmähermotor-Abdeckungen – gescannt und die daraus […]
- Ist Verschlüsselung passé? September 6, 2013