Patent litigation in the UK: an empirical survey 2000-2008

Helmers, Christian; McDonagh, Luke

doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpt162

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the course of this article we refer to the PCC because this was the constitution of the court for the period of our data collection. 16 See Helmers and McDonagh (2013a), Tables 1 and 5. Helmers et al (2015) show that the 2010-2013 reforms to the PCC, now the IPEC, mean that patent litigation is now more common at the venue.…”

Section: Germanymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…78 73 This is significantly lower than in unified systems. For example, Helmers and McDonagh (2013a) show for the UK that in about 60 % of cases alleging infringement, the defendant counter-claims for revocation. 74 We use legal status information to distinguish designation from validation; hence, we are able to tell whether a patent that was granted by the EPO became effective in an EPC member state.…”

Section: Case-level Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…for more details seeHelmers and McDonagh 2013a). 53 See http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_patents_diary.htm.54 Essentially, these are cases which settle after filing but before any court involvement.55 See http://www.bailii.org (last visited 05 Nov 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patent litigation in Europe

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compare patent litigation cases across four European jurisdictionsGermany, the UK (England and Wales), France, The Netherlands-using case-level data gathered from cases filed in the four jurisdictions during the period 2000-2008. Overall, we find substantial differences across jurisdictions in terms of caseloadsnotably, courts in Germany hear by far the largest number of cases, not only in absolute terms, but also when taking macro-economic indicators into account-and we further find important cross-country variances in terms of case outcomes. Moreover, we show empirically that a considerable number of patents are litigated across multiple European jurisdictions; and further, that in the majority of these cases divergent case outcomes are reached across the different jurisdictions, suggesting that the long-suspected problem of inconsistency of decision-making in European patent litigation is in fact real. Finally, we note that the coming into force

show abstract

Section: Germanymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Case-level Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patent litigation in Europe

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Helmers and McDonagh (2013a) show for the UK that in about 60 % of cases alleging infringement, the defendant counter-claims for revocation. 74 We use legal status information to distinguish designation from validation; hence, we are able to tell whether a patent that was granted by the EPO became effective in an EPC member state.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Patent Litigation in Europe

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the published version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Overall, we find substantial differences across jurisdictions in terms of caseloadsnotably, courts in Germany hear by far the largest number of cases, not only in absolute terms, but also when taking macro-economic indicators into account-and we further find important cross-country variances in terms of case outcomes. Moreover, we show empirically that a considerable number of patents are litigated across multiple European jurisdictions; and further, that in the majority of these cases divergent case outcomes are reached across the different jurisdictions, suggesting that the long-suspected problem of inconsistency of decision-making in European patent litigation is in fact real. Finally, we note that the coming into force Permanent repository link

show abstract

“…For Australia,Weatherall and Jensen (2005) report a rate of full or partial invalidation of 53% (first and second instance) for the period of 1997 to 2003. Oyama (2012) finds an invalidation rate of 73% at the Japanese district courts, and a UK study examining the years 2000 to 2008 indicates an overall rate of about 50% partially or fully invalid in the first instanceHelmers and McDonagh (2013). France seems to be special case, with, according to Véron (2010), only 27% of the cases before the court of first instance in Paris between 2000 and 2009 resulting in a revocation decision.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How many patents are truly valid? Extent, causes, and remedies for latent patent invalidity

Henkel

Zischka

2018

Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A substantial number of patents tested in court for validity are invalidated. If a similar portion of all patents was deemed invalid in hypothetical validity tests, then this would indicate a seriously flawed patent system due to restrictions unduly imposed by these erroneously granted patents on users and follow-on innovators. Thus, we ask, if a randomly picked patent underwent revocation proceedings, what are the odds of its invalidation? We address this question by analyzing the various selection effects through which patents become subject to validity decisions. Empirically, we focus on Germany, where revocation proceedings are separate from infringement suits and where, in court decisions during the period of 2010 to 2012, 45% of patents were determined to be fully invalid and 33% to be partially invalid. Based on data gleaned through expert interviews, a survey among lawyers, and an econometric analysis of court judgments, we find the likelihood of (hypothetical) invalidation of a randomly picked patent to be in the same range as that for actually adjudicated patents. As the main cause of patent invalidity we identify incomplete searches for prior art during examination. Our arguments carry over to other legislations. To remedy this situation, we suggest a significant increase of the inventive step required for patent grant combined with a smaller increase of the inventive-step standard in litigation.

show abstract

Patent litigation in the UK: an empirical survey 2000-2008

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Patent litigation in Europe

Patent litigation in Europe

Patent Litigation in Europe

How many patents are truly valid? Extent, causes, and remedies for latent patent invalidity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About