tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2213601948481786126..comments2024-03-28T08:10:13.600+00:00Comments on The IPKat: First divorce, now separation: European Parliament votes for enhanced cooperationVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-63988095742889222752011-02-16T12:05:54.410+00:002011-02-16T12:05:54.410+00:00Forgive the question if this has already been answ...Forgive the question if this has already been answered, but how is it planned to provide for litigation - nullity and infringement - in respect of the states taking part in the enhanced co-operation?<br /><br />Is it currently planned to create an analogous body to the above mentioned Community Patent Courts, which would then be charged with hearing litigation in respect of the >= 12 EU states taking part in the enhanced co-operation or is some form of mutual recognition of court decisions issued in these states being planned? I could not find any mention of such a court in the proposal for enhanced co-operation.<br /><br />I know that Germany and the UK have different views on whether nullity and infringement should be tried together - has this been resolved?<br /><br />Thanks in advance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31135147855591477932011-02-16T10:45:23.492+00:002011-02-16T10:45:23.492+00:00I do not entirely agree with your commentary on th...I do not entirely agree with your commentary on the European Parliament vote.<br /><br />Even if you were right, at least we would get to the same unsatisfactory position you fear more cheaply than we do now.<br /><br />However, I am much more optimistic.<br /><br />Unlike the CTM, the CPC and its compromise deal will implement a system which has been running for thirty years, used by the member states whose national laws have been substantially harmonised for many years. Only the tedious final administrative procedures will change. Everything else pre grant remains as it is. Relatively few patents are litigated. So pre-grant costs are the dominant issue here for the user.<br /><br />You are quite right that Germans, Dutch, British and others did import their old habits and their old conceptual assumptions into the running of the system thirty years ago, resulting in a large degree of uncertainty and requests to the (Enlarged) Board of Appeal to explain how the system works. <br /><br />However, very few referrals now arise from such conceptual differences - as opposed to political or ethical issues which do not arise from nationally based preconceptions; or ingenious arguments seeking to avoid unpleasant consequences for an individual applicant, often represented by an advocate from an entirely different country.<br /><br />So the CPC gets off to a belated flying start in that regard.<br /><br />Enforcement of the unitary patent will no doubt still depend to a large degree on the jurisdiction of the individual tribunal as it does now, on procedural and cost issues, which still vary widely, and there will still be some limited forum shopping; but who could not say that of decisions within their own national system - have you ever wondered which judge you will get? <br /><br />At least the limited number of Community Patent Courts will start from a much more coherent body of case law on the meaning of the EPC/CPC than was the case with the CTM and without the unmanageable number of disparate reported decisions which the OHIM, Boards of Appeal, national offices and courts generate.<br /><br />The enforcement jurisdiction rules will limit forum shopping.<br /><br />Judicial workshops and symposia of the type we have seen promoted by the likes of Robin Jacob will be critical and I hope that funds will be made available to encourage them. Indeed my main fear would be that of an enthusiastic but inexperienced General Court being given a role leading it to tread in specialist areas where even angels fear to tread.<br /><br />So, be optimistic, not fearful, and pray that our Italian and Spanish colleagues join us in this endeavour more quickly than was the case with our French colleagues and the London Agreement!Keith Hodkinsonhttp://www.marks-clerk.com/uk/attorneys/people/profile.aspx?pid=28noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32839460905399630742011-02-16T09:52:23.316+00:002011-02-16T09:52:23.316+00:00"An EU patent must work more quickly: 15 year..."An EU patent must work more quickly: 15 years is substantially longer than the lifetime of the average granted patent."<br /><br />Well, since the enhanced cooperation patent doesn't change anything whatsoever in pre-grant proceedings, I'm not greatly worried about that.<br /><br />Litigation will of course be a trickier matter, but then we'll have to see what comes out of the CJEU next month...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31574834579512005332011-02-15T23:47:14.225+00:002011-02-15T23:47:14.225+00:00I just wrote about this yesterday and NOW the Parl...I just wrote about this yesterday and NOW the Parliament votes on it! Perfect timing!<br /><br />http://www.ipbrief.net/2011/02/15/the-dream-of-a-unified-europatentcoming-true-at-last/Chris Johnsnoreply@blogger.com