tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4720875052682096147..comments2024-03-29T06:53:23.405+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The altar of expediencyVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79486153587592905562011-09-23T11:37:10.739+01:002011-09-23T11:37:10.739+01:00That last anon writes as one with experience of li...That last anon writes as one with experience of litigating electronics/telecoms patents in England and Germany. Settling the ambit of a claim is a delicate issue. I wonder: how many of the judges construing such claims, around Europe today, even understand the contribution to the art made by the subject matter claimed?MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-33785811149609072652011-09-23T09:51:12.279+01:002011-09-23T09:51:12.279+01:00I am encouraged by the initiative taken by the gro...I am encouraged by the initiative taken by the group of UK lawyers (including judges), in particular their focused objections to the possibility of 'bifurcation'. Anyone who has been involved in multi-jurisdictional electronics/telecoms litigation over the past few years will be aware of how many dubious patents there are in these fields, and how the German system allows these patents to be used to threaten productive businesses without any danger of losing the patent. <br /><br />A politically-expedient compromise to the current bifurcation dispute would be to allow courts to bifurcate validity and infringement only where the parties agree. This allows the courts to 'maintain flexibility', which was the euphimistic terminology used when the draft Unified Patent Court Agreement (or whatever it was called initially) was first published in 2009, but a properly advised defendant would rarely agree to the issues being bifurcated.<br /><br />Something that is not covered in the UK group's submissions is the lack of harmonisation of infringement laws across the EU. Although the proposed Unitary Patent Regulation or the Agreement itself may contain infringement provisions which are closely based on the old CPC, and which have largely been implemented into EU Member State national laws, the approach taken to construction of claims and determining the scope of claims differs markedly across Europe. For example, the UK approach to claim construction exmplified in Amgen v TKT is very different to the doctrine of equivalents adopted by the German courts. These different approaches can be very significant in practice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52368831241459193862011-09-22T21:59:50.145+01:002011-09-22T21:59:50.145+01:00I Just don't understand why “the EU is no long...I Just don't understand why <i>“the EU is no longer a party to the Agreement is a consequence of the recent ECJ decision”</i>. I have read quite the opposite in ECJ Opinion of March 8th.<br /><br />Actually I doubt that an MS-only agreement without EU is compliant with EU Treaties. The Concerns of Principles seems to share this doubt by asking (p. 8) “a specific permission in the implementing Regulation [on the unitary patent] for Member States to enter into the Agreement”.Gibushttps://www.unitary-patent.eunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77839534459711366862011-09-22T13:51:55.788+01:002011-09-22T13:51:55.788+01:00•The drafting of the Draft is none too felicitous,...<i>•The drafting of the Draft is none too felicitous, since many bits of it are in need of clarification. The sub-group's marked-up copy testifies to this, since it bears over 100 corrections or amendments: a sure indication of the fact that there is still a lot to do.</i><br /><br />Some of those modifications are slightly self-serving, aren't they? In particular those made to Art. 28 seem clearly designed in favour of CIPA members...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com