Patent Enforcement UK perspectives

Similar documents
European Patent Litigation: An overview

Strategies for successful Patent Enforcement in Germany. Michael Knospe, Partner, SJ Berwin LLP

POST-GRANT AMENDMENT JOHN RICHARDS

Patents in Europe 2016/2017. Helping business compete in the global economy

United Kingdom. By Penny Gilbert, Kit Carter and Stuart Knight, Powell Gilbert LLP

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

Understanding the Unified Patent Court: The Next Rocket-Docket for Patent Owners?

Course of patent infringement proceedings before the Unified Patent Court

European Patent with Unitary Effect and

The Unified Patent Court explained in detail. Managing Intellectual Property European Patent Reform Forum 19 September 2013 Munich

Patents in Europe 2011/2012. Greece Lappa

European Unitary Patents and the Unified Patent Court

ADR INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC. ADRIC ARBITRATION RULES I. MODEL DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE

Remedies: Injunction and Damages. 1. General

Norway. Norway. By Rune Nordengen, Bull & Co Advokatfirma AS

Key Features of the Primary European Patent Litigation Countries

Early Resolution Mechanism for Patent Disputes Regarding Approved Drug Products - Canada

THE NEW EUROPEAN UNIFIED PATENT COURT & THE UNITARY PATENT

European Patent with Unitary Effect

Italy Orsingher-Avvocati Associati

Multiple patent challenges in the USA, Canada, France and the UK

The English Patents Court. in a split UK-UPC European system. Paul England. Taylor Wessing

WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING

IP Law and the Biosciences Conference

ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013) CONTENTS

TOPIC 13 CIVIL REMEDIES. LTC Harms Japan 2017

ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013)

Dispute Resolution Around the World. Russia

Rules of Procedure for UPC

Are the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations Working?

Strategies to protect a market entry against (provisional) injunctions

CHAPTER 1. DISCLOSING EXPERT WITNESSES UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES: AN OVERVIEW

Before: MRS JUSTICE ROSE Between: - and

Germany. Henrik Holzapfel and Martin Königs. McDermott Will & Emery

The Unitary Patent Unified Patent Court. Taylor Wessing LLP

Belgium. Belgium. By Annick Mottet Haugaard and Christian Dekoninck, Lydian, Brussels

UPC FUTURE OF PATENT LITIGATION IN EUROPE. Alexander Haertel

UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION (UPP) PACKAGE

Presumption Of Patent Validity In Patent Litigations The New Trends

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

Patent litigation. Block 2. Module Jurisdiction and procedure Complementary reading: Unified Patent Court Agreement ( UPCA )

The Patents Act 1977 (as amended)

Standing Committee on Patents. Questionnaire on the Publication of Patent Applications India Section

Comparison between Opposition Systems in Europe and Japan

Canada Intellectual property enforcement

Preparatory Committee for the Unified Patent Court. Rules on Court fees and recoverable costs. I. Proposal for

the UPC will have jurisdiction over certain European patents (see box The unitary patent and the UPC: a recap ).

JAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures

Nine years after Ebay Should German courts have discretion when deciding on injunctions in patent infringement litigations?

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 19 March /08 PI 14

National Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules TABLE OF CONTENTS

"Conflict of laws: Does the UK Court have jurisdiction to rule on infringement and/or validity of a US Patent? Why are we getting involved?

ECTA European Communities Trade Mark Association 27 th Annual Meeting in Killarney

The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court EPLAW European Patent Lawyers Association Brussels 2 December 2011

Review of Current Status of Post-Grant Opposition System in Comparison with Invalidation Trial System

Remedies for Patent Infringement in the Medical Sector

ti Litigating Patents Overseas: Country Specific Considerations Germany There is no "European" litigation system.

EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION

The Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations: What patents are eligible to be listed on the register?

The Patents County Court Guide

France Baker & McKenzie SCP

SWITZERLAND: Patent Litigation CHAMBERS 2017 DOING BUSINESS IN BRAZIL: Global Practice Guides. Switzerland LAW & PRACTICE: p.<?> p.3. p.<?> p.

Commercial and Insolvency Update December Recognition of foreign judgments and suspected judicial bias:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERMUDA COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL RULES 2014 BR 11 / 2014

Before: MR. JUSTICE HENRY CARR Between:

Dispute Resolution Around the World. Germany

The Intellectual Property Regulation Board (incorporating The Patent Regulation Board and the Trade Mark Regulation Board)

R 84a EPC does not apply to filing date itself as was no due date missed. So, effective date for and contacts subject matter is

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (RAISING THE BAR ACT) 2012

European Patent Law. Gwilym Roberts Daniel Brook

IP Litigation in Life Sciences Germany 2016

Where to Challenge Patents? International Post Grant Practice Strategic Considerations Before the USPTO, EPO, SIPO and JPO

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW : CONFLICT OF LAWS

The Unitary Patent and UPC is coming soon?

CHAPTER 9 INVESTMENT. Section A

The Judgment can be accessed here at the website of the Delhi High Court. The Judgment can also be accessed here at India Kanoon website.

PROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Patent litigation. Block 3. Module UPC Law Essentials

European Patent Opposition Proceedings

The Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court. Guide to Key Features & Perspectives

CIArb/IMPRESS ARBITRATION SCHEME RULES ( the Rules ) FOR USE IN ENGLAND & WALES

Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents

DUBAI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE RULES 2007 AS OF 22 ND FEBRUARY Introductory Provisions. Article (1) Definitions

Decision on Patent Law. Patent Act Secs. 104 ter, 123, 128, Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 338 Knife-processing Device

REVISED AS OF MARCH 2014

OUTLINE AND EVALUATION OF THE DOUBLE TRACK SYSTEM IN JAPAN--- INVALIDITY DEFENSE IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATIONS AND INVALIDITY TRIALS AT JPO

The Patent Regulation Board and The Trade Mark Regulation Board. Disciplinary Procedure Rules

Battle over Patent Invalidation in Patent Infringement Suits. Chief Judge of the IP High Court MAKIKO TAKABE

Official Journal of the European Union L 251/3

PRE-GRANT OPPOSITION POST-GRANT OPPOSITION

Damages and Remedies in Civil IP Cases An U.S. Perspective

Recent Developments in IP Enforcement in Korea

GUIDANCE No.25 CORONERS AND THE MEDIA

2010 No. 791 COPYRIGHT

Practice Guideline 9: Guideline for Arbitrators on Making Orders Relating to the Costs of the Arbitration

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS

HOW HIGH HAS THE BAR BEEN RAISED? THE AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE ISSUES ITS FIRST OPPOSITION DECISION ON A POST RAISING THE BAR PATENT APPLICATION

2016 No. 41 POLICE. The Police (Conduct) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016

AMICUS BRIEF OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION IN SPECIAL EFFECTS LTD v. L OREAL SA and OTHERS

Transcription:

Patent Enforcement UK perspectives Options for Patentees and Potential Defendants Ian Kirby Partner FICPI St. Petersburg 6 October 2016

UK: Key Factors 1) Choice of court 2) Types of patent claim 3) Preliminary remedies and/or applications 4) Documentary evidence 5) Expert evidence 6) Final remedies 7) Appeals 2

UK: Court structure Supreme Court * Infringement action and/or claim/counterclaim for revocation Court of Appeal appeal (with leave; points of law only) appeal appeal * High Court (Patents Court) IPEC * appeal Transfer possible in some cases UK Intellectual Property Office Application for revocation only 3

Patent Enforcement I The Patentee s perspective

(1) Choice of court: IPEC or High Court IPEC (Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) Recoverable costs capped at 50,000 for the liability phase and 25,000 for the damages phase Damages awards are capped at 500,000 per action Pro-active case management Two day trial maximum High Court (Patents Court) Unlimited damages Pro-active case management (increasingly) Costs recovery for successful party (~70%) 5

(2) Types of patent claim Infringement claims particulars of infringing activity evidence or sufficient inference to shift burden of proof Be aware of: Declaration of non-infringement (can be pan- EU) invalidity/revocation counterclaims threats NB. No bifurcation infringement claims and invalidity counterclaims will be heard together at trial 6

(3) Preliminary remedies Preliminary injunctions rare in patent cases except for certain pharma cases Test: serious issue to be tried irreparable harm balance of justice (is King/Queen) cross-undertaking in damages Speedy trial options Seizure orders 7

(4) Documentary evidence Cards face up on the table an ongoing obligation to conduct a reasonable and proportionate search for documents if relevant, document must be disclosed, even if damaging to own case Can be expensive not as burdensome as US, but more so than elsewhere in EU (exception is Ireland) Disclosure generally limited two years either side of the priority date Documents for use in the UK only, but DuPont (formerly Danisco) v. Novozymes [2013] EWHC 155 8

(5) Expert evidence Finding the expert critical to get the right expertise who is the skilled person or team? Manner of instruction of experts increasingly scrutinised by opponents and the court Duty of experts to help the court on matters within their expertise Detailed written reports stand as direct testimony Oral cross-examination during trial contrast with the EPO 9

(6) Final remedies Injunctions usually granted, but discretionary Damages (compensate patentee for its loss) lost profits (sales the patentee would have made) lost sales (primary and ancillary) price depression springboard and post-expiry sales reasonable royalty (sales patentee would not have made) Account of profits (infringer's profit) rare (infringer may deduct a proportion of its overheads in addition to direct costs) Delivery up/destruction Limited punitive damages 10

Patent Enforcement II The Defendant s perspective

(1) Choice of court: a 3 rd tribunal - IPO Normally validity-only cases can hear infringement if both parties agree, but very unusual Primarily a written procedure, but hearings available hearings in 1 day, but no more than 2 days Disclosure requests possible, but unusual specific most likely; standard inappropriate Cross-examination available prior request required; normally allowed 6-12 months from initial claim to trial costs: 50-150K for revocation only recoverable costs are small, per fixed scale but off-scale costs ( approaching full compensation ) awardable proportionately for breaches of rules, delaying tactics, unreasonable conduct, etc. 12

(2) Types of patent claim Declaration of non-infringement must apply first in writing with full particulars of the act can be pan- EU, but rarely is Actavis UK Ltd and others v Eli Lilly & Co [2014] EWHC 1511 Defence of non infringement how to prove non infringement Declaration of obviousness Fujifilm v AbbVie [2016] EWHC 425 Threats actions Declaration of invalidity (claim or counterclaim) anyone can commence revocation action 13

(3) Preliminary remedies Clearing the way Stays Where litigation is bound to ensue if the defendant introduces his product, he can avoid all the problems of an interim injunction if he clears the way first. That is what the procedures for revocation and declaration of non-infringement are for SmithKline Beecham v Apotex Europe [2002] EWCA Civ 137 If a patent is opposed at the EPO, will the UK courts stay its parallel proceedings? in general, no but see Actavis v Pharmacia [2014] EWHC 2265 14

(4) Documentary evidence Defence of non-infringement how to prove non infringement burden of proof, e.g., process patents Declaration of invalidity how strong is your revocation case? as the applicant for revocation, you are likely to disclose few documents but if you introduce a non-infringement case your obligation will be heavier Threats actions evidence of extent and effect of threats 15

(5) Expert evidence The existence of oral cross-examination during trial is a significant issue Compare EPO approach v UK patents court: EPO likes documents, and relies far less on witness testimony testing of a witness evidence in EPO is relatively light: crossexamination is very rare as a result, the quality of expert evidence can be lower than evidence prepared with the knowledge that the witness will be cross examined at trial in addition, an expert witness is better able to explain what was the common general knowledge at the time of the invention: documents alone do this job less well 16

(6) Final remedies Declarations defendant does not infringe patent invalid, in whole or part defendant s product obvious at priority date Final injunctions usually granted, but discretionary is one appropriate, e.g. FRAND cases? Damages/Account of profits separate hearing (up to 1 year from liability decision) complex: forensic accountants opinions and other evidence Threats actions final injunction, damages 17

Both Parties: Appeals IPO appeal to High Court (Patents Court) (about 1 year) IPEC appeal directly to Court of Appeal (about 1 year) permission to appeal is regularly given. Patents Court appeal to Court of Appeal (about 1 year) Court of Appeal appeal to Supreme Court (1-2 years) points of law only rare for permission to appeal to be granted in patent cases Review rather than re-hearing rare that new evidence considered on appeal court considers written evidence already filed, transcripts of trial evidence, and fresh oral argument Appeal does not suspend the decision of the court below must ask for stay or suspension and have good reason to do so 18