Contact
blog
IP2Innovate

More work needed to improve public access to UPC patent case documents

By Patrick Oliver, Executive Director of IP2Innovate

 

Last month a law firm submitted a request for documents under rule 262.1 (b) of the UPC Rules of Procedure, which ensures that written pleadings and evidence in patent litigation proceedings are available to the public “upon reasoned request.” The firm is calling on the central division of the Unified Patent Court in Munich to make available all written pleadings and evidence for a pending case in the court.

 

The aim of the law firm, Mathys & Squire, is to establish a clear and consistent path for the public to access these documents in the future. IP2Innovate fully supports this initiative. We have been campaigning for more transparency in patent litigation for many years, and welcomed the improvement to the status quo that the UPC’s rules promised.

 

We support the consistent availability of non-confidential pleadings and evidence to bring more transparency to the UPC. The Court deserves praise for its efforts to date to instil transparency in patent infringement cases, through the availability of case information along with decisions and orders. It goes much further in this direction than national patent courts.

 

However, as things stand there is no consensus among UPC divisions on what it means to be a “reasoned request” under the UPC’s rules that would allow documents to be shared with a third party. This needs to be corrected. Europe’s innovators need a more uniform line in matters of transparency.

 

The lack of full transparency makes it particularly difficult for parties to be aware of the litigation history of a patent, something that is critical for those who are trying to assess its potential relevance. It’s a problem for companies of all sizes but especially small and medium size enterprises with small or non-existent in-house legal teams. 

 

In addition to ensuring that the public’s interest in transparency of patent litigation proceedings satisfies the “reasoned request” set forth in its rules, the UPC can and should go further. We would like to see much shorter delays in sharing information about cases online, and improved search features to make it easier to learn about developments in the court.

 

With the creation of a Europe-wide patent jurisdiction, the potential benefits are great, as are the risks to firms from opportunistic patent attacks. So likewise, the need for increased transparency in all divisions of the UPC is also much greater. We applaud the effort to encourage these improvements.

Share

Other blogs

IP2Innovate

IP2I calls on European Commission to protect Europe’s patent system from abuse

A new academic study by economists at the universities of Bordeaux, Grenoble, and Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona) highlights how patent assertion entities (PAEs) are continuing to take advantage of weaknesses in Europe’s patent system. The study, entitled Patent Privateering, looks at one specific method of patent abuse. Patent privateering is a term to describe a situation where a patent owner hands patents to a patent assertion entity (PAE) to exploit for mutual benefit, allowing the patent owner to maintain a secret stake in the patents. The study concluded that patent privateering is widespread in Europe. The practise has been around for many years but as other jurisdictions including the US have made it harder, Europe’s patent system is a ripe target for abuse. This is largely because patent courts in Europe do not apply the principle of proportionality, and instead hand out injunctions to patent owners almost automatically.
IP2Innovate

Prof. Alain Strowel: IP law professor with a grounding in philosophy

Professor Alain Strowel’s academic curiosity was first sparked by philosophy. At 18 he went to the universities he would later work for as a law professor, the Université Saint-Louis in Brussels and the UCLouvain.
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.
 Back to overview

Subscribe to our newsletter

Privacy policy

© IP2Innovate 2024 - Website door Two Impress