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

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 630-634

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


Author(s):  
Noel Byrne

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.



2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-191
Author(s):  
Zuzana Potužáková ◽  
Jan Öhm

Abstract In addition to internationalization and growing volumes of international trade in goods, the importance of expenditure on research and development (R&D) has grown significantly. National patent protection has become rather insufficient with increased international trade in goods, which has resulted in the importance of the international patent protection. The main aim of the article is to analyse the relation between R&D investment and the number of patent applications filed with the European Patent Office (EPO) after the year 2000, when the EU‘s Lisbon Strategy was launched. The authors have focused primarily on the differences among the EU macro-regions, which are based on the socioeconomic models. Conclusions imply that one percentage point of R&D expenditure generates roughly 100 EPO applications and the findings also show that individual macro-regions have the identical scattered data. However, dispersions in the individual groups of the EU Member States after the year 2000 differ. The EU Member States are starting to vary significantly in the intensity of R&D support also within each macro-region, thus disparities increase within the EU. Therefore, the attitude to GERD is considered to be an important factor contributing to the greater economic disparities within the EU.



2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérôme Danguy ◽  
Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie

For more than 40 years, governments and professional associations have acted, voted or lobbied against the implementation of the Community Patent (COMPAT, officially called the EU Patent). The econometric results and simulations presented in this paper suggest that, thanks to its attractiveness in terms of market size and a sound renewal fee structure, the COMPAT would drastically reduce the relative patenting costs for applicants while generating more income for the European Patent Office and most National Patent Offices. The loss of economic rents (€400 million would be lost by patent attorneys, translators and lawyers) and the drop of controlling power by national patent offices elucidate further the observed resistance to the Community Patent.



Author(s):  
Winfried Tilmann

A patent right is a right to exclude others from committing certain acts by which a protectable invention is used. For that reason, Art 3 EPUE Reg and Arts 25 and 26 UPCA highlight the right of prohibition of the patent proprietor to exclude such parties from use as the core power, central to all other powers that he holds. The other powers (claims, rights of action) of the patent proprietor (disclosure of information, correction, damages, evidentiary aids, provisional orders) are derived from an infringement of the right of prohibition (to exclude from use), and are thus subsidiary to the parent power of the right of exclusivity (right of prohibition).



2017 ◽  
pp. 7-36
Author(s):  
Helena Żakowska-Henzler

The notion of “second or further medical use” encompasses inventions whose the subject-matter is new medical use of a known product (substance). It means that the product as such, as well as its other medical use, are a part of the state-of-the-art. In our times patent protection of this kind of inventions is common but the concept and model of this protection are differentiated. They mainly depend on whether it is allowed or banned to patent medical procedures (medical methods). The article concerns the patent protection of the second medical use under European patent system, i.e. the system based on EPC and on national patent systems of the countries which are the parties to this Convention. In all these systems, patenting medical methods is banned. The aim of the article is to present the process of establishing the model of patent protection of the second medical use in these systems, and to discuss some of the main hesitations and controversies resulting from this model. They mainly concern the question of compliance of this model with the rules and concepts of patent protection which until recently seemed indisputable.The subject matter and purpose of this kind of inventions evoked also additional questions and problems. In particular, the discrepancy between the patent protection of these inventions and the system of reimbursement of pharmaceuticals, which is common in the countries-EPC parties, is clearly visible. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the apparent difficulties in protecting such patents illustrate the negative consequences of treating legal instruments as tools for achieving specific objectives, but operating in a legal and economic vacuum.



2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 273-289
Author(s):  
Anmari Meerkotter

The Constitutional Court (CC) judgment of Lee v Minister of Correction Services 2013 2SA 144 (CC) is a recent contribution to transformative constitutional jurisprudence in the field of the law of delict. This matter turned on the issue of factual causation in the context of wrongful and negligent systemic omissions by the state. In this case note, I explore the law relating to this element of delictual liability with specific regard to the traditional test for factual causation – the conditio sine qua non (‘but-for’) test. In particular, I note the problems occasioned by formalistic adherence to this test in the context of systemic state omissions as evidenced by the SCA judgment in the same matter. I also consider the manner in which English courts have addressed this problem. Thereafter, I analyse the CC’s broader approach to the determination of factual causation as one based on common sense and justice. I argue that this approach endorses a break from a formalistic application of the test and constitutes a step towards an approach which resonates with the foundational constitutional values of freedom, dignity and equality. Furthermore, it presents an appropriate solution to the problems associated with factual causation where systemic omissions are concerned. I then consider the transformative impact of the Lee judgment. In particular, I argue that the broader enquiry favoured by the CC facilitates the realisation of constitutionally guaranteed state accountability, and amounts to an extension of the existing norm of accountability jurisprudence. Hence, I contend that the judgment presents a further effort by the Constitutional Court to effect wholesale the constitutionalisation of the law of delict, as well as a vindicatory tool to be used by litigants who have been adversely affected by systemic state omissions.



2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 240-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatima Osman
Keyword(s):  


10.37078/531 ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document