COURT THWARTS COMMUNITY PATENT COURT JURISDICTION REPORT: NETHERLANDS
Michiel Rijsdijk Arnold + Siedsma
Te heavily discussed arrival of the Community patent has faced a setback. Aſter years of discussion, the Council of the European Union asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg on July 6, 2009 to give an opinion on its draſt agreement regarding a court for the European and Community patent. Te ECJ had to decide whether this common system for settling patent disputes is compatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty.
On March 3, 2011, the European court gave its negative opinion. According to the draſt of the agreement between the European Union, EU member states and third countries, a central court would be introduced in Europe, which would have exclusive jurisdiction for disputes regarding European patents as well as the proposed Community patents.
Te court set out that European law is characterised by a judicial system in which the national and European courts closely collaborate in the interpretation of the European legislation. According to the draſt agreement, the European Patent Court is not only charged with the interpretation of this new treaty but also with EU legislation on intellectual property rights. Te draſt agreement provides for the European Patent Court alone to be able to request preliminary rulings on all aspects of EU and Community patent law from the European Court of Justice. According to the European Court’s opinion, this provision is too far-reaching a limitation of the national courts’ ability to pose questions to the Court of Justice. Terefore, the Luxembourg judges consider the introduction of such a court incompatible with European law.
Te court’s view is defensible, but it is regrettable that it did not consider the characteristics of patent law sufficiently. Both the Netherlands and other EU member states have introduced separate patent chambers, centralising patent case law, precisely because patent law is so specialised. Tis concentration of knowledge gives added value to the idea of a European Patent Court. Te fact that the draſt agreement would prevent the national courts requesting a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice does not automatically mean that the proposed European Patent Court system is incompatible with European law. Tis concentration of specialised knowledge in the field of patent law could prevent the Court of Justice being flooded with questions for preliminary rulings. In the scenario as proposed in the international agreement, the EJC would only receive the most difficult questions regarding the essence of the harmonisation in the field of patent disputes of the European Union. In view of the duration of procedures before the Court of Justice, this would not be a wrong choice, and would hopefully lead to a more efficient legal system as regards patent disputes.
54 World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2011
“ ACCORDING TO THE DRAFT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION, EU MEMBER STATES AND THIRD COUNTRIES, A CENTRAL COURT WOULD BE INTRODUCED IN EUROPE, WHICH WOULD HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION FOR DISPUTES REGARDING EUROPEAN PATENTS AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY PATENTS.”
At this moment, it is unclear what the consequences of this opinion are for the Community patent and the proposed patent court. Hopefully, the prospect of a Community patent will not disappear in Brussels bureaucracy.
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