blog
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.

He proposes that a number of factors - similar to those in the Trade Secrets Directive - should be taken into consideration before granting injunctive relief. First, courts should consider that non-practising entities, also known as patent assertion entities or more colloquially as ‘patent trolls’, often exploit patents purely for monetary gain that can be obtained through the enforcement system rather than for their inventive value. Judges need to be aware of the fact that such patentees seek injunctions primarily to obtain excessive royalties.

Courts should also bear in mind whether a patent owner knowingly tolerated the alleged patent infringement for some time before acting to defend their rights, as this would imply that injunctive relief is only sought to extract disproportionate settlements.

Third, courts should also look to the nature of the patented invention. This is important especially in cases involving single patents in complex multi-functional products like cars or smart phones. A patent protecting a relatively minor invention on one of many functionalities implemented in those types of products should not give a right holder power over the entire  product.

Third-party interests are taken into consideration in the US. They have also been considered by UK courts. For example, injunctions have been denied in a Microsoft Windows case where a patent protected a security feature. There, the court said that an injunction risked endangering the security of data of millions of users.

Another example involved a US court denying an injunction in a case involving a patented invention implemented in Toyota cars. There, the injunction would have affected the business operations not only of the manufacturer but also of multiple car dealers. 

“Courts should be moving in this direction in the EU too,” professor Sikorski said. “It’s important to be crystal clear on this, as the UPC gets going and starts developing its jurisprudence. Failure to act now will make it harder to implement proportionality at a later stage. It’s time for the EU to act now – make it clear that proportionality is something courts have to take onboard. Otherwise, the UPC will become excessively imbalanced,” he said.

Adding such a set of factors to IPRED would provide guidance for the courts. “It could assist them in applying proportionality when deciding whether to grant, tailor or deny an injunction. It would also provide much more certainty to the market participants - both the patentees and the patent implementers,” professor Sikorski said.

At the same time, he said it is important to demonstrate that patent rights are not being devalued, he said. “There is a role for injunctions but before granting them, courts should first consider the proportionality option. I’m not proposing anarchy. Rather, by introducing a set of factors, I aim at greater predictability as to how proportionality might be applied,” he said.

And by making the system more predictable, it will make it harder for so-called patent trolls to make opportunistic attacks on those implementing patented inventions.  “It’s a question of tempering absolute rights, while protecting the innovation process,” he said.

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

IP2Innovate welcomes Draghi’s call to improve the pipeline from innovation to commercialization

IP2Innovate welcomes the report on EU competitiveness by Mario Draghi published yesterday, and in particular its emphasis on improving innovation. The in-depth report cements competitiveness and boosting European productivity at the heart of the EU’s political agenda. It calls for Europe to improve the pipeline from innovation to commercialisation.
IP2Innovate

Decades old patent framework harms Europe's competitiveness

Decades old framework harms competitiveness. Modernising EU’s patent system will be key to EU’s ability to innovate, compete and grow. ​​​Two decades is a long time to lag behind. But that’s how long the European Commission’s Competitiveness Compass tells us the EU has been trailing ​other major economies​. Why? ​​​​Part of the problem is that the system holding Europe back sits on decades old framework. The application of the IPR Enforcement Directive (IPRED), created before today's tech revolution, results in the heavy-handed enforcement over patents which damages innovation. The Compass recognises that to compete, Europe must be able to lead in critical technologies like AI, robotics, biotechnology, and clean energy – all sectors characterized by complex products incorporating thousands of patented technologies. Yet the current application of the IPRED does not cater for complex products. Currently, European patent courts nearly always grant automatic injunctions in patent infringement cases, even if the manufacturer of a complex product has accidentally infringed a patent reading on a minor component of that product. This means companies have to take entire product ranges off the market or pay excessively high settlements, with costs rising into the hundreds of millions. This is impacting investment decisions and​​​ diverting resources from key technology areas​​​​​, and what’s more, it​’​s enriching an ecosystem of ​​​investors​ that buy up ​trivial​ patents specifically to benefit from the imbalanced system. After 20 years, this outdated framework needs updating to ensure remedies for infringement are proportionate, and abusive patent litigation doesn’t hinder innovation and competitiveness. The United States ​​​made this adjustment almost twenty years ago​. The 2006 eBay v. MercExchange US Supreme Court decision required courts to evaluate the facts of each case before issuing injunctions. This balanced approach has​​​ put a stop to automatic injunctions​ while protecting legitimate patent rights. As Europe aims to close its productivity gap and lead in critical technologies, modernising IPRED is key. A more balanced patent system would support Europe's innovative capacity in the exciting and complex technologies that will drive future growth, and help bridge the competitiveness gap. The Compass states the EU needs to close the innovation gap and simplify rules to leverage the benefits of the Single Market. Otherwise, it will “will lose relevance” in a world characterised by strength of the “big powers”.
Back to overview

Subscribe to our newsletter

Privacy policy

© IP2Innovate 2024 - Website door Two Impress