Contact
blog
IP2Innovate

IP2I Recommendations for Improvements to the Public Availability of Information on Proceedings before the UPC

By Patrick Oliver, Executive Director of IP2Innovate

IP2I appreciates the improvements made to date to improve the availability of information on proceedings before the Unified Patent Court. To achieve its full potential for transparency and permit a better understanding of legal developments and trends, IP2I recommends that continued improvements focus on providing more robust searchability for information, and reducing the delay associated with making information available to the public.

Recommendation: Provide more robust searchability for information.

Especially as the volume of proceedings before the court grows, the current layout of the UPC public-facing website will not be suited for allowing the public to find orders or decisions in specific cases, or to inform itself on aspects of the Court’s caselaw at large. Currently, the only filtering mechanisms in the “Decisions & Orders” section of the website are by location and, per location, by type of document (order or decision). Sooner rather than later, this will require interested members of the public to parse and consult growing lists of otherwise not searchable entries to find information they are looking for.

Already, there has been an emergence of third-party solutions to providing increased searchability to the public. To ensure free, consistent, and equal access, and completeness and accuracy of the data especially as case volumes increase, IP2I believes that the public should not have to rely upon third-party solutions, and that instead this functionality should be provided by the UPC itself.

Based on recent updates from UPC Registrar Alexander Ramsay, we understand that improved searchability related to headnotes and keywords is currently being planned. This is welcome news, and as part of these planned improvements, IP2I further recommends that a meaningful search mask be added to the public-facing website for orders and decisions (or alternatively, that this functionality be provided through the public-facing CMS without requiring registration). A simple, yet flexible and user-friendly search mask should include the following filter and search functions:

  • Selection of Instance – filterable by “Any”, “Court of Appeals” or “Court of First Instance”
  • Selection of location – filterable by “Any location” or any one specific UPC court seat
  • Type of underlying action – filterable by “All” or any specific type of action under the UPC
  • Selection of type of document – filterable by “All”, “Order”, or “Decision”
  • Selection of language – filterable by “All” or any one specific UPC language
  • Date of order or decision – optional search parameter, specifiable exactly or as a range
  • Case number – optional search parameter
  • Patent number – optional search parameter
  • Party names – optional search parameter(s)
  • Word (stem) search in full document text

Recommendation: Reduce the delay for making information available to the public.

There is currently a significant delay between the filing of a proceeding and the public availability of information on that proceeding. There is also a significant delay between the issuance of a decision or order by the court and the availability of that decision or order to the public.

IP2I asks that the UPC prioritise improvements in this area, both to reduce the time taken to complete the required formality check and any necessary redactions, and to provide the information on the UPC website shortly after it is populated for the parties to the proceeding in the CMS. Providing the public with information on proceedings and access to decisions and orders in a reduced timeframe is imperative to the public’s understanding of how the court has ruled on issues and the use of the system.

Share

Other blogs

Patrick Oliver

SMEs – the unseen victims of patent trolling

As the European Commission turns its attention to helping improve the regulatory environment for SMEs here is a true story about how patent trolls broke the back of a successful small European business.
IP2Innovate

Prof. Sikorski’s latest paper: IPRED needs targeted reforms to strengthen the principle of proportionality in patent litigation

There is broad agreement on the need for taking proportionality considerations into account in patent litigation cases but it’s not being applied in the courts in Europe. As a result, injunctions are being handed out automatically in almost all cases, even though EU legislation – the IP Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) – specifically calls for judges to apply proportionality. IPRED needs targeted amendments in order to correct this. In his paper titled Permanent Injunctions and the Reception of the Principle of Proportionality in the European Union, Rafal Sikorski, assistant professor, Chair of European Law at the Adam Mickiewicz University of Poznan in Poland, calls for reform of the directive. “The EU should consider introducing a set of factors to IPRED that the courts should consider when applying proportionality. In fact, this approach has already been taken by the EU legislator in the Trade Secrets Directive,” Professor Sikorski said in an interview.
IP2Innovate

Seeking a new balance point in Europe’s patent system that better suits innovation and society

How to ensure the patent system in Europe best serves the innovation process has been a hotly debated topic for decades. In recent years lawmakers in Germany and in Brussels have started to realise that the old status quo – where patent courts hand out injunctions almost always automatically – doesn’t work in a world where advances in technology constantly bring more and more complex products to market, and where thousands of patents could possibly be relevant. It has become too easy for patent assertion entities (PAEs) to leverage the threat of automatic injunctions and disrupt the market presence of established consumer products in Europe to extract excessive license fees. While the interest of PAEs is limited to monetary compensation and not to stop the sale of products, the mere threat of such automatic injunctions is enough to push most targets of such assertions to accept disproportionate settlement conditions. It’s a hugely profitable business model for PAEs but it does little for innovation or for society, and undermines Europe’s competitiveness. By allowing this abuse, the European patent system is tilted too far in favour of patent holders and needs to be re-balanced. That is why in spring this year IP2Innovate called for the Commission to adjust the EU’s Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED), adopted in 2004. The law does require courts to apply proportionality when considering patent infringement cases, but this is not being applied in practice as injunctions continue to be granted effectively automatically even in cases where an alternative remedy would be more proportionate. An analysis of patent court rulings provided by Darts-ip, the leading source of global patent case data, for the period 2015-2020, shows that more than 99% of cases saw no proportionality assessment. Ensuring the equitable resolution of patent litigation in the EU through a targeted amendment of the IPRED is of even more importance with the establishment of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Indeed, a recent study by Professor Sterzi of the Bordeaux School of Economics shows that PAEs initiated close to 30% of all infringement actions in the ICT sector – a key area for European competitiveness – in the UPC. If automatic injunctions become the norm in the newly established UPC, innovative companies would face UPC-wide automatic injunctions and not just ones at national level. The European Commission is evaluating this dynamic, and in 2023 commissioned a study to look at whether proportionality is being applied in Europe as well as looking into the role of PAEs in Europe. IP2I welcomes the European Commission’s initiative as Europe needs a properly functioning patent system fit for the modern age if it is to succeed in enhancing Europe’s competitiveness. The proportionality of remedies must be applied in patent litigation. Courts and parties need a clearer steer from Brussels to ensure it happens. Targeted revisions of the IPRED in relation to proportionality look set to be the next key challenge in patent policy in Europe. IP2Innovate hopes that the new attention being paid to the IPRED’s proportionality requirement will help to find a balance point in the European patent system that better suits the broader interests of innovation and society.
Back to overview

Subscribe to our newsletter

Privacy policy

© IP2Innovate 2024 - Website door Two Impress