Reset and Go: The Unitary Patent System Post-Brexit

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Jaeger
Keyword(s):  
Patent System ◽  
Unitary Patent

4. Introduction to European Patent Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 99-119
Author(s):  
Justine Pila ◽  
Paul L.C. Torremans
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
European Patent ◽  
European Law ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
Unified Patent Court ◽  
Unitary Patent

This chapter introduces the European law of patents and related rights with a discussion of the nature of patents as limited-term monopoly rights granted in respect of new, inventive, and industrially applicable inventions and the routes to obtaining patent protection in Europe. It then considers the existing European patent system established by the European Patent Convention 1973/2000, including its basis in state-based conceptions of IP territoriality, and the challenges presented to that system by globalization and developing technology. And finally, it discusses the long-standing pursuit of a unitary patent and unified patent court for Europe, including the reasons for each, and the features of the proposed Unitary Patent Package of 2012/2013.

Growth companies and procedural safeguards in European patent litigation

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista Rantasaari
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
Patent System ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Court System ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
Start Up ◽  
Unified Patent Court ◽  
Procedural Safeguards ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
Unitary Patent

The unitary patent system with the establishment of the Unified Patent Court will lead to unitary patent protection covering most European Union countries. Moreover, it will lead to litigation with the same geographical reach. One potential concern related to increasing litigation is the so-called ‘patent trolls’ (non-practicing entities) that purchase patents for the purpose of portfolio building or company financing. One of the key expressed justifications of the unitary patent system was to support small- and medium-sized enterprises by securing them easier and wider access to patents. The aim of this article is to examine procedural safeguards from the perspective of the start-up and growth companies. These safeguards protect start-up and growth companies when acting as defendants. As a corollary, they weaken the enforcement mechanisms from the perspective of the plaintiff. The safeguards addressed in this article are fee shifting, preliminary injunctions, and bifurcation. As the Unified Patent Court system is still evolving, the current state of European patent litigation in key jurisdiction countries (Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands) is analysed. This article explores how these safeguards evolve in the unitary patent regime and their potential to reduce uncertainty for start-up and growth companies when acting as defendants.

Analyzing the impact of the European unitary patent system on worldwide biotechnology

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. 393-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio Belda ◽  
Gerardo Penas ◽  
Domingo Marquina ◽  
Antonio Santos
Keyword(s):  
Patent System ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Unitary Patent

scholarly journals European patent with unitary effect but with variable law: regulating the right to patent for transnational inventions

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Bernardo Calabrese
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Patent System ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Normative System ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Unitary Patent

Abstract: This article focuses on a specific issue involving the so called right to patent in the context of the recently approved Unitary Patent system. Considering the field of private international law related to intellectual property, the issue of the law applicable to initial ownership becomes even more thorny in the legal framework of the Unitary Patent: as a matter of fact, this normative system could convey uncertainty in its application to transnational inventions, by reason of the peculiar criterion of the law of the “(first) applicant” governing the Unitary Patent as an object of property under art. 7, Regulation EU n. 1257/2012. Therefore, an interpretative clarification on this point seems necessary.

The Single Patent for Portuguese or Spanish Language Countries

2015 ◽  
pp. 3265-3277
Author(s):  
Sofia Vairinho ◽  
Tara Branstad ◽  
Joao Guerreiro ◽  
Francisco J. Leon Sanz ◽  
Sonia R. Sanchez
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
Spanish Language ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Competitive Environment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Southern European Countries ◽  
Unitary Patent ◽  
Widespread Dissemination

The economic and financial situation in Southern European Countries creates an almost involuntary need for entrepreneurial ideas and innovation in the approach to social, legal and political solutions. Countries such as Portugal and Spain struggle to define strategies to improve their economies.Transversal to several fields, including the Information Science and Technology, we may consider as possible path or valid option the Patent System. If we consider the Patent System as a possible route to protect and stimulate investment, we may say that, presently, an isolated Portuguese or a Spanish patent does not represent a common choice for investors. To address this issue, this article proposes a new approach to the Patent System, based on the creation of a patent that will cover, with only one standard submission and evaluation process, all the Portuguese or Spanish language countries. Moving towards the establishment of a more innovative and competitive environment, the “Portuguese and/or Spanish Language Patent” would give a broader competitive advantage to companies operating within these particular markets, and, therefore, to the countries themselves. The strongest international advantage each of these two countries (Portugal and Spain) has in common is the widespread dissemination of their language across multiple continents. The present approach would be a complementary response to the implementation of the European Union Unitary Patent. The consolidation of the “Portuguese and/or Spanish Language Patent” would rely on the same principles defined for the Unitary Patent: simplicity; lower cost; and the involvement of a large number of Countries.

scholarly journals Policy Levers in Patent Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Legal Theory ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Practical Matter ◽  
Structural Differences ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Specific Variation ◽  
Narrow Context ◽  
Unitary Patent

The patent statute creates a general set of legal rules that govern a widevariety of technologies. With only a few exceptions, the statute does notdistinguish between different technologies in setting and applying legalstandards. In theory, then, we have a uniform patent system that providestechnology-neutral protection to all kinds of innovation. Technology,however, is anything but uniform, and displays highly diversecharacteristics across different sectors. A wealth of empirical evidencedemonstrates deep structural differences in how industries innovate.Industries vary in the speed and cost of Research and Development ("R&D"),in the ease with which inventions can be imitated by others, in the needfor cumulative or interoperative innovation rather than stand-alonedevelopment, and in the extent to which patents cover entire products ormerely components of products. We show that there is no reason to assumethat a unitary patent system will optimally encourage innovation in thewide range of diverse industries that it is expected to cover.Despite the appearance of uniformity, however, patent law is actually asvaried as the industries it seeks to foster. Closer examination of patentlaw demonstrates that it is unified only in concept. In practice the rulesactually applied to different industries have shown increasing divergence.As a practical matter, it appears that although patent law istechnology-neutral in theory, it is technology-specific in application. Thedifferential application of patent standards to different industriescorrelates with a larger theoretical confusion in patent law. While mosttheorists agree on the general utilitarian framework of patent law - thatis, they agree on the goals the patent statute is intended to achieve -they have offered radically different ideas regarding how patent law shouldbe interpreted to achieve those goals. We examine the various differenttheoretical approaches to patent law. We suggest that none of thesetheories is entirely correct. Neither are they entirely wrong. We show howvarious different theories of patent law succeed in explaining theapplication of patent law to particular industries, but fail when takenoutside the narrow context of those industries.The fact that economic evidence, patent doctrine, and legal theory all varyby industry leads us to question whether patent law should explicitlyattempt to tailor protection to the needs of specific industries. We pointout a number of risks inherent in such a technology-specific approach,particularly one administered by Congress. In particular, concerns aboutrent seeking and the inability of industry-specific statutes to respond tochanging circumstances lead us to conclude that we should not jettison ournominally uniform patent system in favor of specific statutes that protectparticular industries. Nonetheless, there are other ways the law can takeaccount of the needs of different industries. We argue that it makes senseto take economic policy and industry-specific variation explicitly intoaccount in applying general patent rules to specific cases. Patent lawgives the courts substantial freedom to do this by means of flexible legalstandards we call "policy levers." We identify ten sets of policy leversthat already exist in patent law, and the ways in which they implicitly orexplicitly permit the courts to take account of different types ofinnovation in different industries. We also identify a variety of otherplaces where the statute grants the courts substantial discretion, andsuggest ways that those discretionary standards could serve as policylevers. Finally, having identified certain policy levers and the method oftheir employment, we consider the economic characteristics of innovation infive different industries that appear to be likely candidates forindustry-specific rules: chemistry, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology,semiconductors, and software. We offer concrete suggestions as to how thecourt can and should apply particular policy levers to help encourageinnovation in these very different industries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document