Three-way split for European patent court
A long battle over the jurisdiction and location of Europe’s new patent court appears to have been settled with a decision to split the court’s operations in three and separate it from the European Court of Justice.
Ministers at last week’s Brussels summit agreed that the seat of the Unified Patent Court would be in Paris. However, under an agreement proposed by Herman Van Rompuy, president of the EU Council, London will host one of two Central Division sections, dealing with chemistry and pharmaceuticals. The other section, dealing with mechanical engineering, will go to Munich.
Meanwhile, the council bowed to British demands that the European Court of Justice should not have final jurisdiction in the unified patent regime. The CBI welcomed the decision. Matthew Fell, director for competitive markets, said: ‘Businesses will be reassured that the European patent scheme will not fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice because of the risks involved in a non-specialised court having a say in decisions over their intellectual property.’
However, specialist lawyers warned of potential problems ahead. Richard Willoughby, patent litigation partner at City firm Rouse, described the package as ‘an interesting compromise’. He said the location of the court was not the most important decision.
While the split in the court’s Central Division would be welcomed by many, ‘questions remain as to whether it will work in practice'. 'How the court will be resourced and funded, thus how much it will actually cost to run and use, is completely unclear in any case,’ Willoughby said.
He said concerns remain over how infringement actions will operate in the new regime. ‘In particular, the vexed issue of “bifurcation” - whereby a validity challenged is heard separately from an infringement claim - has not been addressed to the satisfaction of some industries, who wanted to see this separation removed.’
News
- LETR ‘delayed by regulators’
- UK turns back on EU justice project
- Unanimous: profession votes for ‘training days’ action in protest over cuts
- International firms call off merger
- Hundreds attend legal aid protest rally
- Small business spurning legal services – LSB research
- HMRC proposes crackdown on LLP ‘disguised employment’
- PCT will mean the death of Welsh justice, lawyers warn
- Poor will suffer from court fee changes, MoJ warned
- Overwhelming public backing for legal aid: poll
- Fight PI changes, says MASS chair
- Mass meeting of barristers takes a stand on QASA
- Pannone turns to fixed-price mediation post-Jackson
- Grayling asks for quality standard for PCT firms
- 7,000 lawyers to hit the streets for free legal advice
- Pilot aims to limit clinical negligence solicitors’ fees
- Will-writing could still be regulated
- In-house growth accelerating
- Appeal Court applies Russian law in dispute
- Insurers to revamp third-party code
- Court interpreters reject new contract deal
- European data plan labelled ‘demented’
- Saudi Arabia accepts registration of female lawyer
- Don’t worry about Jackson fallout – judge
- North-west paralegal initiative
- French revolution
- ‘Google’ asylum refusals


Comments
EU referendum
How would the splitting of the Court work with the newly announced referendum on EU membership?
What kind of message will the two statements make?
And what person would buy into a cheap political fireworks display where the most popular subjects are tackled because they may just bring some votes and not because they are burning issues?
All rhetorical questions of course.