PATENTS IN EUROPE
discussed in the European Commission, costs will go down to about €5,000 ($7,000) for all fees up to the grant of the patent, including the translation of the patent text into two of the other official languages of the EPO.
Court proceedings
Te European Patent Organisation is not an EU agency and is not bound legally by the EU. Te task of the European Patent Organisation is to grant European patents, which are carried out by the EPO.
Because European patents issued by the EPO are treated as domestic patents in member states, only the courts of the individual countries have the authority to enforce the rights of the patent holder.
Te EPO has no authority to hear infringement actions or enforce a patent holder’s rights in any country. Tis, in turn, means that a patent owner currently needs to commence infringement proceedings in the courts of all 28 member states. Tis has led to duplication in litigation, and an unnecessary waste of money and time. Needless to say, patent owners, due to the costs involved, have chosen strategically the countries in which to file for infringement. In reality, the huge costs and the strategies they are forced to follow have made them give up the rights they have paid for.
Looking ahead, however, patent owners enjoy the benefits of
will the UPC and the single
infringement action the single EU right of the Unitary Patent offers.
UPC advantages
With the current system, the applicant has to validate in each and every desired member state, out of the 38 contracting, in order to receive protection.
A mere look at the costs an applicant may face— €36,000 ($50,000)—is enough to understand that this is a factor that prevents many applicants from protecting their rights. Certainly, not all applicants are multinationals with the deep pockets needed to apply and go through this validation process. Tese high costs might put innovation on hold and harm competitiveness.
It is also my belief that these costs are extra and unnecessary. I consider them unnecessary as the majority of them are linked to the validation process, with fees now necessary for translation, local patent offices and agents.
In the future, aſter the grant of the European patent, there will be no translation requirement for Unitary Patents once the necessary transitional period passes. Tis will automatically cause the fees to drop. Specifically, and as
www.worldipreview.com
To examine the exact structure of the UPC is outside the scope of this article but here is a summary of the new system’s advantages:
• Lower costs (it’s quicker, with no need for translations aſter the transitional period and no need for validation in each member state);
• Uniformity (on being granted by the EPO, a Unitary Patent will automatically be valid for all participating EU states);
• Centralised administration; • It’s easier and quicker; and • Te new patent
Unitary Patent
Ermioni Pavlidou is head of the IP department at Michael Kyprianou & Co LLC. She can be contacted at:
ermioni@kyprianou.com.cy
“THE NEW PATENT SYSTEM WILL COMPRISE THE UNITARY PATENT AND A SINGLE JURISDICTION, AVOIDING MULTIPLE COURT CASES ON THE SAME PATENT IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.”
• It remains to be seen whether the new system turns out to be a risky option that exposes patent holders to the threat of litigation and nullification of patent
rights across all of Europe in one court procedure.
Conclusion Let’s hope that this new system will help towards the promotion of innovation as well as the proper (full and effective) protection of
inventors’
rights. Tere certainly appear to be significant advantages but we will know more only when it is finally implemented.
system will comprise the and a single jurisdiction,
avoiding multiple court cases on the same patent in different countries.
However, the new system will have disadvantages too:
• It has not yet been implemented and thus remains untested; and
Ermioni Pavlidou obtained an LLB from the University of Central Lancashire, UK, and an LLM in criminal litigation from City University, London. She specialises in IP law and is a member of the Cyprus Bar Association.
World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2014 105
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 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172