Lehne on the unitary patent: deleting articles 6-8 is not acceptable

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Lehne on the unitary patent: deleting articles 6-8 is not acceptable

MEPs will not back a system of pan-European patent litigation that does not give the Court of Justice of the EU a role in deciding what constitutes infringement of a unitary patent, says Klaus-Heiner Lehne, chair of the Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee

Last week senior European Commission official Kerstin Jorna told Managing IP she believed member states and MEPs were considering ways of compromising on the issue, which threatens to derail plans to introduce a unitary patent for Europe along with a system for litigating it.

Before Parliament’s summer recess, the Council of Ministers agreed to support the Commission’s proposals for a unitary patent package, but recommended that MEPs remove Articles 6 to 8 from the draft regulation. These articles explain what constitutes direct and indirect infringement of a unitary patent and the limits on rights conferred by the patent. The Court of Justice would be given the final say on how the articles would be interpreted.

MEPs responded angrily, accusing member states of reneging on an informal agreement on the content of the patent regulation that the two sides had reached in December.

Although Jorna suggested the two sides may be looking for a compromise solution, Lehne, who chairs the influential Legal Affairs Committee and is Parliament’s rapporteur on the unitary patent proposals, said MEPs would not support a plan to remove the articles.

“I do not want to speculate on the specifics of a possible compromise, but for me it is quite clear that a simple deletion of the Articles 6-8 will not be acceptable to the European Parliament,” he told Managing IP by email.

The Legal Affairs Committee is set to discuss the unitary patent at its meeting on October 11 but will not be taking a vote.

In principle, if Parliament votes in favour of a different text to that agreed by the Council, the file would have to go to a second reading, said Lehne, adding: “I would prefer if the Council would propose a workable compromise.”

The German MEP, who is a partner of law firm Taylor Wessing, declined to say whether he believed it preferable to reject the unitary package as a whole rather than have a system that does not give the EU’s highest court a role in interpreting the law governing it.

“What is important is that we find a solution which ensures that the patent regulation is in conformity to EU-law,” he said.

The latest draft agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute was published by the Cypriot presidency of the EU on Thursday. The main changes to the document reflect positions agreed by the Council of Ministers in June. The document will be discussed by a meeting of the Friends of the Presidency group on October 5.

You can read more about Klaus-Heiner Lehne in Managing IP's 2012 list of the 50 most influential people in IP.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Sponsored by Licks Attorneys
Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Laís Souza of Licks Attorneys explain how the provision operates in practice, highlighting evidential hurdles and best practices for patent applicants
Sponsored by Liu, Shen & Associates
Chunyu Cui and Ziqing Wu of Liu, Shen & Associates say recent trends in China’s intellectual property courts indicate alignment with international standards and send a clear signal to the global market
Gift this article