From National Patent Litigation to a European Patent Court: A Dream, A Wish, or Soon, Reality?

2019 ◽  
pp. 37-50
Author(s):  
Raimund Lutz
Keyword(s):  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
National Patent

Patents for plants and genes under the European Patent Convention

1992 ◽  
Vol 99 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 141-152
Author(s):  
Noel Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
Patent Application ◽  
Plant Biotechnology ◽  
European Patent ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
National Patent ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Biotechnological Invention ◽  
Written Description ◽  
Skilled Person

SynopsisThe cost of patenting an invention should be incurred only where the patent is likely to give the inventor an economic or a tactical advantage. Where it is practicable, secrecy may be preferable to patenting. If an advantage from patenting can be envisaged, then in Western Europe the inventor can apply either for a European patent under the European Patent Convention or for a national patent. The inventor in plant biotechnology faces a ban on patenting certain inventions, including plant varieties and essentially biological processes for the production of plants. But since this ban is interpreted strictly, there are opportunities for patenting what at first glance might seem not patentable. A patent application must give a written description of the invention that is complete enough for a skilled person to reproduce it. The inventor may be required to supplement the description in a patent specification for a biotechnological invention, by depositing a sample of relevant biological materials. A European patent is treated as a national patent in the country for which it was granted. Since a patent may be invalidated in enforcement proceedings, patenting may turn out to have been a costly mistake.

Limits of the Supremacy of a European Patent Over a National Patent

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 630-634
Keyword(s):  
Case Note ◽  
European Patent ◽  
National Patent

Gemata v Bergi and others; with Case note by Giulia Schneider

Party and party’s representative

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winfried Tilmann
Keyword(s):  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
Patent Attorney

Pursuant to Art 48(1) UPCA, parties must be represented by lawyers authorized to practise before a court of a CMS. Parties may, pursuant to Art 48(2) UPCA, alternatively be represented by a European Patent Attorney who is entitled to act as a professional representative before the EPO pursuant to Art 134 EPC and who has appropriate qualifications such as a European Patent Litigation Certificate.

Rule 223 Application for suspensive effect

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilmann Büttner
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
German System ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Unlike the German system of civil procedure, the—only admissible—legal remedy in the new European patent litigation system, ie the appeal, does not prevent the enforcement and execution of the decision appealed. In that sense, the legal remedy has the effect of lifting the case into another instance but does not have the effect of staying the enforceability of the decision. Any suspensive effect needs to be applied for and ordered by the Court of Appeal.

Evaluating Patent Rights With Possible Patent Litigation

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Deng
Keyword(s):  
Patent Infringement ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
Model Simulations ◽  
Patent Value ◽  
Renewal Model ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
Patent Renewal

Abstract This paper examines how possible patent infringement and litigation may affect patent holders’ renewal decisions as well as our evaluation of underlying patent value. We utilize the renewal records of the EPO (European Patent Office) patents and estimate a stochastic patent renewal model in which patent holders face possible infringement and litigation costs. Estimation results indicate that when such possibilities exist, patent holders’ renewal behavior will change substantially, and our estimates of patent value based on a stochastic renewal model become significantly higher. Model simulations also reveal that the possible patent infringement and litigation, litigation costs, and patent renewal costs all play important roles in inventors’ patenting behavior.

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.

scholarly journals From Bielefeld to the Unified Patent Court – A Never-Ending Story?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolf Teschemacher ◽  
Tilman Müller-Stoy
Keyword(s):  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
Law Firm ◽  
Max Planck ◽  
Senior Consultant ◽  
Unified Patent Court ◽  
The Law

AbstractThe authors have known Jochen Pagenberg from different perspectives: Tilman Müller-Stoy for almost 20 years as a partner in the law firm bearing Jochen’s name; Rudolf Teschemacher since the start of Jochen’s and his own career when both got in touch with IP at the Max Planck Institute in the early 1970s and later on for more than 15 years as a senior consultant at Bardehle Pagenberg. Thus, they paint a colourful picture, in particular throwing a glance at a leitmotiv of his work: European patent litigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document