1 / 10

IP Rights Protection in Europe

IP Rights Protection in Europe. Prague, 21-22 May 2009 Kim Finnilä. epi. Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (Article 134a EPC) EPO maintains a list of the professional representatives (Article 134 EPC)

mairead-flanagan
Download Presentation

IP Rights Protection in Europe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IP Rights Protection in Europe Prague, 21-22 May 2009 Kim Finnilä Kim Finnilä

  2. epi • Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (Article 134a EPC) • EPO maintains a list of the professional representatives (Article 134 EPC) • Any person on the list shall be a member of epi (Article 134a EPC) • epi has more than 9000 members in the 35 EPC Contracting States Kim Finnilä

  3. Unified Patent Litigation System (UPLS) • Enormous progress has been made in the last years, which is to be congratulated! • The crucial next steps would be to: • ask the ECJ for an opinion regarding the compatibility of the UPLS with the EC founding treaty [Article 300(6)] • authorize the Commission to open negotiations with the EPC Contracting States outside the Community regarding the litigation system • We certainly hope that these measures would be taken without delay so that Europe could be provided with the essential missing leg of a complete European patent system Kim Finnilä

  4. Art. 6 & 7 - UPLS 7928/09, 23.03.09 • Patents, particularly the claims, could well be called cross-disciplinary (technical-legal) agreements • For interpretation one needs both technical and legal competence • For this reason we believe it would be most advantageous to always have a technical judge on the panels (optional at first instance, except central division, requirement at court of appeal) Kim Finnilä

  5. Art. 15 & 15a - UPLS, 7928/09, 23.03.09 • The proposed system still provides a split jurisdiction, or at least a semi-split jurisdiction • The decisive element in relation to deciding on the validity of the patent seems to be the availability of a technical judge [Art. 15a(2)(a)-(c)] • By having a technical judge on each panel the complications, additional costs and delays resulting from Art. 15a(2)(a)-(c) would be avoided • Consolidated proceedings (non-split jurisdiction) for infringement and validity would be the way to ensure expeditious and high quality decisions in a most efficient and cost effective manner Kim Finnilä

  6. Art. 28 & 22 - UPLS, 7928/09, 23.03.09 • Art. 28(2) now provides for representation by European Patent Attorneys having an appropriate qualification, such as a European Union Patent Litigation certificate • CEIPI* and epi have run a course on ”Patent Litigation in Europe” since 2003 – since then we have trained about 300 European Patent Attorneys in litigation proceedings [for various European countries] • We would certainly be pleased to cooperate and to adopt and to develop this course to i.a. the ”Rules of Procedure” – UPLS in order to provide a common European platform for said certificate/training • *Centre d’études internationales de la proprété intellectuelle Kim Finnilä

  7. Community Patent Regulation (CPR) • This project has also been long running, and now we have a revised proposal (8588/09, 07.04.09) as a result of hard work during the last years – congratulations! • The purpose is to provide a third option [in addition to national and European patents] for patent protection within Europe • The pre-grant stage shall be governed by the EPC (recital 2a, 2b, 3,4a, ..., Article 2) • The European Community shall accede to the EPC (recital 3 – the Regulation can be/should be limited to the Community patent once granted)! Kim Finnilä

  8. Art. 11, 24+ – CPR, 8588/09, 07.04.09 • However, in the pre-grant stage, there are some differences to the EPC: • A Community patent application is defined as being a separate instrument vis-à-vis a European patent application • Article 11, rights conferred by Community patent application • Article 24, the Community patent application as an object of property • Article 24a, language and filing of the Community patent application • Article 24b, translations for the provision of information • Article 24d, conversion of a Community patent application • Are these differences advisable, necessary or purposeful? • In view of the accession of the European community to the EPC it would perhaps be more rational to have one single type of European application where a final designation for the European Community and/or for the EPC Contracting States would be required e.g. 24 months after filing • Accessibility through the PCT? Kim Finnilä

  9. UPLS & CPR • We, or more exactly you, have come very far and now it is time to succeed! • Chinese proverb: ”One who hesitates taking the next step for too long, will remain standing on one leg the rest of his life” • Kim’s proverb: ”It is not the next step that takes you forward, but the reason why you take it” • The reason: To achieve a complete European patent system; we need the second leg provided by the ULPS, and the CPR will most probably show to be a very good complement to the system!” Kim Finnilä

  10. Thank you very much for your kind attention! Kim Finnilä

More Related