IP IN FINLAND
Presently the Market Court is dedicated to matters of marketing law, competition law and public procurement. Te specialised IP rights trial division will be established with the Market Court for the purpose.
In the future, IP disputes and invalidation cases, as well as appeals on decisions of the National Board of Patents and Registrations (NBPR), will be heard by the Market Court exclusively. Te NBPR’s Board of Appeal will be abolished. Te general district courts will continue to have competence for criminal cases.
Te Market Court will issue precautionary measures, including interlocutory injunctions, and will hear appeals against domain name decisions of the Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority regarding the granting of domain names for the .fi root.
Most IP rights cases will be overseen by three legally qualified judges, each preferably with experience in IP issues (the nomination process for new, additional judges is still pending). In patent and utility model cases, there will be a specialist engineer with a judge’s capacity and voting right on the decision. Appeals against NBPR registration decisions on patent and utility models will be considered by one legally trained judge and two specialist engineers.
Fast-track IP proceedings and increased expertise
Te overall objective is, first and foremost, to improve the efficiency of IP judicial proceedings. Administrative appeals against the NBPR’s registration or opposition decisions
and IP
infringement disputes will be handled by the same instance.
Te goal is to speed up the proceedings
and reduce expenses. However, from the IP prosecution point of view the costs may increase, as in future the prosecution appeals procedure will be significantly different to the procedure of the NBPR’s Board of Appeal.
At the Market Court, there will be a full
preparation phase in IP prosecution proceedings, including possibly also an oral preparation meeting. Where necessary, the Market Court may also conduct an oral main
www.worldipreview.com
“THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE IS TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF IP JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AGAINST THE NBPR’S REGISTRATION OR OPPOSITION DECISIONS AND IP INFRINGEMENT DISPUTES WILL BE HANDLED BY THE SAME INSTANCE.”
hearing. Witnesses and experts may be heard in the oral main hearing. Te Market Court may issue preclusion orders to the parties. Statements of reasons about decisions of the Market Court should be more comprehensive than those of the Board of Appeal.
One aim of the court reform is that civil IP rights matters will be handled by judges with a deeper IP expertise compared to the present situation where cases are decided in the general district courts. Upon introduction of
the new court
the same judges will handle disputes relating to prosecution as well as contentious IP matters. Te main desire of the legislator is that the centralisation of IP matters will ensure more uniform, predictable and good quality decisions.
Restricted possibility of appeal
Te opportunity to appeal against the decisions of the Market Court is restricted. Market Court decisions on contentious IP matters are appealed to the Supreme Court and the decisions of the court on prosecution matters are appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. Both are subject to obtaining leave to appeal.
In the future, most of the civil IP cases will be considered only by one court instance, as leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court for a very limited number of cases. In general, less than 10 percent of leave to appeal applications are accepted.
One significant consequence of the appeal restriction is that witnesses can be heard only World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2013 103
Petri Eskola trained with the Helsinki District Court between 1996 and 1997, and was admitted to the Finnish Bar in 2001. He has experience in all intellectual property matters and advises clients on all related aspects, as well as major areas of business law. Eskola joined Backström & Co in 1998, where he is now a partner.
once. Tis certainly increases the risks involved in IP litigation. Te risks of erroneous final judgments increase.
Te litigants in IP cases need to prepare the cases even more exhaustively so that all relevant, and even at first sight not so relevant, aspects are covered. In order to lessen and eliminate uncertainties that oſten relate to the witness hearings, the availability and quality of witnesses need to be outlined and assessed in a thorough manner. It must be kept in mind throughout any IP litigation process, that there will in practice be no appeal proceedings available.
A judgment of the Market Court becomes enforceable in an expedient manner and can be enforced immediately aſter the judgment, unless the Supreme Court orders a stay of the enforcement.
Whether the faster speed of proceedings and higher expertise of judges should cover the risk factors associated with the new ‘one-stop shop’- type of proceedings remains an open issue until the Market Court has demonstrated its competence to meet the objectives of the reform.
Petri Eskola is a partner at Backström & Co Ltd. He can be contacted at:
petri.eskola@
backstrom.fi
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 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168