Lehne on the unitary patent: deleting articles 6-8 is not acceptable
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

John Keville, partner at Sheppard Mullin, explains how he secured a patent subject matter eligibility victory for his client against GoPro
An IP partner at Womble Bond Dickinson explains how its combination with Lewis Roca will create a fully-rounded litigation and prosecution service
Ronen Speyer of Evalueserve explains why in a competitive business landscape, IP has become a key driver in gaining a competitive advantage
Michael Sharp, who moved to Canadian firm Field Law from Aurora Cannabis in June, said he is enjoying cross-practice collaboration at his new firm
Yasemin Kenaroğlu tells us about setting up ‘IP School’, Turkish coffee, and why IP is like an iceberg
Irena Royzman, who joined Orrick earlier this year, explains how she's collaborated with her new colleagues to address IP policy concerns
Partners at Fenwick explain why they had to be aggressive when helping Lashify win a patent infringement trial
Big law firms are reorganising their IP departments in response to changing client needs and new legal challenges
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Louis-Pierre Gravelle discusses why he didn’t want to be part of the newly acquired Bereskin & Parr and the opportunities he’s eyeing at his new home, Dipchand
Gift this article