Feeds

Squabbling EU heads force Council to split patent court in 3

Pouting politicians dig their heels in on unified system

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

The UK, France and Germany have removed the last obstacle to the formation of a unified European patent system by divvying up the court between them.

The three European powerhouses have been holding up the end of a process that's been going on for decades to try to bring all of Europe's patent laws and disputes under one system so companies only have to get one patent and only have to litigate once.

But European Council President Herman Van Rompuy said today that EU leaders had reached a decision at a council meeting.

"After 30 years of discussions on a European patent we reached an agreement on the last outstanding issue, the seat of the Unified Patent Court," he said in a canned statement shortly after announcing the agreement on Twitter.

The squabbling chiefs of state came to a compromise by breaking the central court down into three parts, one for each country, which sort of belies the word "central".

Paris gets the seat of the court, which will be called the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, and it will get the president of that court's office as well.

The Council then claimed that "given the highly specialised nature of patent litigation and the need to maintain high quality standards", it thought it might have two "thematic clusters" as well. In other words, London will hear cases on chemistry including pharmaceuticals and life sciences, while Munich gets mechanical engineering.

"The agreement reached today on the Unitary Patent will lead to considerably reduced costs for SMEs and give a boost to innovation, by providing an affordable, high quality patent in Europe, with a single specialised jurisdiction," the Council's findings said.

The European Commission has described a single patent system as one of the most achievable and immediate steps the EU can take to encourage innovation and reduce costs for businesses, but separate states have been unsure whether the system will be all good news.

Various British bodies have voiced their concerns about the system, including a committee of MPs which found that the new court would be "prohibitively expensive" for small UK businesses to use.

As recently as 20 June, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) in the UK was claiming that not only the UK but Sweden, Finland, Poland and Germany were concerned about the proposals as they stood. CIPA said then that the current draft of proposals needed amendment if they were going to benefit business in the UK and Europe.

While companies will only have to buy one patent and only have to litigate once, there will be big costs for small businesses who will have to journey to wherever the appropriate court is. There is also some lack of certainty on what everything is going to cost in the new system and which bits of which laws will be held onto.

For example, Germany has a so-called "bifurcated system" for trying patent cases, where it decides on the validity and the infringement in two different courts, but the UK doesn't do that. Naturally then, the UK wanted the unified system to be like its own and Germany wanted the same.

CIPA said in a statement that it was still unclear whether the new system would allow bifurcation or not, but the fact that lawsuits wouldn't be able to go to the Court of Justice was good news.

Critics of the system had been concerned that appeals would go to the Court of Justice, which is already overworked and has no experience of intellectual property, but today's agreement scraps that idea.

Chris Mercer, president of CIPA told The Register the agreement was "not as good as it should be and not as bad as it could be either".

"Three courts - that has its good bits and its bad bits," he said, "overall we would have preferred one court."

However, he added that the deal now was much better for the UK and Europe than it had been. ®

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

More from The Register

next story
The 'fun-nification' of computer education – good idea?
Compulsory code schools, luvvies love it, but what about Maths and Physics?
Facebook, Apple: LADIES! Why not FREEZE your EGGS? It's on the company!
No biological clockwatching when you work in Silicon Valley
Happiness economics is bollocks. Oh, UK.gov just adopted it? Er ...
Opportunity doesn't knock; it costs us instead
Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
'Missy' Cummings on UAVs, smartcars and dying from boredom
Yes, yes, Steve Jobs. Look what I'VE done for you lately – Tim Cook
New iPhone biz baron points to Apple's (his) greatest successes
Lords take revenge on REVENGE PORN publishers
Jilted Johns and Jennies with busy fingers face two years inside
Sysadmin with EBOLA? Gartner's issued advice to debug your biz
Start hoarding cleaning supplies, analyst firm says, and assume your team will scatter
Edward who? GCHQ boss dodges Snowden topic during last speech
UK spies would rather 'walk' than do 'mass surveillance'
Doctor Who's Flatline: Cool monsters, yes, but utterly limp subplots
We know what the Doctor does, stop going on about it already
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.