tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post340935023433385560..comments2024-03-29T06:53:23.405+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Katonomics 11: Patent harmonisation and a little romanceVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55096212372687304332012-02-16T15:22:03.300+00:002012-02-16T15:22:03.300+00:00@Pay-Tent Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:42:00 PM : ...@Pay-Tent Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:42:00 PM : <i>"Am I the only one who considers very unfair and more expensive to shift the costs and the responsibility of a patent translation from the patent proprietors to the public?"</i><br /><br />AFAIK, this is also an argument of Spanish government in its proceeding against the Enhanced cooperation before the CJEU. This is also an argument of Spanish section of BusinessEurope.Gibushttps://www.unitary-patent.eunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59641994635034229342012-02-08T19:41:00.391+00:002012-02-08T19:41:00.391+00:00@anonymous 7 Feb at 6:02 PM - The point is that wi...@anonymous 7 Feb at 6:02 PM - The point is that without knowledge of how much it will cost to enforce, you can't undertake a meaningful cost benefit analysis.<br /><br />If the costs of enforcement are too high, the ability to enforce a patent would to some entities be theoretical rather than real. <br /><br />The commercial value in a patent comes from its ability to be enforced - an increase in the cost of enforcing a patent results in a decrease in its value.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74619758647734997822012-02-08T07:57:39.182+00:002012-02-08T07:57:39.182+00:00With respect to enforcement, what happens if a cou...With respect to enforcement, what happens if a country has signed the UPR, not the UPCA? Could national courts decide on the validity of a unitary patent?Pay-Tentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-44375201089405093322012-02-07T19:43:19.946+00:002012-02-07T19:43:19.946+00:00"As a patent is worthless without the ability..."As a patent is worthless without the ability to enforce it, no 'cost-benefit' analysis can be meaningful without an assessment of the costs of asserting and litigating the patent.<br /><br />There will be an ability to enforce it, so the patent cannot be worthless. Even if enforcement is expensive, the patent can still have substantial value. Only a very small minority of commercialised IP will end up needing to be enforced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23586275819646510892012-02-07T18:02:47.712+00:002012-02-07T18:02:47.712+00:00As a patent is worthless without the ability to en...As a patent is worthless without the ability to enforce it, no 'cost-benefit' analysis can be meaningful without an assessment of the costs of asserting and litigating the patent.<br /><br />As no one yet knows how much it will cost to litigate Unitary patents, or existing EPs under the Unified Court, it is therefore impossible to carry out a meaningful cost-benefit analysis. <br /><br />On my first read of this article, I thought it was suggesting that litigation under the proposed EU system would cost €26 per million inhabitants, seeing how the relevant paragraph followed on from a discussion of litigation costs. However, I now see this is not the case. Without such an assessment of the litigation costs, in my opinion we can't get any remotely accurate picture of the economic arguments for or against the new harmonised system, and any headline cost advantages bandied about by 'unnamed sources' at the commission have to be dismissed as wild speculation.<br /><br />Regarding the need to make the system 'NPE proof' by allowing bifurcation, the EU will be a troll's paradise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62464327302888980012012-02-07T17:32:44.782+00:002012-02-07T17:32:44.782+00:00Ja! Wie geht es Ihnen? Entschuldigen Sie, Sprechen...Ja! Wie geht es Ihnen? Entschuldigen Sie, Sprechen Sie Englisch? Ich verstehe nicht. Bitte schreiben Sie es auf Sie Englisch. Entschuldigung! Wie viel?! Es gefällt mir nicht. Lassen Sie mich in Ruhe!<br /><br />Easy! Nein? I'm sure there will be an iPad APP to help me out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78028529058968127272012-02-07T16:49:16.015+00:002012-02-07T16:49:16.015+00:00P.S.: the language of the proceedings before the c...P.S.: the language of the proceedings before the central court of the Unified Patent Court is the language of the patent ONLY.<br /><br />Thus, are English lawyers ready to represent English/American companies in, for example, London (possible seat of the central court) speaking and writing only in German ?Pay-Tentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57178998604999104592012-02-07T16:45:42.441+00:002012-02-07T16:45:42.441+00:00It is clearly more beneficial to non-patentees to ...It is clearly more beneficial to non-patentees to have a translation in their own language and I can't see any argument against this. The question is one of finding the right balance - wherever that may lie.<br /><br />Re Anon at 3:32 "Except that both France and Germany are among its members." - This was not a criticism directed at Germany and France. Surely you could have assumed that someone praising the London agreement would have known who 2 of the biggest members where?<br /><br />While English, French and German are a good mix, it is clear that English alone would be more satisfactory to everyone, both within Europe and beyond.<br /><br />Anyway, just think of the fun we will have in the future suing companies who based their freedom to operate search and opinions on the back of Google translations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-90811685389297232722012-02-07T16:44:07.290+00:002012-02-07T16:44:07.290+00:00@Meldrew ("Is Pay-tent seriously saying that ...@Meldrew ("Is Pay-tent seriously saying that third parties normally read translations to determine whether they infringe or not? Generally, "third parties" who have no patent qualification go to their attorney for advice.")<br /><br />Third parties can be for example judges, attorneys, technical experts, infringers, inventors who - seriously - want to read patents claims in their own language.<br /><br />If they do not have patent qualification they will consult a patent attorney, who of course will add the extra fee "patent translation" in his invoice.<br /><br />Furthermore what in case of a translation mistake? Why the responsibility of this mistake is on the shoulder of the third parties (or they attorneys) instead of the patent owner?<br /><br />Moreover, the translation could be "biased" on the infringing product/process if the patent is translated only in case of dispute.<br /><br />P.S.: why is it not possible to obtain and enforce a US patent written in Japanese or a Japanese patent written in English?Pay-Tentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29643284579979892872012-02-07T16:20:09.196+00:002012-02-07T16:20:09.196+00:00Pay-Tent comments that:-
In the future a unitary ...Pay-Tent comments that:-<br /><br /><i>In the future a unitary patent will be translated MANY TIMES by third parties at their own expenses and on their own responsibility in order to understand the scope of protection of the patent proprietor in a EU country.</i><br /><br />Is Pay-tent seriously saying that third parties normally read translations to determine whether they infringe or not? Generally, "third parties" who have no patent qualification go to their attorney for advice. <br /><br />Additionally, the time when a translation would be most useful is on publication, not X years afterwards [where X is a large number].<br /><br />Admittedly, I would not like it if all patents were published in Welsh only, because the pool of legally or technically qualified Welsh speakers is quite small. <br /><br />However, if they were all published in English, French, or German, my concern would be less since the pool of potential advisers would be large [about 10,000 EPAs]. <br /><br />The translation issue is more emotional than practical.Meldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56881351900496530852012-02-07T16:12:43.539+00:002012-02-07T16:12:43.539+00:00@Anonymous 3:32 ("I would find this argument ...@Anonymous 3:32 ("I would find this argument somewhat more convincing if I didn't see the people earning the most from patent translations spend a significant amount of time fighting against the London Agreement first and the unitary patent now.")<br /><br />I am happy that I convinced you (even if I could have convinced you "more") and that you have not opposed any argument against mine. <br /><br />By the way, who are those people and how are they fighting against the LA and the UP?Pay-Tentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68080766250123787052012-02-07T15:32:08.971+00:002012-02-07T15:32:08.971+00:00Now a European patent (or at least its claims) mus...<i>Now a European patent (or at least its claims) must be translated only ONCE by the patent proprietor at his own expenses and on his own responsibility so that he can obtain patent protection in a EU country.<br /><br />In the future a unitary patent will be translated MANY TIMES by third parties at their own expenses and on their own responsibility in order to understand the scope of protection of the patent proprietorin a EU country.</i><br /><br />I would find this argument somewhat more convincing if I didn't see the people earning the most from patent translations spend a significant amount of time fighting against the London Agreement first and the unitary patent now.<br /><br /><i>More recently, mentioning the London Agreement must also have been added to the list because it is the elephant in the room of unitary patent discussions. Works well, addresses many of the problems the unitary patent is designed to address yet does not have full membership. Should have called it the Paris or Munich agreement for greater uptake.</i><br /><br />Except that both France and Germany <i>are</i> among its members.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48320716269038107082012-02-07T15:22:38.603+00:002012-02-07T15:22:38.603+00:00I'm afraid that I don't have an erudite an...I'm afraid that I don't have an erudite and well-researched comment on this issue, I just wanted to comment on the excellent quality of this well-written series of articles.<br /><br />Is there a Katonomist fan club? How does one join?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28227057978319148822012-02-07T14:42:21.162+00:002012-02-07T14:42:21.162+00:00Actually I do not see much solidarity in the unita...Actually I do not see much solidarity in the unitary patent:<br /> <br />Now a European patent (or at least its claims) must be translated only ONCE by the patent proprietor at his own expenses and on his own responsibility so that he can obtain patent protection in a EU country.<br /><br />In the future a unitary patent will be translated MANY TIMES by third parties at their own expenses and on their own responsibility in order to understand the scope of protection of the patent proprietorin a EU country.<br /><br />Am I the only one who considers very unfair and more expensive to shift the costs and the responsibility of a patent translation from the patent proprietors to the public?Pay-Tentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51352764916087036122012-02-07T14:31:02.751+00:002012-02-07T14:31:02.751+00:00Some things never to mention in European discussio...Some things never to mention in European discussions: The war and language.<br /><br />More recently, mentioning the London Agreement must also have been added to the list because it is the elephant in the room of unitary patent discussions. Works well, addresses many of the problems the unitary patent is designed to address yet does not have full membership. Should have called it the Paris or Munich agreement for greater uptake.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35151068103275445912012-02-07T13:53:55.091+00:002012-02-07T13:53:55.091+00:00I agree with Pay-Tent that the numbers used in the...I agree with Pay-Tent that the numbers used in the various studies to justify the unitary patent are misleading. In particular they ignore little matters of patenting "culture" that are very important [e.g. unity practice differences which lead to it often taking 3 or more patents in the USA to cover what can be covered in one patent in Europe].<br /><br />Culture does matter and we have different cultures in Europe. The German NPE-friendly practice of bifurcation seems to be a cultural practice that the UK EU Scrutiny Committee seems disinclined to follow.<br /><br />The different cultures in Europe lead to different practices when it comes to fees also. The lifetime renewal fees for a UK or French patent work out at about €85 per million inhabitants; those for Germany at about €165 per million inhabitants; for Austria and Finland over €1500 per million inhabitants.<br /><br />And of course we cannot mention culture without mentioning language. There, I have mentioned it.<br /><br />The idea of the unitary patent and court appears to be driven by some political urge to solidarity [the principle that those who have should submit to their pockets being picked by those who have-not] while ignoring the principle of subsidiarity [that action by a higher authority is only required where action at a lower level will not achieve the desired result (the CEO and lavatory cleaner principle)]. <br /><br />So here is a plea for solidarity and subsidiarity.<br /><br />Let those countries who are not part of the London Agreement join.<br /><br />Let those countries that charge disproportionate fees get a sense of proportion.<br /><br />Let those countries that choose to do neither live with the consequential damage to their "solidarity" credentials.<br /><br />And let litigation that only concerns one country be done in that country.Meldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48347244319035085622012-02-07T12:23:31.532+00:002012-02-07T12:23:31.532+00:00All the above studies are full of mistakes and in ...All the above studies are full of mistakes and in particular they always confuse official fees with costs (as for example translations costs or attorney's fees).<br /><br />The unitary patent will just transfer onto the shoulders of the public the translation costs (with consequent multiplication of costs and legal uncertainity), which costs are anyway quite low now because of the London Agreement (about 9000 Euro for all 27 EU countries).<br /><br />On the other hand, the official fees will be still very high: about 6500 Euro up to the grant of the patent, plus about 2000 Euro for the (absolutely useless) translations in the second language, and more than 150000 Euro for the maintenance fees.<br /><br />One possible solution for decreasing the very high EPO fees could be the adoption of the "English-only" solution proposed by Spain, Italy and many other stakeholders, but of course Barnier & Battistelli do not agree...<br /><br />By the way, maintenance fees are one of the (hidden) problems which has been discussed behind closed doors for more than one year, without any solution yet.Pay-Tentnoreply@blogger.com