NEWS
Court of Justice blocks unifi ed European patent court
divesting the ordinary courts of the member states of their obligation to apply EU laws and refer questions to the Court of Justice. T e proposed regime therefore wouldn’t be under the Court of Justice’s ultimate control.”
T ere may be objections to a European patent court under the Court of Justice’s control.
Bennett said: “T ere is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that the Court of Justice is trying to protect its workload, its power and its infl uence. T e problem may be that, in simplistic terms, many of the laws that the Court of Justice considers are ‘home-grown’ European laws to do with issues that have been generated by the creation of the EU, whereas patent rights are an existing, well-developed body of law, the bulk of which is only tangentially related, if at all, to core EU concerns.”
T e Court of Justice for the European Union has found the proposed European and European Union Patent Court (EEUPC) to be incompatible with EU treaties because it would deprive national courts of their right to request preliminary rulings on patent disputes from Europe’s highest court.
T e Court of Justice released its opinion on the compatibility of the draſt agreement on the EEUPC with EU treaties on March 8, agreeing with the conclusion of Advocate General Kokott’s earlier draſt opinion.
T e draſt agreement to establish the European patent court would be an international treaty and so outside of the institutional and judicial framework of the EU if it came into eff ect.
It would have given the EEUPC exclusive jurisdiction to hear actions concerning the proposed Europe-wide EU patent, as well as actions concerning the present European patent. T e Court of Justice based its decision on the EEUPC’s jurisdiction over the proposed European-wide patent.
T e Court of Justice said: “[T e patent court] becomes, in the fi eld of its exclusive jurisdiction, the sole court able to communicate with the [Court of Justice]...[T is] would deprive courts
www.worldipreview.com
of Member States of their powers in relation to the interpretation and application of European Union law and the Court of its powers to reply, by preliminary ruling, to questions referred by those courts...”
It added: “[C]onsequently, [this] would alter the essential character of the powers which the Treaties confer on the institutions of the European Union and on the Member States and which are indispensable to the preservation of the very nature of European Union law.”
T e Council of the EU requested the opinion of the Court of Justice in 2009 under Article 218(11) (called Article 300(6) at the time) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Claire Bennett, a specialist senior lawyer in DLA Piper LLP’s intellectual property and technology group, said that EU member states can set up bodies, such as the Benelux court system, within the EU by international treaty that have a duty to interpret the law within their remit in accordance with EU laws.
She said: “But the key to understanding the Court of Justice’s decision here is the duty to apply EU laws. T e member states intended to give exclusive jurisdiction to this body that would not be within the judicial framework of the EU,
“T e general consensus is that specialist courts with proven expertise in patent matters are very important, and it is those national courts that have specialist patent expertise and see the most activity. T e Court of Justice doesn’t have this expertise and so an EU patent litigation system which has the Court of Justice overseeing it does not engender confi dence and so will not be acceptable to industry.”
T e Council of the EU has given its approval for the 25 of the 27 EU member states that wish to use enhanced co-operation to create a unitary patent in Europe to do so, it announced on March 10, notwithstanding the Court of Justice’s opinion of the court system intended to enforce it.
Spain and Italy have not given their support to the use of enhanced co-operation at this stage.
Alasdair Poore, a partner at Mills & Reeve LLP and president of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, said: “[T e Court of Justice’s decision] creates a major headache: will businesses be interested in using a single Europe-wide patent if there is not a single well-respected court in which to enforce the patent?”
“[T e decision] seems to undermine totally the proposals for a unitary EU patent, and with it the aspiration to create a level playing fi eld with the US. T e work will now be on to see whether something can be resurrected from the ashes.”
World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2011 7
©
iStockphoto.com / FrankyDeMeyer
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76