Patent litigation in Europe

Cremers, K. J. Martijn; Ernicke, Max; Gaessler, Fabian; Harhoff, Dietmar; Helmers, Christian; McDonagh, Luke; Schliessler, Paula; Zeebroeck, Nicolas van

doi:10.1007/s10657-016-9529-0

Cited by 42 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The US has been at the forefront in developing laws regarding patent protection as depicted by Gates [6]. The study also validates the teachings by Cremers et al [5] and The Europe Economic 2014 [12] that the Europe patent system falls short of addressing fragmentation. The departing point from the previous research presents when the study uses the milestones achieved in the US system to caution the Europe patent on the potential pitfalls and how the system can evade them.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Keep in mind that the significant shortcomings in the EU include differences in the grace period, publication, and the application of the application of the patent rights across member countries. By working towards an increasingly unified approach, Europe can significantly reduce the number of patent trolls [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, the situation in Europe depicts a rise in patent suits. A study [5] of 140 small businesses in Europe revealed that as of 2015, 44% of them were affected by patent infringement cases by non-practicing entities (NPEs). These numbers presented here symbolize the actual circumstances on the ground, showing an urgent need to address patent trolling.…”

Section: Research Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Review Preventing Patent Trolling in Europe

Franco

Bănacu

2018

MMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The US has made significant progress in the patent legislation landscape as evidenced by the US Patent Act in the Constitution and America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011. Nevertheless, patent suits by non-practicing entities (NPEs) have been on the increase over the past ten years. Major corporations, especially, such as Apple and Samsung have been on the receiving end of the litigation as NPEs target their large cash holdings. A closer look at the patent laws in the US and Europe reveals subtle differences in the grace period, publication of patent, and the application of patent rights across member states. Given the preceding facts, vital action points for the European market include the enactment of laws that prevent patent trolls as opposed to punishing NPEs after the act and reduction of litigation costs for lowquality patents.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Review Preventing Patent Trolling in Europe

Franco

Bănacu

2018

MMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…655, 708. This evidence has been confirmed in another more recent study published in 2016:Cremers et al (2016).3 In this article, when referring to the European patent system this does not refer to a specific patent system and includes both EU and non-EU countries; when referring to the European (European Patent Convention EPC) patent system, this includes the Contracting States to the EPC and refers to the system implemented by the EPC; and when referring to the proposed unitary patent system, this refers to the system that may be introduced by the unitary patent package and includes participating EU Member states only.4 When speaking of ''judicial'' dialogue, for the purpose of this article this will include national court judges, judges from the Court of Justice of the European Union, and members of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Although the Boards of Appeal are quasi-judicial, they do exercise similar functions (albeit in the patent context) and act in the same spirit.…”

supporting

confidence: 71%

Promoting Harmonisation Across the European Patent System Through Judicial Dialogue and Cooperation

Walsh

2019

IIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to promote harmonisation in a more effective manner in the European patent system, it is argued that this should not solely be done through legislation, but through judicial dialogue and cooperation. Through this means of informal harmonisation, progress can be made case-by-case, rather than waiting for legislation to be agreed upon and entered into force. This is already happening to good effect, as displayed through a number of examples, including the most recent example of Actavis v. Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48 in the UK Supreme Court. It is proposed by this article that official lines of communication should be opened among all judiciaries and Boards in the European patent system to improve this practice. Judicial cooperation would also be useful to the Unified Patent Court, if it becomes operational. Opening official lines of communication would be an important step towards a further harmonised European patent system and would increase legal certainty in this area.

show abstract

“…Also, if the validity of a UM is challenged in court, there are national differences in the process. For instance, in Germany the burden of proof is on the owner of the UM to show that the claims are valid (Cremers et al 2017).…”

Section: Typology Of Patent Families With Utility Model Membersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of utility models in patent filing strategies: evidence from European countries

Heikkilä

Verba

2018

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the role of utility models (UM) in patent filing strategies. With an extensive patent family data from European countries, we explore the structures and characteristics of patent families, which include UMs. A simple typology of patent families with UM members is introduced. We document that the geographical scope of most patent families with UM members is purely national, which is in line with the conventional view that the UM mechanism covers technologically and economically marginal inventions. However, the image of a UM as a signal of a minor invention is an oversimplification. Applicants exhibit a mixture of uses for the UM and there exists a subset of UM filings linked to inventions the inventive step of which meets or exceeds the threshold required for patent protection. Some UMs are members of international patent families, indicating that applicants may have some strategic motives to use UMs in international filing. The findings highlight that both types of IPR documents (UMs and patents) should be taken into account when working with data on patent families, analysing patent filing strategies, and constructing patent-based indicators such as patenting propensities.

show abstract

Patent litigation in Europe

Cited by 42 publications

References 9 publications

Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Review Preventing Patent Trolling in Europe

Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Review Preventing Patent Trolling in Europe

Promoting Harmonisation Across the European Patent System Through Judicial Dialogue and Cooperation

The role of utility models in patent filing strategies: evidence from European countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About