Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/219812485/MPI-IP-Twelve-Reasons-2012-10-17
Timestamp: 2018-10-18 17:24:16
Document Index: 129620645

Matched Legal Cases: ['sui generis', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 58', 'Art. 14', 'de lege ferenda', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 138', 'Art. 10']

MPI IP Twelve Reasons 2012-10-17 | Patent | European Court Of Justice
An Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe 07 08
Top Ten Legal Mistakes Made by Entrepreneurs - HBS Working Knowledge
Indian Patents Act and Its Relation to Technological Development in India
Patent - 2 Maguan vs CA
Bans on the Use of Genetically Modified Organisms
10 Mistakes Entrepreneurs Do
Computer Software Protection v. Microsoft
The proposed Unitary Patent Package currently under discussion consists of (see Annex 1) - a Regulation on the European patent with unitary effect (unitary patent, UP Regulation);1 - an Agreement on a Unified Patent Court for litigation on infringements and revocation of European and unitary patents (UPCt Agreement).2 This package stands in a long tradition of proposals for patent reform in Europe. However, compared to previous approaches, the current one represents a significant step back in terms of patent law quality and legal viability. Moreover, it misses the opportunity to modernize Europe’s system of patent protection. Our main observations are grouped under three main headings: Complexity of the regime, imbalances in the system, and lack of legal certainty for investments in innovation.3 I. The unitary patent package adds to complexity
1. Fragmentation of patent protection in the EU. Instead of consolidating patent law in Europe, the Unitary Patent Package would add to its fragmentation on both the territorial and substantive level. a. Territorial fragmentation: The unitary patent would not cover the full territory of the Internal Market. It is restricted to EU Member States participating in enhanced cooperation. In addition, it will become operable only for those Member States which ratify the UPCt Agreement. Thirteen ratifications are required. Accordingly, not all 25 signatory States need to ratify and it is even unlikely that all will do so in the foreseeable future. From the EU perspective, this fragments the Internal Market and runs counter to the cohesion objective. From the perspective of patent holders, the lack of patent protection in major European markets (at least Italy and Spain) jeopardizes innovation there. Thus, the unitary patent would need to be flanked by national patents. b. Substantive fragmentation: The Unitary Patent Package would create four overlapping levels of patent protection in Europe (see Annex 2; not counting utility model protection): (1) national patents granted nationally; (2) national patents granted by the EPO (European patents) within the system of the UPCt Agreement; (3) national patents granted by the EPO, but without subjection to the UPCt (due to transitional opt-out, non-ratification by Member States, or for non-EU States); (4) European patents with unitary effect. According to the principle of optionality, all systems would coexist alongside each other.
Directors: Prof. Dr. Reto M. Hilty (Management); Prof. Dr. Josef Drexl Marstallplatz 1, 80539 München, Phone +49 89 24246-0, Fax +49 89 24246-501, institut@ip.mpg.de, www.ip.mpg.de
The Agreement simply adds an additional enforcement layer alongside the pre-existing. as contained in all previous proposals (transfer of right. for example.de 2/5 . (2) the ECJ in respect of preliminary references from the UPCt regarding infringements of unitary patents. the UP Regulation misses an opportunity to provide for a minimum of uniformity and transparency for market actors. Under each of these alleys. instead of creating uniformity. Instead.Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law 2. A patent grants a right of exclusivity. Fragmentation in the rules applicable to the unitary patent.mpg. This means that to a given unitary patent only one national law would apply throughout the territories of enhanced cooperation. Fragmentation of jurisprudence. institut@ip. date of third-party effects of patent transactions). erga omnes effect of restrictive contractual licensing. (5) national courts or administrative bodies in proceedings regarding nationally granted patents.mpg. Therefore. albeit not complete set of rules on infringement and on its exceptions. Prof. 80539 München. www. Directors: Prof. II. Arts. 10 of the UP Regulation provides for the exclusive application of national law. and different layers of substantive rules applied (see Annex 2). Reto M. similar principles of patent law might be elaborated differently. are missing. The fragmentation on the level of the substantive law is mirrored by a proliferation of courts which would be competent to interpret and apply patent law in Europe under the proposed court system (see Annex 3). as regards the unitary patent as an object of property. 3. treatment in execution and insolvency. Basic rules. Fax +49 89 24246-501. 6 to 8 of the UP Regulation provide for a broad. The unitary patent package is unbalanced 4. (3) national courts of EU Member States not ratifying the UPCt Agreement or not participating in enhanced cooperation and those of all non-EU EPO Contracting States regarding infringements and validity of national and European patents. The substantive rules laid down in the UP Regulation respond in no way to the modern challenges to patent law. Insufficient exceptions and limitations. rights in rem. a multiplicity of national laws would apply. This serves to protect against infringers. Josef Drexl Marstallplatz 1. it may also serve as an asset. Dr. Jurisdictional competences would lie with (1) the UPCt in respect of infringements and validity of European and unitary patents for those Member States which have ratified the UPCt Agreement. Unlike. By contrast.ip.de. the Regulation does not address issues such as a general research exception or compulsory licenses for biotechnological research tools. Phone +49 89 24246-0. The UPCt Agreement does not provide for any method of consolidation. While some reference to national law is inevitable as a matter of implementing the property rules of patents. Dr. the UP Regulation contains only a very truncated set of rules. (4) the EPO’s Boards of Appeal in administrative appeals for European patents. Belgian law or the recently reformed Swiss Patent Act. Yet it also means that different national laws would apply to different unitary patents. Hilty (Management). Art.
ip. questionable effects of the compromise on bifurcation. which provides for the application of one national law to the unitary patent as an object of property (see reason 2. The design of the UPCt (see Annex 3) is dysfunctional. etc. 80539 München. etc. language regime. predominantly national composition of the bench in large decentralized divisions. This would bring the overall system of protection out of balance and may stifle broader innovation. Reto M.de. 10(3) of the Regulation. reserved competences of the central division. Hilty (Management). territorial jurisdiction limited to EU Member States. Dr. The UP Regulation no longer contains rules on prior user rights and on compulsory licenses for enabling the use of dependent improvement inventions or in the public interest. 6. institut@ip. (3) imbalances in the organization of the UPCt (e. etc.g.Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law 5. Absence of countervailing rights.mpg. This would hamper the UPCt’s effectiveness. According to Art. Inherent ineffectiveness of the Unified Patent Court. 7. namely to German law.g. For instance. Discriminatory effects. Fax +49 89 24246-501. In broad terms. The insufficiency of exceptions and limitations as well as the absence of countervailing rights in the UP Regulation render the unitary patent prone to “opportunistic” behaviour. (2) imbalances in the division of jurisdiction among the first instance divisions (e.).). 8. Directors: Prof. 10 of the UP Regulation. fail to establish a fair balance in the rights and remedies available to patent holders and third parties respectively. and open the system to continued forum shopping by plaintiffs. www.). Prior user rights are not available at all. entails discriminatory effects. Dr. if at all (see reason 11). Prof. patent applicants established in one of the participating States will benefit from the application of their domestic law. differing judicial review for European and unitary patents. All of this would likely impair the development of a homogeneous body of patent law in Europe. Risk of dysfunctional patent practices. Art. the unavailability of Union-wide compulsory licenses at uniform conditions places third parties seeking access to patented technology at a significant disadvantage compared to the improved possibility of the unitary patent holder to enforce the patent right before one single court. these flaws can be subdivided into three groups: (1) imbalances in the scope of jurisdiction (e. In addition. This perpetuates and entrenches anti-innovative effects in patent protection. Compulsory licenses are assumed to be available under national law only. patent applicants may tend to seek protection for key aspects of a technology by unitary patents while selectively relying on national patent protection for other components of the technology. Josef Drexl Marstallplatz 1. the application of 25 Member States’ divergent standards jeopardizes the unitary effect. no jurisdiction for compulsory licenses. However.de 3/5 .mpg. patents which have been applied for by firms without a residence or place of business in one of the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation. will be subject to a foreign law. also Annex 2).g. Phone +49 89 24246-0. By contrast.
a. A similar issue arises regarding the relationship between Art. b. Reto M. the unitary effect seems to be attached to a European patent only as an accessory feature. Uncertain implications of the unitary effect. Art. Examples include the reach of EU law primacy vis-à-vis the EPC or the role of national law vis-àvis the UP Regulation. In this regard. The shift from a unitary and autonomous EU patent right to the hitherto unknown.mpg. the provision envisages the establishment of a regime of protection which derives its substance from EU law. property) must be such as to enable the ECJ to exercise its judicial review.Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law III. only EU law can guarantee an autonomous and supranational character and a complete and coherent system of legal protection for individuals. 118(1) TFEU. as is currently discussed as a compromise formula. Incorrect legal basis for the unitary patent.ip. Phone +49 89 24246-0. The cross effects between these layers are unclear. The complexity would even be reinforced should the substance of protection become hidden behind a system of legal referrals replacing Arts. but disclaims EU law quality for its central features (see reason 9.mpg. 118(1) TFEU provides a legislative basis for the “creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection of intellectual property rights throughout the Union”. This approach is not covered by the scope and purpose of Art.a). 10. the procedures and procedural safeguards provided for in the Treaties would be side-stepped and the principle of institutional balance compromised. There is no legislative discretion as to what aspects of the unitary patent may be regulated in the UPCt Agreement vis-à-vis the UP Regulation. institut@ip. www. 80539 München. This is even more necessary since the unitary patent forms part of the rules governing the functioning of the Internal Market. Legal nature of the unitary patent. Prof. Under the proposal. b. Evasion of the EU legislative process. Directors: Prof. This obscures the legal character of the unitary patent (international law. recourse must be had to legal bases where they are provided for in EU law. Accordingly. Mismatch with the legal basis. Dr. This concerns in particular the definition of the scope of exclusivity. 114 TFEU and the rules on infringement of the European patent in the UPCt Agreement. hybrid creature of a “European patent with unitary effect” casts doubts on the legal quality of the patent protection thereby afforded. the terms of the individual right granted under the UP Regulation (patentability. However. Otherwise. Under the consistent jurisprudence of the ECJ.de. Multi-layered legal structure. 6 to 8 of the UP Regulation. exclusivity. Dr. a. At the very least. Fax +49 89 24246-501. Josef Drexl Marstallplatz 1. The UP Regulation claims EU origin for the unitary patent. The unitary patent package lacks legal certainty 9. The European patent with unitary effect is split into different layers of international law. The Unitary Patent Package falls short of this.de 4/5 . Hilty (Management). EU law and national law. EU law or a new sui generis right?). the unitary effect concerns the substance of the right of exclusivity.
ip. Second. October 17. Josef Drexl Marstallplatz 1. it is questionable whether national judicial or administrative authorities might grant national compulsory licenses in respect of the unitary patent. 14750/12 of 12 October 2012. 12. the UPCt’s jurisdiction is not limited to preliminary references and that the UPCt is fully detached from the national legal systems (in fact replacing them). Contrary to recital 9a of the UP Regulation. Hilty Thomas Jaeger Matthias Lamping Hanns Ullrich 1 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection. should the matter be one of shared competences at all. unlike that of the Benelux Court. Directors: Prof. Persisting incompatibility of the Unified Patent Court with EU law. we do not possess the relevant data nor do they seem to have been established sufficiently yet. 2012 Reto M. notwithstanding the advanced political process. 3 We do not address issues of fees or costs. 80539 München. Fax +49 89 24246-501.de 5/5 . Exclusion of compulsory licenses through EU law primacy. there is no competence left for Member States under Arts. The UPCt Agreement does not adequately address the concerns voiced by the ECJ in its Opinion 1/09 in terms of the EU law compatibility of the preceding court model. under the principles established by consistent jurisprudence of the ECJ. Finally.de. However important. national authorities cannot invalidate or detract from acts of EU law and may defer their enforcement under very limited conditions only. Hilty (Management). thus running against free trade rules. In sum.Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law 11. 2(2) and 4 TFEU. as amended by Council doc. Reto M. Suffice it to mention that. thereby infringing the EU law principles of rule of law and of completeness of the system of judicial review. Prof. we believe it is indispensable to reconsider the content of the Unitary Patent Package afresh. www. The UP Regulation does not provide for any such exception. 2 Draft agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute. 17578/11 of 1 December 2011. its features significantly differ. Dr. institut@ip. Phone +49 89 24246-0. Council doc.mpg. Although the UPCt is based on the example of the Benelux Court of Justice. any granting of national compulsory licenses would quash the unitary effect. In addition.mpg. Dr. COM(2011) 215 final of 13 April 2011. First. the issue of ECJ review of EPO decisions is not addressed in the proposal at all.
Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Annex # 1: Major Documents in Chronological Order Year 1973 Substantive law proposals European Patent Convention (Convention on the Grant of European Patents (EPC). no EPO appeals or national preliminary references exclusive jurisdiction instead of national courts . 257 TFEU). 15 Dec. 711904. 1) (not in force)  Common Appeal Court (incl. no EPO appeals. 15086/03. litigation protocol)  competent for Community patents only  preliminary references ex national courts and direct appeals against EPO decisions  national courts remain involved 1992 2000 Failure of Lisbon conference aimed at lowering the ratification threshold for the entry into force of the Community Patent Convention (originally envisaged for Dec. 17 Oct. Council Doc. No. 2000) (in force since 2008)  no translation of European patents for States which have an official language in common with the EPO languages  other States may require translation of claims into their official language 2003 / 2004 Amendments to Community Patent Regulation (Council Doc. 8 March 2004) (not in force)    EPO administration unitary and autonomous Community patent granted by the EPO comprehensive set of rules on substantive patent law Court Proposal 2003 (Proposal for a Council Decision conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Justice in disputes relating to the Community patent. 1) (not in force)     nat'l courts and ECJ (today’s EU trademark enforcement system) competent for Community patents only preliminary references national courts remain involved Court system proposals 1st Community Patent Convention (Convention for the European Patent for the Common Market. 1)) (not in force)  EPO special unit administration  unitary and autonomous Community patent granted by the EPO 2nd Community Patent Convention (Agreement relating to Community patents. 278) (not in force)  Community Intellectual Property Court  competent for Community patents only  full infringement and revocation jurisdiction. 1973) (in force since 1977)   1975 pre-grant and administrative procedures only selective harmonization of post-grant nat 'l patent law 1st Community Patent Convention (1976 OJ L 17. and Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the Community Patent Court and concerning appeals before the Court of First Instance. competent for Community patents only infringement and revocation. 1991) Community Patent Regulation (Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent (2000 OJ C 337E . COM(2003)828 final) (not in force)     Community Patent Court classic EU court (Art. 15 Dec. no ECJ or national court preliminary references  exclusive jurisdiction instead of national courts London Agreement (Agreement on the application of Article 65 EPC. 278)) (not in force)    EPO administration unitary and autonomous Community patent granted by the EPO comprehensive set of rules on substantive patent law Community Patent Regulation (2000 OJ C 337E. 1975 (1976 OJ L 17. COM(2003)827 final. 5 Oct. 1989 (1989 OJ L 401. 1)) (not in force)   largely restatement of 1st Community Patent Convention new language regime 1989 2nd Community Patent Convention (1989 OJ L 401.
no EPO appeals. as last amended by the Parliament in A7-0001/2012 of 28 June 2012). latest Council Doc. limited ECJ preliminary references exclusive jurisdiction instead of nat'l courts EEUPCT (Draft Agreement on the European Community and Patents Court and Draft Statute) (not in force)  Community and European patents combined.Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law 2003 / 2005 EPLA (Draft Agreement on the establishment of a European patent litigation system) (not in force)      2009 Community Patent Regulation – General Approach (Council Doc. and Proposal for Council Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements (COM(2011) 216 final))  EPO administration  European patents with an identical scope of protection for the participating EU states transformed into European patent with unitary effect post grant  only 25 participating EU states (not Italy and Spain)  uncertain legal quality: unitary character. but not autonomous? . Proposal for a Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (COM(2011) 215 final. COM(2010) 350 final)   patent published in one EPO official language plus translations of the claims into the other two EPO official languages further translations only in the case of court proceedings ECJ Opinion 1/09 on EEUPCT Agreement  incompatibility with EU law  shift to BENELUX-type Court Unified Patent Court (Draft Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute (Council Doc. 16113/09) (not in force)  political breakthrough  largely restatement of 2004 proposal EPO / EPO Member State initiative European Patent Court of Appeal European patents only two instance court. 16741/11. no EPO appeals. no EPO appeals. participation extended to all EPO states  two instance court. 14268/12 of 27 Sep. 2012))  EU and European patents combined. full infringement and revocation jurisdiction. full infringement and revocation jurisdiction. limited ECJ preliminary references  exclusive jurisdiction instead of national courts 2011 Failure of negotiations over language arrangements  persisting opposition by Spain and Italy  recourse to enhanced cooperation Unitary Patent Regulation (Council Decision authorizing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU). limited ECJ preliminary references  exclusive jurisdiction instead of national courts 2010 Regulation on Translation Arrangements (Proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent. but only for EU Member States  two instance court. full infringement and revocation jurisdiction.
only one EPC state may be designated in an application. . 138 EPC5 EPC Art.” Court Agreem’t applies only where minimum threshold of 13 ratifications is reached (Art. 6 and 7 Patent Reg. 138 EPC5 EPC EU law Nat’l law Nat’l territories Nat’l Nat’l Nat’l Nat’l / conflicts law Nat’l Nat’l Nat’l EPO EPC UPCt Art. or does it imply an opt-out from all provisions of the Court Agreement? I.e. to contract or int’l private law Property aspects Law applicable to Securities Nat’l Execution Authority Applicable law Nat’l / conflicts law Compulsory licenses2 Territory Authority Applicable law Nat’l Nat‘l patents (1 state) Nat’l Nat’l Nat’l law Nat’l law Nat’l law Nat’l law EU law Nat’l law Nat’l territory Nat’l Nat’l Nat’l EPC3 (38 states) EPO EPC Nat’l Art. 58 (3) 2011 Court Agreement: “… holders of European patents or patent applications granted or applied for prior to the date of entry into force […] shall have the possibility to opt-out from the exclusive competence of the Court. 14 et seq.) 11 Territories of the enhanced coop. + Court Agreem’t 9 (13 to 27 states)10 Benchmark Internal Market (27 states) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 EPO EPC UPCt Art. 14h and 14i Court Agreem’t?1. 10 Patent Reg. 59 (1) 2011 Court Agreement). 14f and 14g Court Agreem’t?8 Art. but even after entry into force. Beyond patent statute: Choice of law applies. 14h and 14i Court Agreem’t 1 Art. Art. but such harmonization appears beneficial de lege ferenda. 138 EPC5 EPC Art. One nat’l regime per patent (law of the Member State of the patent holder or German law). not for unitary patents.8 EU law Nat’l law Nat’l territories Nat’l Nat’l Nat’l Nat’l / conflicts law Nat’l Nat’l Nat’l EPO EPC Nat’l Art. gvt.) intact. Incl. Directly applicable or applicable upon transformation into nat’l / EU law. Art.)11 Nat’l Nat’l / conflicts law Nat’l Nat’l Nat’l EPO EPC UPCt Art. 8 Patent Reg. in an enhanced cooperation setting.1 EU law One nat’l regime (Art. Cf. to contract or int’l private law Acc.Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Annex # 2: Table on Regime Fragmentation Patent grant Authority Legal basis Nat’l Revocation Authority Legal basis Scope of claims Scope of exclusivity Exceptions Exceptions in general Exhaustion Transfer of right substantive territorial Licensing Patent law Nat’l Contract law Acc. Black = other / not applicable. 14f and 14g Court Agreem’t Art. 10 Patent Reg. states remaining outside the enhanced cooperation (ES + IT) and while transitional period applies according to Art. 138 EPC5 EPC EU law EU law EU law EU law EU law EU12 Nat’l EU conflicts rule EU UPCt EU law Colors indicate which of 4 regimes is applicable: Nat’l (red) / EPO (green) / EU (purple) / Unitary patent package (brown). Patent Reg. to contract or int’l private law Acc. to contract or int’l private law Acc. EPC applies to non-EU states. but only where minimum threshold of 13 ratifications is reached (Art. 10 Patent Reg. Prior user right currently foreseen for European patents only. Does an opt-out under Art. (13 to 25 states) EU-wide One nat’l regime (Art. leaving the other parts of the Court Agreement (in particular Art. and Court Agreem’t apply as a package. 58 (1) 2011 Court Agreement. Governs the patent statute only. use. 58 (3) 2011 Court Agreement only relate to the exclusive competence of the Court. to contract or int’l private law One nat’l regime (Art. IP contract law is currently not harmonized on the EU level. 138 EPC5 EPC Nat’l law Nat’l law EU law Nat’l law Nat’l territories Nat’l Nat’l Nat’l Nat’l / conflicts law Nat’l Nat’l Nat’l EPC + Court Agreem‘t (1 to 27 states)4 EPC + Court Agreem‘t (with optout) 6 (1 to 27 states)7 EPC + Patent Reg. Even EU Member States not part of the enhanced cooperation for the creation of the Unitary patent may participate in the Court Agreement in relation to European patents.)11 EU Acc. 59 (1) 2011 Court Agreement).
three legally and two technically .e.all questions of interpretation and application of EU law1 .last resort . …) . revocation actions . non-infringement. licensing dispute etc.majority for nat'l judges in large local divisions .i.multinat'l composition . from first and second instances of the UPCt prel. compensation for licenses Unified Patent Court first instance.no consolidation of patent jurisprudence with any of the other systems .infringement and counterclaims for revocation. on questions of EU law EPO Boards of Appeal internal administrative appeal. essentially against refusals to grant and invalidations consolidation of jurisprudence? appeals prel. revocation.damages claims for breach of EU law against UPJ Nat 'l courts of non-participating states … for European patents .no change to nat'l patent jurisdiction .preliminary reference qualified judges requirement . 267 TFEU proper . in particular all EPO third-states .Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Annex # 3: Court System Illustration appeals EPO administration grant of European patents and European patents with unitary effect (unitary patents) Unified Patent Court first instance. damages.no actions for revocation and isolated declaration of non-infringement. provisional measures.application of Art. general principles of EU law or fundamental rights.most property aspects (transfer of right. licensing. regional and local divisions .i. patents as securities.e. use) . central division .multinat'l composition . execution. (insofar as available) rights based on prior use. ref.no improvement in cross-border patent enforcement appeals Four separate jurisdictional systems for patents in Europe: System 1: EPO System 2: UPCt for European patents System 3: UPCt + ECJ + nat'l courts for EU patents System 4: nonparticipating nat'l courts for European patents 1. Questions of EU law = any question relating to the interpretation or application of primary or secondary EU legislation.applicability of acte clair / acte éclairé exceptions? ECJ . irrespective of the type of proceedings (infringement. on questions of EU law Nat'l courts of the participating EU Member States . compulsory licenses and gvt. ref. optional reference to central division for revocation counterclaims Unified Patent Court appeals instance … for unitary patents: .
Documents Similar To MPI IP Twelve Reasons 2012-10-17
mugurflorea