The book has three main chapters; one chapter looks at European patent litigation under the European Patent Convention, and includes a comparative analysis of key jurisdictions. Another chapter examines the UPC and Unitary Patent reform packages. The book provides a lot of practical information in its examination of litigation in the UK, Germany, France and the Netherlands.
In Chapter 4, the author reports on a survey of the UP/UPC-interested legal and business communities. Interviewees were predominately UK-focused. Here a discussion on renewal fees, perhaps one of the more interesting economic levers of the UP, suggests that the community prefers renewal fees to be set at the equivalent of three member states existing fees (namely the UK, Germany and France.) However, this view was not unanimous, as one interview noted that, "her company 'would like to see a higher renewal fee because higher fees discourage spurious patenting.'" [Merpel thinks this interviewee is very economics-friendly.] Other sections address trolls and forum shopping, the opt-out and SMEs.
At the time of writing, the UK IPO has not changed its stance on the UPC. Time will tell.
European Patent Litigation in the Shadow of the Unified Patent Court, by McDonagh, Luke. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016. ISBN: 978 1 78471 473 4. Available here for £70. Rupture factor: Low, a back-friendly 200 pages.
Disclosure: In my previous role at the UK IPO, I was involved in the underlying research project discussed in the final chapter.
Book Review: European Patent Litigation in the Shadow of the Unified Patent Court
Reviewed by Nicola Searle
on
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Rating:
Reviewed by Nicola Searle
on
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.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