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.

Delayed Again? The Benelux Alternative to the UPC

What news have we heard from the Unified Patent Court (UPC) lately? None, other than there is yet another holdup from yet another constitutional complaint in Germany? Or, none, other than the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has by now repeatedly indicated that the model is incompatible with EU law? True: ten years into the UPC Agreement, all is still on hold and functional, and legal challenges are as unresolved as ever. But no news in this case is good news, it allows time to ponder alternatives. One alternative is actually quite obvious: the Benelux Court of Justice, which just gained significant new powers in mid-2018. This article looks at the lessons to be learned from the Benelux Court and outlines a Benelux-plus Patent Court as a legally safe alternative to the UPC.

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

The 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.

Problematyka wybranych zagadnień jednolitej ochrony patentowej

Problems related to selected issues of unitary patent protection Unitary patent protection is one of the key challenges for the European Union. The current initiatives, which – despite being just a short step away from full implementation due to legal and formal issues, such as the complex legal structure or non-legal claims concerning their negative impact on the economy and competitiveness of enterprises – still raise doubts and uncertainties. The aim of this article is to illustrate the problem of unitary patent protection on selected issues concerning the European patent with unitary effect and the Unified Patent Court. The obstacles that prevent the implementation of the Unified Patent Court are presented. Critical voices assessing the proposed model of unitary patent protection are also presented and discussed.

Government by Relational Infrastructures: The Case of the Transnational Institutionalization of the European Unified Patent Court

This chapter analyzes the transnational institutionalization of the European Unified Patent Court (created in 2013) as a case illustrating government by relationships and mobilization of relational infrastructures in joint regulation of the economy. This court, specializing in patent litigation, originated from a public-private network of corporate lawyers, national judges, and European-level technocrats as institutional (or judicial) entrepreneurs, a collegial oligarchy using their own personal social networks across borders to start negotiating a common interpretation of the European patent and to lobby for the creation of the institution. A neostructural sociological approach is then proposed to frame this example in a more general perspective on institution building. This chapter identifies specific characteristics of institutional entrepreneurs who punch above their weight in regulatory processes, in particular the importance of being part of a collegial oligarchy and having several high, heterogenous, inconsistent, and multilevel dimensions of social status combined with the right rhetorics.