The Future of

European Patent Law

Anna Horn
Doctoral Candidate

Anna.horn@juridicum.su.se
What Have You Been Learning about
Patent Law so far?

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

Aim for today – discussion on what is
the future of European patent law?

● Current level of harmonisation of patent law in

Europe.

● How should harmonisation be pursued?

● What rules need to be further harmonised?

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

Structure for today’s lecture

● The limitation of European Patent Convention

● The development of an unitary patent system in Europe
● The current level of harmonisation
● The rules on patent infringement
● The rules on jurisdiction for cross-border patent disputes
● Comparing patent litigation across Europe
● Promoting harmonisation trough judicial dialog
● Concluding remarks - the future of patent law in Europe

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

Legal instruments governing European
patent law

● The Paris Convention

● The Patent Cooperation Treaty
● The TRIPS agreement
● The EPC

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

The Limitation of European Patent
Convention

● The EPC was signed in 1973 by both Member

States of the EEC, EFTA and European countries.
● Created as a solution to a disagreement between
the EEC states.
● Common granting system for grant of European
patents – “bundle of rights”.
● Have created harmonisation on patentability
standards, validity, interpretation of patent
claims.
● What is left to other legal instruments?

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

Attempts for a Community Patent
● The idea of a unification of patent laws was firstly
expressed in 1949 after WW2.
● One can consider four different motivations for
the creation of a common patent system in
Europe.
● It was decided early by the Member States that
the European system would co-exits with
national patent laws.
● The Member States decided to create
autonomous and unitary right through an
international convention and not directives under
the Rome Treaty.

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

Attempts for a Community Patent

● With the creation of the EPC it remained a few

gaps to be filled by the CPC after 1973.
● The bundle of national patents granted by the
EPO was supposed to be formed into a
supranational unitary right.
● The effect of the sole right to a patent.
● The convention failed several times to go into
force mostly due to lack of ratifications.
● In the end it became unattractive to the Member
States and it fell behind the changing
requirements within the Union.

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

Adjustment of National Patent Law
The Community Patent Convention and connected resolution from 1976 – Adjustment of

National Patent Law

Section 130(7) UK Patents Act 1977

“Whereas by a resolution made on the signature of the Community Patent Convention the

governments of the member states of the European Economic Community resolved to adjust

their laws relating to patents so as (among other things) to bring those laws into conformity

with the corresponding provisions of the European Patent Convention, the Community Patent

Convention and the Patent Co-operation Treaty, it is hereby declared that the following

provisions of this Act, that is to say, sections 1(1) to (4), 2 to 6, 14(3), (5) and (6), 37(5),

54, 60, 69, 72(1) and (2), 74(4), 82, 83, 100 and 125, are so framed as to have, as nearly

as practicable, the same effects in the United Kingdom as the corresponding provisions of the

European Patent Convention, the Community Patent Convention and the Patent Co-operation

Treaty have in the territories to which those Conventions apply.”

The Unitary Patent System
● Consists of:
- The agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Regulation No 1260/2012 implementing
enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation
of unitary patent protection with regard to the
applicable translation arrangements.
- Regulation No 1257/2012 implementing
enhanced cooperation in the are of the creation
of unitary patent protection.
- Created through an enhanced cooperation
- Provisions on how to obtain unitary effect and
the rights of such effect.

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

The Unitary Patent System
● Unitary effect in all participating Member States,
giving uniform protection.
● Translation arrangements for requesting an
unitary effect and in an event of dispute.
● Unitary patent court with local, regional and
central divisions and a Court of Appeal.
● A decision of the Court shall cover the territory of
all Member States.
● Effects of a unitary patent right in
correspondence with CPC.
● Rules of revocation on the grounds of the EPC.

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

The Future for a Unitary Patent System

● The Regulations will come into effect when the

AUPC is in force.
● The AUPC will come into force four months after
the thirteenth Member State ratifies the
agreement. Germany, France and the UK have to
be in the group.
● 16 Member States have ratified the agreement
including France and the UK.
● Complaint in the German
Bundesverfassungsgericht.
● Brexit

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

 The Rules on Patent Infringement
The CPC:
Article 29
Prohibition of direct use of the invention
A Community patent shall confer on its proprietor
the right to prevent all third parties not having his
consent :
(a) from making, offering, putting on the market or
using a product which is the subject-matter of the
patent, or importing or stocking the product for
these purposes;
(b) from using a process which is the subject-matter
of the patent or, when the third party knows, or
it is obvious in the circumstances, that the use of
the process is prohibited without the consent of
the proprietor of the patent, from offering the
process for use within the territories of the
Contracting States;
(c) from offering, putting on the market, using, or
importing or stocking for these purposes the
product obtained directly by a process which is
the subject-matter of the patent.
Article 30
Prohibition of indirect use of the invention
1 . A Community patent shall also confer on its
proprietor the right to prevent all third parties not
having his consent from supplying or offering to
supply within the territories of the Contracting States
a person, other than a party entitled to exploit the
patented invention, with means, relating to an
essential element of that invention, for putting it into
effect therein, when the third party knows, or it is
obvious in the circumstances, that these means are
suitable and intended for putting that invention into
effect.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply when the means
are staple commercial products, except when the
third party induces the person supplied to commit
acts prohibited by Article 29 .
3 . Persons performing the acts referred to in
Article 31 (a) to (c) shall not be considered to be
parties entitled to exploit the invention within the
meaning of paragraph 1 .
The Agreement on the Unified Patent Court:

ARTICLE 25 ARTICLE 26
Right to prevent the direct use of the invention Right to prevent the indirect use of the invention
A patent shall confer on its proprietor the right to prevent
(1) A patent shall confer on its proprietor the right to
any third party not having the proprietor's consent from the
following: prevent any third party not having the proprietor's consent
(a) making, offering, placing on the market or using a from supplying or offering to supply, within the territory of
product which is the subject matter of the patent, or the Contracting Member States in which that patent has
importing or storing the product for those purposes; effect, any person other than a party entitled to exploit the
(b) using a process which is the subject matter of the patented invention, with means, relating to an essential
patent or, where the third party knows, or should have element of that invention, for putting it into effect therein,
known, that the use of the process is prohibited without the
when the third party knows, or should have known, that
consent of the patent proprietor, offering the process for
use within the territory of the Contracting Member States in those means are suitable and intended for putting that
which that patent has effect; invention into effect.
(c) offering, placing on the market, using, or importing or (2) Paragraph 1 shall not apply when the means are staple
storing for those purposes a product obtained directly by a commercial products, except where the third party induces
process which is the subject matter of the patent.
the person supplied to perform any of the acts prohibited
by Article 25.
(3) Persons performing the acts referred to in Article 27(a)
to (e) shall not be considered to be parties entitled to
exploit the invention within the meaning of paragraph 1.
The UK Patents Act 1977:
Section 60: Meaning of infringement
Infringement.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person infringes a patent for an invention if, but only if,
while the patent is in force, he does any of the following things in the United Kingdom in relation to
the invention without the consent of the proprietor of the patent, that is to say;
(a) where the invention is a product, he makes, disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports the
product or keeps it whether for disposal or otherwise;
(b) where the invention is a process, he uses the process or he offers it for use in the United Kingdom
when he knows, or it is obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances, that its use there
without the consent of the proprietor would be an infringement of the patent;
(c) where the invention is a process, he disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports any product
obtained directly by means of that process or keeps any such product whether for disposal or
otherwise.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person (other than the proprietor of the
patent) also infringes a patent for an invention if, while the patent is in force and without the consent
of the proprietor, he supplies or offers to supply in the United Kingdom a person other than a licensee
or other person entitled to work the invention with any of the means, relating to an essential element
of the invention, for putting the invention into effect when he knows, or it is obvious to a reasonable
person in the circumstances, that those means are suitable for putting, and are intended to put, the
invention into effect in the United Kingdom.

(3) Subsection (2) above shall not apply to the supply or offer of a staple commercial product unless
the supply or the offer is made for the purpose of inducing the person supplied or, as the case may
be, the person to whom the offer is made to do an act which constitutes an infringement of the patent
by virtue of subsection (1) above.
German Patentgesetz

§9 § 10
Das Patent hat die Wirkung, dass allein der (1) Das Patent hat ferner die Wirkung, daß es jedem
Patentinhaber befugt ist, die patentierte Erfindung im Dritten verboten ist, ohne Zustimmung des
Rahmen des Patentinhabers
geltenden Rechts zu benutzen. Jedem Dritten ist es im Geltungsbereich dieses Gesetzes anderen als zur
verboten, ohne seine Zustimmung Benutzung der patentierten Erfindung berechtigten
1. ein Erzeugnis, das Gegenstand des Patents ist, Personen Mittel, die sich auf ein wesentliches Element
herzustellen, anzubieten, in Verkehr zu bringen oder zu der Erfindung beziehen, zur Benutzung der Erfindung
gebrauchen oder zu den genannten Zwecken entweder im Geltungsbereich dieses Gesetzes anzubieten oder zu
einzuführen oder zu besitzen; liefern, wenn der Dritte weiß oder es auf Grund der
2. ein Verfahren, das Gegenstand des Patents ist, Umstände offensichtlich ist, daß diese Mittel dazu
anzuwenden oder, wenn der Dritte weiß oder es auf geeignet und bestimmt sind, für die Benutzung der
Grund Erfindung
der Umstände offensichtlich ist, daß die Anwendung des verwendet zu werden.
Verfahrens ohne Zustimmung des Patentinhabers
(2) Absatz 1 ist nicht anzuwenden, wenn es sich bei den
verboten ist, zur Anwendung im Geltungsbereich dieses Mitteln um allgemein im Handel erhältliche Erzeugnisse
Gesetzes anzubieten;
handelt, es sei denn, daß der Dritte den Belieferten
3. das durch ein Verfahren, das Gegenstand des Patents bewußt veranlaßt, in einer nach § 9 Satz 2 verbotenen
ist, unmittelbar hergestellte Erzeugnis anzubieten, Weise
in Verkehr zu bringen oder zu gebrauchen oder zu den zu handeln.
genannten Zwecken entweder einzuführen oder zu
(3) Personen, die die in § 11 Nr. 1 bis 3 genannten
besitzen. Handlungen vornehmen, gelten im Sinne des Absatzes 1
nicht
als Personen, die zur Benutzung der Erfindung
berechtigt sind.
The Swedish Patentlagen (1967:837):

3 § Den ensamrätt som ett patent ger innebär, med de undantag som anges
nedan, att ingen utan patenthavarens samtycke får utnyttja uppfinningen
genom att
1. tillverka, bjuda ut, föra ut på marknaden eller använda ett patentskyddat
alster eller föra in eller inneha ett sådant alster för något av dessa ändamål,
2. använda ett patentskyddat förfarande eller, om han eller hon vet eller det
med hänsyn till omständigheterna är uppenbart att förfarandet inte får
användas utan patenthavarens samtycke, bjuda ut det för användning i Sverige,
3. bjuda ut, föra ut på marknaden eller använda ett alster som har tillverkats
enligt ett patentskyddat förfarande eller föra in eller inneha alstret för något av
dessa ändamål.

Ensamrätten innebär också att ingen utan patenthavarens samtycke får utnyttja
uppfinningen genom att erbjuda eller tillhandahålla någon som inte har rätt att
utnyttja uppfinningen sådant medel för att utöva den i Sverige som hänför sig
till något väsentligt i uppfinningen, om den som erbjuder eller tillhandahåller
medlet vet eller det med hänsyn till omständigheterna är uppenbart att medlet
är lämpat och avsett att användas vid utövande av uppfinningen. Är medlet en
vara som allmänt förekommer i handeln, gäller detta dock endast om den som
erbjuder eller tillhandahåller medlet försöker påverka mottagaren till en sådan
handling som avses i första stycket. Vid tillämpningen av bestämmelserna i
detta stycke ska den som utnyttjar uppfinningen på det sätt som sägs i tredje
stycket 1, 3, 4 eller 5 inte anses ha rätt att utnyttja uppfinningen.
Jurisdiction for Cross-Border Patent
Disputes
Brussels regulation No 1215/2012
Infringement action:
Art. 4 – defendant’s Domicile Rule
Art. 7.2 – Forum Delicti Rule (C-523/10,
Wintersteiger)
Joint infringers:
Art. 8.1 (C-539/03 Roche)
Validity / Revocation action:
Art. 24.4 (C-4/03 GaT v. LuK)

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

Comparing Patent Litigations across
Europe

Bjuggren, Domeij, Horn, Swedish Patent Litigation in Comparision to

European, 5/2015, Nordic Intellectual Property Rights

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law
 Promoting Harmonisation Through
Judicial Dialog

UK Court of Appeal’s Judgement 15 October 2010 Grimme Landmaschinen

Fabrik GmbH & Co KG v. Scotts Potato Machinery.

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

Grimme Landmaschinen Fabrik GmbH &
Co KG v. Scotts Potato Machinery.
”Advocates should recognise that where a point of patent law of general

importance, such as the construction of a provision which by Treaty (either the

EPC or the Community Patent Convention (“the CPC”)) is to be implemented by

states parties to those conventions, has been decided by a court, particularly a

higher court, of another member state, the decision matters here. For, despite

the fact that there is no common ultimate patent court for Europe, it is of

obvious importance to all the countries of the European Patent Union or the

parties to the CPC, that as far as possible the same legal rules apply across all

the countries where the provisions of the Conventions have been implemented.

An important decision in one member state may well be of strong persuasive

value in all the others, particularly where the judgment contains clear

reasoning on the point.”

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

 Discussion: how should harmonisation be
pursued and is there a future for the
Unitary Patent System?

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

Promoting Harmonisation Through
Judicial Dialog

Soft or hard harmonisation?

European Patent Law Conferences for judges?
European Patent Litigation Data Bases?
Do you believe that judges are allowed to promote
harmonisation?

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

 Discussion: what rules need further
harmonisation?

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

Rules with need for further
harmonisation

● Rules on jurisdiction
● Common case law?
● Further rules on standard essential patents?

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law

Concluding Remarks

● There is a need for harmonisation due to:

● Disparity in case law
● A fragmentised litigation system
● The internal market
● Digitalisation
● Soft harmonisation but not on the expense of
democracy?

18/11/2019 /Anna Horn, Department of Law