The Patinnova '03 conference, jointly sponsored by the European Commission and the European Patent Office, brought 680 participants to Luxembourg's Hémisphère this week. A wide range of patent-related interests was represented: innovators and innovation managers, patent administrators and policy makers, patent information and search providers, patent insurance and financing bodies -- and of course patent lawyers.
Considering that there's no point in applying for a patent unless you're prepared to enforce it against infringers, many Patinnova participants were remarkably squeamish about the thought of actually going to court and suing someone. Professor William Kingston (Trinity College, Dublin), a veteran campaigner for reform of all aspects of the patent system, called for the compulsory use of arbitration, together with legal aid for respondents when patent arbitrations are appealed to the courts. He attacked the patent enforcement policies of large companies as being intimidatory and observed that money spent on patent lawyers was an inefficient allocation of valuable resources. IPKat co-contributor Jeremy Phillips however argued for a more sympathetic view. Patent litigation addressed issues that mediation and arbitration could not (such as interim relief); it was becoming more efficient with the introduction of specialist courts and pan-European jurisdiction and would be even better value once the IPR Enforcement Directive was adopted. The important thing was not to avoid all patent litigation like the plague, but for businesses to evaluate it (and its dispute resolution alternatives) in the same manner as it would evaluate any other business proposition on the bases of cost, benefit and likelihood of gaining a desirable outcome.
Patent litigation is not a lot of fun, particularly for any business that is dragged into it unwillingly. But nor should its advantages be ignored. The IPKat would like to hear of any readers' experiences of patent litigation, highlighting its strengths or its weaknesses. Just post a comment below or send an email.
Patent litigation insurance here, here and here
Patent alternative dispute resolution here and here
Considering that there's no point in applying for a patent unless you're prepared to enforce it against infringers, many Patinnova participants were remarkably squeamish about the thought of actually going to court and suing someone. Professor William Kingston (Trinity College, Dublin), a veteran campaigner for reform of all aspects of the patent system, called for the compulsory use of arbitration, together with legal aid for respondents when patent arbitrations are appealed to the courts. He attacked the patent enforcement policies of large companies as being intimidatory and observed that money spent on patent lawyers was an inefficient allocation of valuable resources. IPKat co-contributor Jeremy Phillips however argued for a more sympathetic view. Patent litigation addressed issues that mediation and arbitration could not (such as interim relief); it was becoming more efficient with the introduction of specialist courts and pan-European jurisdiction and would be even better value once the IPR Enforcement Directive was adopted. The important thing was not to avoid all patent litigation like the plague, but for businesses to evaluate it (and its dispute resolution alternatives) in the same manner as it would evaluate any other business proposition on the bases of cost, benefit and likelihood of gaining a desirable outcome.
Patent litigation is not a lot of fun, particularly for any business that is dragged into it unwillingly. But nor should its advantages be ignored. The IPKat would like to hear of any readers' experiences of patent litigation, highlighting its strengths or its weaknesses. Just post a comment below or send an email.
Patent litigation insurance here, here and here
Patent alternative dispute resolution here and here
IS PATENT LITIGATION SUCH A DREADFUL THING?
![IS PATENT LITIGATION SUCH A DREADFUL THING?]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html