Still Unifying? The Future of the Unified Patent Court

Since its launching, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) project has faced obstacles and scepticism from some EU Member States. When the United Kingdom ratified the UPC Agreement in 2018, it seemed that there was nothing left but to wait for a positive decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany on the ratification by that country, so that finally the UPC could start its activity. Nevertheless, 2020 brought events that make one look back and reflect on the project itself. The UK withdrew its ratification and the Federal Constitutional Court ruled the German ratification process of the UPC Agreement unconstitutional. Then two new complaints were submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court, which this summer finally gave the green light to the ratification, but it seems the UPC project has already split Europe. The question that arises is whether, in the context of last year’s events and the fracture between the states, the unitary patent system can still be seen as unifying the European patent litigation system. This article discusses the examples of Poland, Hungary and the UK, as countries that refuse to participate in the system due to its interference in their internal legal systems and sovereignty, and other examples of fractures visible in the UPC.

Financial Market Reaction to Patent Lawsuits against Integrated Circuit Design Companies

With the rapid advancement in technology, Taiwan’s integrated circuit (IC) design companies have made a mark in the international semiconductor industry but are unable to independently develop the key core technologies they need. Therefore, strategic alliances, competition and cooperation have become a means for enterprises to quickly obtain patents and capture the market. However, listed companies upstream and downstream of Taiwan’s supply chain have been facing patent infringement lawsuits in recent years. This research mainly aims to provide investors with investment strategies when companies face patent litigation, analyze the abnormal returns on the underlying stocks through the event research method, and use the cross-sectional multiple regression model to explore the changes in different factors based on the results. The empirical results show that positive abnormal returns are generated before and after a company faces patent litigation and the cumulative abnormal rewards are all positive and significant after the incident, which indicates that the company may still have an opportunity to make a profit when facing patent litigation, which can be used as a reference for investors.

Anti-suit injunctions in patent litigation

The article examines anti-suit injunctions and their use in patent disputes. The article traces back the origins of anti-suit injunctions in the United Kingdom and discusses the situations where they can be granted. Then, it examines anti-suit injunctions in patent disputes and presents a case study. The article argues that the current patent system involving essential patents should be reviewed, in order to prevent the proliferation of injunctions issued by courts in different jurisdictions aimed at keeping their ability to judge. In the article we propose a suggestion for reviewing the system.