Contact
blog
IP2Innovate

Professor Ohly’s two passions: patent law and clarinet

Professor Ansgar Ohly is one of Germany’s most respected law professors and an authority on intellectual property law across Europe. He is the Chair for Civil Law, Intellectual Property and Competition Law at the University of Munich. He is also a visiting professor at Oxford University.

 

He studied in Bonn, Munich, and Cambridge University where he met Professor Bill Cornish. “He was my first influence, a very important figure, he established the study of intellectual property law in Cambridge,” Professor Ohly said in an interview.

 

IP law was one of four topics he focused on during his studies, the other three being EU law, jurisprudence and public international public law.

 

Perhaps under the influence of Cornish, Ohly was drawn to the issue of balance in patent law. “I found the task of striking a balance between protecting innovation while at the same  allowing due freedom to other players a fascinating challenge that has an impact on the economy, on culture,” he said.

 

He calls himself a “great supporter” of the reform of Germany’s patent code that was adopted last year. In particular the new law’s position regarding the proportionality defense.

 

However, he said that after just 16 months since the law was adopted it is too early to say whether the reform will make a difference. “We have to wait and see. It depends where judges set the threshold for proportionality, whether courts will be prepared to apply this defense in practice.”

 

Automatic injunctions have been the norm across Europe, not just in Germany, Professor Ohly said. Will the arrival of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) next year change this?

 

“It’s an open question whether UPC courts will allow a defense based on a disproportionality argument,” he said. “I think they will. The UPC rules do allow for automatic injunctions but they are also bound by EU law, including the proportionality clause in Article 3.2 of the IPRED directive.

 

There’s nothing wrong with short but strong patent protections per se, he said,  but Ohly feels that in sectors such as ICT a lot of the patents granted are weak or unclear. “This could be one reason why there are many disproportionate patent claims.”

The UPC probably shouldn’t follow the lead of the US, where a strict four-factor test for automatic injunctions exists since the landmark Ebay case. “No one would go as far as the Ebay four-factor test,” he said.

 

“English law is probably a better example for the UPC to follow.  In the UK injunctions are handled more carefully than on the continent, and courts do consider proportionality there,” Ohly said.

 

Is it not frustrating to see the knee-jerk impulse of European courts to grant automatic injunctions, even when EU law calls for proportionality in patent disputes? “I’m not so pessimistic about the direction the system is moving in. Until now the European Court of Justice hasn’t had the chance to give guidance on the need for and the contours of a proportionality defense under Article 3.2 IPRED.

 

“It’s remarkable how few defendants have used the proportionality argument before German courts so far. This may be because defendants are reluctant to make proceedings longer because of the costs. Perhaps it’s because they don’t want to disclose confidential commercial information,” he said.

 

Ohly said he has never been tempted to go into patent law practise. “Sometimes I do some consulting work which I find interesting because it gives me insight into practical cases, but I prefer academia to practising  because it gives me the time and the independence to look into the questions that I consider to be relevant.”

 

And when he is not contemplating the law professor Ohly loves to play the clarinet.

 

One of his proudest moments, he said, was performing the solo opening to Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue with a Munich amateur symphony orchestra in the Munich Prinzregententheater, with his mother, father and wife in the audience

 

“In the next life I wouldn’t change anything. I’d come back as a professor and clarinetist,” he said.

Share

Other blogs

IP2Innovate

Congratulatory Letter to Executive Vice-President -designate Séjourné

Dear Executive Vice-President -designate, On behalf of IP2Innovate, I write to congratulate you on your nomination as the European Commission Executive Vice-President-designate for Prosperity and Industrial Strategy. You are taking on this role at a pivotal moment as Europe seeks to embrace a new era of competitiveness, productivity, and innovation.
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

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