Litigation Strategies in Europe MIP Global IP & Innovation Summit

Similar documents
MIP International Patent Forum 2013 Russia Focus

Fact or Fiction? U.S. Government Surveillance in a Post-Snowden World

Patent Litigation in China & Amicus Curiae in the U.S. William (Skip) Fisher Partner, Shanghai. EPLAW Congress, 22 November 2013

Law Introducing Rules for Localization of Personal Data of Russian Citizens

Damages United Kingdom perspective

AIPLA Overview of recent developments in Community trade mark law

Challenging Government decisions in the UK. An introduction to judicial review

China's New Exit-Entry Law Targets Illegal Foreigners July 2012

Indemnities, Disclaimers and Constitution

Judicial Review. Where do we stand? Will proposals for further judicial review reform make any difference? Procedure & Practice

EEA and Swiss national. Children and their rights to British citizenship

Risk and Return. Foreign Direct Investment and the Rule of Law. Briefing Note

Possible models for the UK/EU relationship

Private action for contempt of court?

What You Need To Know About The Rise Of Civil Litigation By State Attorneys General

Jurisdiction and Governing Law Rules in the European Union

Seminar for HKIS on: "Non-Payment and Termination of Contracts"

UPC Alert. March 2014 SPEED READ

Damages in Judicial Review: The Commercial Context

Settlement Offers under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Sovereign Immunity. Key points for commercial parties July allenovery.com

Alternative Dispute Resolution in England and Wales

2. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROCEDURAL REGULATION ARTICLE

Jackson reforms to civil litigation

American Academy for Pediatric Dentistry

Disclosure of documents in civil proceedings in England and Wales

IP & IT Bytes. November Patents: jurisdiction and declaratory relief

Enforcing International Arbitral Awards in the UAE and The DIFC Courts: A conduit jurisdiction

The Senior Consumer. The Institute of Food, Medicine and Nutrition October David Donnan. A.T. Kearney October

Business Immigration. Brexit and the EU Settlement Scheme. December 2018

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code

Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department

Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department

Unified Patent Court. Breakfast Seminar Taylor Wessing, London. James Marshall, Dietrich Kamlah and Chris Thornham 10 April 2013, Wednesday

Latham & Watkins Finance Department

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department

Latham & Watkins Finance Department

Who can create jobs in america? The American Worker Perspective on U.S. Job Creation

Presenting our Belgian Antitrust Litigation practice. Advising you on private enforcement.

Client Alert. Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice. Background

Client Alert. Rome II and the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations. Introduction

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department

Freedom of Information Act Request: Mobile Biometric Devices and Applications

USDA Rulemaking Petition

Latham & Watkins Corporate Department. The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice

Client Alert. Background on Discovery Requests under Section 1782

Client Alert. Circuit Courts Weigh In on Treatment of Trademark License Agreements in Bankruptcy

Omnibus accounts in Poland new solutions available to foreign investors and custodians

For the purpose of this opinion, we have assumed the following:

Case3:12-mc CRB Document88 Filed10/04/13 Page1 of 5. October 4, Chevron v. Donziger, 12-mc CRB (NC) Motion to Compel

NEFF CORP FORM S-8. (Securities Registration: Employee Benefit Plan) Filed 11/21/14

BREXIT: THE WAY FORWARD FOR APPLICABLE LAW AND CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS?

Latham & Watkins Health Care Practice

The Unitary Patent Plan Beta Update on National Case Law in Europe

New draft European Regulation on the freezing of bank accounts

on significant health issues pertaining to their products, and of encouraging the

ICC INTRODUCES FAST-TRACK ARBITRATION PROCEDURE AND BOLSTERS TRANSPARENCY

Latham & Watkins Corporate Department

PATENT SYSTEM STATUS OFREFORMS

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/17/ :03 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/17/2017 ATTACHMENT 4

Case 1:18-cr DLF Document 7-1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT A

State-By-State Chart of Citations

Latham & Watkins Litigation and Finance Departments. Supreme Court Limits Reach of Non-Article III Courts Jurisdiction

IP & IT Bytes. Patents: guidance on experiments and scientific advisers

Respecting Human Rights in the Energy and Natural Resources Sector. A Practical Guide by Hogan Lovells International Business and Human Rights Group

What future for unilateral dispute resolution clauses?

Japan amends its Commercial Arbitration Rules

European Patent Litigation: An overview

The European Patent and the UPC

Background. 21 August Practice Group: Public Policy and Law. By Raymond P. Pepe

THE NEW EUROPEAN UNIFIED PATENT COURT & THE UNITARY PATENT

Client Alert. Natural Resource Damages After NJDEP v. Dimant. The Spill Act. Facts of Dimant

A Guide through Europe s New Unified Patent System

Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department

MOVING EMPLOYEES GLOBALLY:

December 15, Dear Justice Singh: VIA ECF LITIGATION

Slavery and Human Trafficking How the Newest Supply Chain Risk Impacts the Fashion Industry

BREXIT AND JURISDICTION CLAUSES: CHOICE OF ENGLISH LAW FOLLOWING THE EU REFERENDUM

Is Inter Partes Review Set for Supreme Court Review?

Key Features of the Primary European Patent Litigation Countries

New Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: Impact on Chapter 7, 12 and 13 Secured Creditors

IP Litigation in Life Sciences Germany 2016

Use and abuse of anti-arbitration injunctions: strategies in dealing with anti-arbitration injunctions

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

How the French contract law reform impacts your contracts: key points

The Opt-Out: Actions You Need to Take

UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION (UPP) PACKAGE

Fordham IP Conference 4-5 April 2013 Remedies session Laëtitia Bénard Cross-border injunctions for registered IP rights in Europe

EU-China Workshop on Trademark Law

IP Law and the Biosciences Conference

Automotive: A Pillar of Mexico s Economy

European Patent Law. Gwilym Roberts Daniel Brook

Changes to the Russian Civil Code: What's new in the regulation of obligations

European Patent with Unitary Effect

The UPC and Patent Trolls

IP & IT Bytes. Summary The Court of Appeal has confirmed the invalidity of a three-dimensional chocolate bar trade mark.

Marathon Oil Corporation

Transcription:

Litigation Strategies in Europe MIP Global IP & Innovation Summit Paul Brown, Partner, London 4 September 2013 What will this talk cover? What factors does a litigant need to consider when litigating patents in Europe? What are the features of the main jurisdictions? Germany The UK The Netherlands Italy France 2 1

Why should you listen? European population is 1.5x that of the USA Patent litigation is now in the news more than ever Economic circumstances mean that more parties are seeking to monetise their portfolios The risk of patent litigation in Europe cannot be ignored! 3 Some of the "basics" 4 2

The "basics" Patents are national rights, although there is a proposal to introduce a European Unitary patent. Inventors usually apply for patents in their most important markets; and/or where their competitors are based or manufacturing. Patents are litigated in national courts, although there is a proposal to introduce a European Unified Patents Court. May be choices about where to sue Need to compare systems for advantages and disadvantages 5 Key considerations for choosing where to litigate Chances of winning Benefit of winning damages Injunction to stop sales or manufacturing Risk of having your patent invalidated Cost of litigating and likelihood of settlement Timing 6 3

The Main Jurisdictions : Germany, the UK and the Netherlands (and a short mention for Italy and France too) 7 The Main Jurisdictions - Germany Germany Favoured by patentees Bifurcated system means that validity and infringement are considered separately Infringement is usually considered first in Mannheim or Dusseldorf Mannheim typically 9 months to trial Dusseldorf typically 12-18 months to trial However, limited disclosure of named documents Makes pleading infringement difficult in some cases Validity is considered later by the Federal Patent Court in Munich Up to 2.5 years until hearing in Munich Harsh on validity, just slow Injunctions can be granted before validity considered Infringement court may stay proceedings or injunction if clear novelty attack A predominant likelihood that the patent will fail 4

The Main Jurisdictions - UK UK Favoured by "infringers" Validity and infringement are considered together, allowing "squeezes" No "standing" requirement to challenge validity "Declaration of non-infringement" available to create squeeze Disclosure available Product/process description Disclosure of relevant docs 2 years either side of the priority date Hard on validity of tech patents Only 2 found valid in the recent past Relatively fast The quality of UK judgments means that they are persuasive in other European jurisdictions, including Germany and Italy The Main Jurisdictions The Netherlands The Netherlands Used by patentees to block imports to Europe through Rotterdam Used by "infringers" to get quick decisions on validity Increasingly used for preliminary injunctions IP cases are always urgent 5

Other Jurisdictions - Italy Italy Used by "infringers" to launch "Italian torpedo" Potentially blocks infringement actions in DE Increasingly being considered for preliminary injunctions Contrary to reputation gained through torpedoes, can be quite quick Other Jurisdictions - France France Recently changed the rules so that all patent cases heard in Paris Slow No technically trained judges Not a common venue for multi-jurisdiction patent litigation 6

Conclusion Patentees should sue in Germany Choice of Court now more important than ever Validity of electronics patents (particularly) now being looked at more closely by infringement courts UK still fastest for revocation actions But Dutch Court also popular The Netherlands, Germany and Italy good for PI Very unlikely in UK in non-pharma case Need to keep an eye on UPC developments Hogan Lovells has offices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Brussels Budapest* Caracas Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston Jakarta* Jeddah* London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Riyadh* Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Washington DC Zagreb* "Hogan Lovells" or the "firm" is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses. The word "partner" is used to describe a partner or member of Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP or any of their affiliated entities or any employee or consultant with equivalent standing. Certain individuals, who are designated as partners, but who are not members of Hogan Lovells International LLP, do not hold qualifications equivalent to members. For more information about Hogan Lovells, the partners and their qualifications, see. Where case studies are included, results achieved do not guarantee similar outcomes for other clients. Attorney Advertising. Hogan Lovells 2012. All rights reserved. *Associated offices 7