A former patent attorney found flaws in a recent publication praising the proposed Unified Patent Court.
The European Patent Office has published Patents, trade and foreign direct investment in the European Union, a paper which assesses the impact of the European patent system on “the circulation of technologies through trade and foreign direct investment” in the single market, reports Mark Richardson for Lexology.
The paper encompasses discussion on how the current patent system impacts on trade investment, with particular focus on ‘high IP’ industries like bio-pharmaceuticals, information and computing technology, and the medical device industries.
It also examines the proposed Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the unitary patent, although Richardson remarks that the paper “glosses over or omits the challenges or drawbacks facing [the UPC]” when it discusses the benefits it could provide.
Whereas current EU patent applicants may file and prosecute a central application with the EPO, which at grant must be validated into a bundle of national patents (with the accompanying problem of multiple court actions and potentially conflicting decisions, nation-by-nation), the paper suggests the unitary patent will circumnavigate such limitations.
Richardson, however, describes the paper’s presentation of the unitary patent as “somewhat rose-tinted” and cites a number of flaws, such as the omission of any mention of potential hurdles – including Brexit, and the recent German legal challenge. He also takes umbrage with the lack of a timescale provided (only the vague promise of it as “forthcoming”) and the exaggeration of issues with the current system. Conversely, Richardson argues that the EPO’s paper declines to discuss the UPC’s limitations, such as the “inability to prune portfolios over time” and the risk of a centralised attack.
To read the paper for yourself, visit here.