EU PATENT: IS THIS REALLY THE LAST MILE? JURISDICTION REPORT: THE NETHERLANDS
Michiel Rijsdijk Arnold + Siedsma
A new unitary European Union patent is supposed to be the successor of the European patent (EP). Te current EP is actually a bundle of national patents and is subject to every national law. To cover the entire EU, translation into all 34 languages is needed. It takes time to obtain an EP and there are considerable costs involved, both of which put Europe in a poor competitive position against, for example, the US. For some time we have eagerly awaited the new unitary patent: it would be not only much more effective but also cheaper. In addition, a unitary patent that applies directly to all member states is more suited to the unitary market of the EU.
Two separate categories exist: the translation regulation and the unitary patent regulation together, and the unitary patent treaty. According to the translation regulation French, German and English will be the official languages for the unitary patent, so just one translation is required. Italy and Spain challenged this legislation, and even went to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). In 2009 the possibility was created for member states to accept the translation regulation as it was and leave the dissenting parties perhaps to ‘get in later’. On March 10, 2011, an agreement was reached on the unitary patent as well, with member states choosing ‘enhanced cooperation’ as the preferred outline, under which draſt regulations would have to be composed and then polished to everyone’s satisfaction.
Agreement on the language and outline, however, has not taken Europe very far because an applicable law system has not been designated. Under the current system national courts have been assigned jurisdiction, but for the unitary patent Europe would rather establish a brand new Unified Patent Court (UPC). On March 8, 2011, the CJEU advised the member states that a UPC was not allowed under current EU law. To avoid possible invalidity of their court, the states drew up a draſt treaty that did not contravene any EU rule, merely constituting an agreement between 25 contracting parties to establish a UPC.
Te UPC will have to judge both existing EPs and unitary patents. For a transitional period of five years legal actions concerning EPs can still be brought to national courts, aſter which the fate of all patents lies within the UPC. With this court, legally qualified and technically educated judges will be appointed from all over Europe. Te UPC will consist of a ‘central’ division and local or regional divisions of the court that member states may apply to.
In all of these divisions cases are handled by three judges. Te central division will have to choose judges from a variety of countries and deliberations will be in the language in which a patent was granted, ie, English, German or French. With local divisions there will be one judge originating from the ‘home’ country and others from a general European
66 World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2012
“IT IS UNCLEAR WHO WILL BE ON THESE COMMITTEES, WHAT QUALIFICATIONS THE MEMBERS WILL HAVE AND BY WHOM THE MEMBERS OF THE ‘POOL’ WILL BE PAID.”
‘pool’ of judges; cases will be heard in the official language of the country of residence. Consent to argue cases before the UPC will be granted to lawyers who may also appear before courts in contracting member states, EP attorneys according to the European Patent Office (EPO) and those who possess a EP Litigation Certificate.
Tere are some concerns around the logistics of a ‘pool’ of judges. Problems could relate to the permanent location of judges, the extent to which the combined judges are experienced, and the languages they speak. Te appointment of these EU patent judges is to be leſt to the Advisory Committee, appointed by the Administrative Committee. It is unclear who will be on these committees, what qualifications the members will have and by whom the members of the ‘pool’ will be paid.
In addition, France, England and Germany are now squabbling over the seat of the UPC’s central division. It seems that Germany holds the best cards, having the EPO in Munich and being the largest patent filing member state. Te EU council has expressed a hope that a final agreement can be reached in June 2012 at the latest. We hope that imminent political changes do not throw a spanner into this outcome.
Michiel Rijsdijk is a partner at Arnold + Siedsma. He can be contacted at:
mrijsdijk@arnold-siedsma.com
www.worldipreview.com
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 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84