Contact
blog
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 fully agrees. One way to do that is to address the lack of proportionality considerations in patent litigation in European patent courts. Instead of granting remedies on the basis of a proportionality assessment, the default, automatic remedy is an injunction, even when the patent involves only a minor feature of a complex product.

This makes it far too easy for opportunistic patent assertion entities (PAEs) to sue productive businesses. It’s very profitable to PAEs but does nothing for the innovation process except penalise innovators and clog it up. This funnels money away from the development of new products in Europe, instead going to pay outsized legal settlements that often go far beyond what the PAE’s patent is worth.

Last year the European Commission launched a study to look at whether proportionality is being applied in Europe as well as looking into the presence and impact of PAEs in Europe.

In spring this year IP2Innovate called for the Commission to adjust the IP Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) in order to ensure proportionality is applied in an effective and meaningful way.

“With this new impetus from Mr Draghi we hope the European Commission will adapt the IPRED with targeted revisions that make proportionality the norm,” said Patrick Oliver, executive director of IP2Innovate.

A key aim of the Draghi report is to address issues that are holding back European competitiveness and productivity. Europe lags its key trading partners in both respects.

The US has addressed the patents issue through a Supreme Court ruling in the 2006 eBay Vs MercExchange case, which made sure courts evaluated the facts of a case before issuing a remedy. As a result it is no longer automatic for a PAE to win an injunction from a judge in the US.

“The same needs to happen in Europe. More balance in the patent system is needed to increase innovation and the take up of new technologies necessary to narrow the productivity gap between Europe and its trading partners,” Mr Oliver 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

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

Professors Hofmann and Raue: Taking proportionality seriously in the Unified Patent Court

Two German law professors, Dr Franz Hofmann and Dr Benjamin Raue have pooled forces to publish a joint paper this week on the delicate issue of injunctions and damages for the infringement of patents. The paper, entitled ‘Injunctions and Damages for the Infringement of Patents under the UPCA; an Analysis in the Light of the Principle of Proportionality’ calls for a more nuanced approach to patent infringement cases, and it urges judges of the recently launched UPC to consider damages instead of automatic injunctions as a remedy in their rulings.
 Back to overview

Subscribe to our newsletter

Privacy policy

© IP2Innovate 2024 - Website door Two Impress