The Unified Patent Court and Patent Trolls in Europe

Jonathan I. Tietz
{"title":"The Unified Patent Court and Patent Trolls in Europe","authors":"Jonathan I. Tietz","doi":"10.36645/mtlr.25.2.unified","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Healthy organisms inevitably produce cancer cells, and vibrant patent systems inevitably let bad patents slip through. These patents are harnessed by entities that leverage the uncertainty and expense of litigation to extract licenses from technological practitioners. Postissuance patent review (PIPR) has emerged as an invaluable errorcorrecting mechanism to prevent the socially harmful assertion of improperly issued patents. The United States, with the America Invents Act, established a new system for PIPR, expanding administrative routes to curtail bad patents. Europe is going a step further with the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). The UPCA enables a lowcost patent revocation action on a broad range of grounds and with a relaxed standing requirement. But this is an opt-in system with a loser-pays fee-shifting arrangement. Thus, although the structure of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) appears to be set up to facilitate efficient PIPR, the disincentives for opting in suggest that the UPC will be a less effective troll-fighting vehicle than expected. Indeed, patent trolls may simply opt for national patent systems.","PeriodicalId":255541,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property: Patent Law - Student Authors eJournal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intellectual Property: Patent Law - Student Authors eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36645/mtlr.25.2.unified","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Healthy organisms inevitably produce cancer cells, and vibrant patent systems inevitably let bad patents slip through. These patents are harnessed by entities that leverage the uncertainty and expense of litigation to extract licenses from technological practitioners. Postissuance patent review (PIPR) has emerged as an invaluable errorcorrecting mechanism to prevent the socially harmful assertion of improperly issued patents. The United States, with the America Invents Act, established a new system for PIPR, expanding administrative routes to curtail bad patents. Europe is going a step further with the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). The UPCA enables a lowcost patent revocation action on a broad range of grounds and with a relaxed standing requirement. But this is an opt-in system with a loser-pays fee-shifting arrangement. Thus, although the structure of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) appears to be set up to facilitate efficient PIPR, the disincentives for opting in suggest that the UPC will be a less effective troll-fighting vehicle than expected. Indeed, patent trolls may simply opt for national patent systems.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲统一专利法院与专利流氓
健康的生物体不可避免地会产生癌细胞,而充满活力的专利制度不可避免地会让糟糕的专利溜掉。这些专利被实体利用,它们利用不确定性和诉讼费用从技术从业者那里榨取许可。事后专利审查(PIPR)已成为一种宝贵的纠错机制,以防止不适当颁发的专利主张对社会有害。美国通过《美国发明法》建立了新的知识产权保护制度,扩大了限制不良专利的行政途径。欧洲正在通过统一专利法院协议(UPCA)更进一步。UPCA允许在广泛的理由上采取低成本的专利撤销行动,并且具有宽松的资格要求。但这是一个选择加入的系统,有一个败者付费的费用转移安排。因此,尽管统一专利法院(UPC)的结构似乎是为了促进有效的知识产权保护而设立的,但选择加入的阻碍因素表明,UPC将是一个不如预期的有效的对抗巨魔的工具。事实上,专利流氓可能会简单地选择国家专利制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Judicial Determination of FRAND Royalties: the English High Court’s Valuation in Unwired Planet v. Huawei. Moving Away from Mainstream Economic Valuation Approaches? Who Should Determine FRAND Royalties and How? Iudex non Calculat? The Unified Patent Court and Patent Trolls in Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1