Contact
blog
IP2Innovate

UPC wrangling over transparency risks undermining Europe’s patent court ambitions

The launch of Europe’s long-awaited Unified Patent Court has been rocked by an internal argument over transparency. New rules proposed last month would make secrecy the default, not transparency, and industry is not happy.

 

The reason for the change is, according to some reports, because the transparency the UPC promised in its initial draft of the rules breaks Europe’s stringent data protection laws. You read that correctly: documents from a public court of law cannot be shared with the public.

 

If the new rules are adopted it will mean that documents, including court decisions and orders, as well as written pleadings and evidence, will only be made available “upon reasoned request”, and that the decision to grant access would be made by the judge rapporteur “after consulting the parties”.

 

It is a reversal from a previous draft of the rules, which did promote genuine transparency. Until last month it looked like the UPC would be a shining beacon and example to all national patent courts in Europe, which have historically been opaque about case details.

 

Important patent owners including innovative companies from the pharmaceutical and technology industries are among the many trying to prevent this change. For them, the lack of transparency poses serious threats and there is a real risk that companies will just avoid the Europe-wide patent system altogether.

 

Why is transparency so important?

 

The lack of transparency makes it particularly difficult for parties, especially SMEs with small or non-existent in-house legal teams, to be aware of the litigation history of a patent and be able to coordinate their defence with other parties. This will often make an already expensive and time consuming defence even longer and more costly, and will increase the likelihood of targeted firms settling simply to avoid this crushing burden. For a concrete example read our blog from last year about a small Spanish tech firm called NTR Global.

 

Moreover, the lack of transparency hinders the targeted parties’ ability to find out whether a patent has been previously litigated and what its owner has already said about what the patent covers. This opens the door for the patent proprietor to game the system by interpreting claim elements differently in different cases. Put simply, it allows such a patent owner to cover its tracks so it can prey on others using the same patent. 

 

The only ones to gain from the new proposed rules on transparency are patent assertion entities, whose business model is built around gaming the system. For them it is a dream come true. A jurisdiction the size of the US with opacity written into its rules – and the potential for a Europe-wide injunction to drive settlements that far exceed the value of their patents.

 

The US, once the favoured hunting ground for opportunistic PAEs, has offered electronic access to patent litigation documents for more than thirty years. The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) database provides the public with real-time access to documents filed at all federal courts.

 

And since the eBay ruling by the Supreme Court in 2006, automatic injunctions in the US are by and large a thing of the past. Not so in Europe, where they remain the norm in spite of EU law to the contrary.

 

The combination of a lack of transparency and this propensity among European judges to hand out injunctions as a cure all for patent disputes – even when the patent covers just a trivial feature of a complex product – only favours those that seek to make a fast buck, and harms genuine innovators.

 

This has always been a problem in Europe. But with the arrival of the UPC the risk of opportunistic attacks will be super-sized.

Share

Other blogs

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.
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

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.
 Back to overview

Subscribe to our newsletter

Privacy policy

© IP2Innovate 2024 - Website door Two Impress