Introduction Data Results
Patent Litigation in Europe Katrin Cremers, Max Ernicke, Fabian Gaessler, Dietmar Harhoff, Christian Helmers, Luke McDonagh, Paula Schliessler, Nicolas van Zeebroeck
September 19, 2013
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
Background • Unification (defragmentation) of European patent system – EU
unitary patent package 1 2
Unitary patent (UP) Unified patent court (UPC)
• UPC will have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to UPs and
European patents designating one or more member states • Structure: • Central division (where? Paris, London [chemicals and
pharmaceuticals], and Munich [mechanical engineering]) • Local and regional divisions (how many?)
• Potential separation infringement and invalidity claims
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
Policy issues • Policy discussion: • Really less fragmentation? • Impact on costs of enforcing patents • Potential for ‘forum shopping’
• Current policy discussion: • • • • •
Rules of procedure Costs and financing/budget How many regional and local divisions Composition of judicial panels (local divisions) ...
• Policy discussion largely in absence of empirical evidence
F Provide evidence on patent litigation 2000-2008 for Germany, England & Wales, France, the Netherlands.
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
Bifurcated system (Germany) Proceedings available to Patentee
Proceedings available to Alleged Infringer Opposition EPO – Opposition Division
Interim Proceedings Regional Court esp. Prelim. Injunction
Appeal EPO – Tech. Boards of Appeals stay request
1st Instance Proceedings Regional Court NO Jurisdiction to hear VALIDITY Revocation Action Federal Patent Court (only AFTER Opposition) Appeal Higher Regional Court NO Jurisdiction to hear VALIDITY
Enforcement Proceedings ALL Infringement decisions are enforceable [AFTER Provision of Security]
2nd / 1st Appeal Federal Supreme Court (decides BOTH infringement & validity)
Claim for DAMAGES IF INVALID PATENT was enforced before Infringement decision is FINAL
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
Non-bifurcated system (England & Wales) Proceedings available to Patentee & Alleged Infringer
Interim Proceedings PHC
Opposition UKIPO/EPO – Opposition Division
stay request 1st Instance Proceedings Infringement & Revocation Patents Court (PHC)
Appeal Court of Appeal
Enforcement Proceedings 2nd Appeal Supreme Court Cost Inquiry Proceedings
Proceedings available to Alleged Infringer
Appeal EPO – Tech. Boards of Appeals/PHC
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – Germany (DE)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – Germany (DE) • Invalidity: BPatG
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – Germany (DE) • Invalidity: BPatG • Infringement: 12 Regional Courts (Landgericht) – most important:
D¨ usseldorf, Mannheim, Munich
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – Germany (DE) • Invalidity: BPatG • Infringement: 12 Regional Courts (Landgericht) – most important:
D¨ usseldorf, Mannheim, Munich • Appeals: Higher Regional Courts (infringement) and Federal Court of
Justice (infringement & validity)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – Germany (DE) • Invalidity: BPatG • Infringement: 12 Regional Courts (Landgericht) – most important:
D¨ usseldorf, Mannheim, Munich • Appeals: Higher Regional Courts (infringement) and Federal Court of
Justice (infringement & validity) • For infringement considerable flexibility in choosing court venue
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – Germany (DE) • Invalidity: BPatG • Infringement: 12 Regional Courts (Landgericht) – most important:
D¨ usseldorf, Mannheim, Munich • Appeals: Higher Regional Courts (infringement) and Federal Court of
Justice (infringement & validity) • For infringement considerable flexibility in choosing court venue • Brief oral hearings
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – Germany (DE) • Invalidity: BPatG • Infringement: 12 Regional Courts (Landgericht) – most important:
D¨ usseldorf, Mannheim, Munich • Appeals: Higher Regional Courts (infringement) and Federal Court of
Justice (infringement & validity) • For infringement considerable flexibility in choosing court venue • Brief oral hearings • Preliminary proceedings very rare
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – Germany (DE) • Invalidity: BPatG • Infringement: 12 Regional Courts (Landgericht) – most important:
D¨ usseldorf, Mannheim, Munich • Appeals: Higher Regional Courts (infringement) and Federal Court of
Justice (infringement & validity) • For infringement considerable flexibility in choosing court venue • Brief oral hearings • Preliminary proceedings very rare • Stay of infringement proceedings only if invalidity “likely”
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – Germany (DE) • Invalidity: BPatG • Infringement: 12 Regional Courts (Landgericht) – most important:
D¨ usseldorf, Mannheim, Munich • Appeals: Higher Regional Courts (infringement) and Federal Court of
Justice (infringement & validity) • For infringement considerable flexibility in choosing court venue • Brief oral hearings • Preliminary proceedings very rare • Stay of infringement proceedings only if invalidity “likely” • 1st infringement judgment enforceable against provision of security
(no need to wait until decision of BPatG)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – Germany (DE) • Invalidity: BPatG • Infringement: 12 Regional Courts (Landgericht) – most important:
D¨ usseldorf, Mannheim, Munich • Appeals: Higher Regional Courts (infringement) and Federal Court of
Justice (infringement & validity) • For infringement considerable flexibility in choosing court venue • Brief oral hearings • Preliminary proceedings very rare • Stay of infringement proceedings only if invalidity “likely” • 1st infringement judgment enforceable against provision of security
(no need to wait until decision of BPatG) • (Limited) fee-shifting
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – Germany (DE) • Invalidity: BPatG • Infringement: 12 Regional Courts (Landgericht) – most important:
D¨ usseldorf, Mannheim, Munich • Appeals: Higher Regional Courts (infringement) and Federal Court of
Justice (infringement & validity) • For infringement considerable flexibility in choosing court venue • Brief oral hearings • Preliminary proceedings very rare • Stay of infringement proceedings only if invalidity “likely” • 1st infringement judgment enforceable against provision of security
(no need to wait until decision of BPatG) • (Limited) fee-shifting • Moderate costs – but “case-splitting”.
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – England & Wales (UK)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – England & Wales (UK)
• Invalidity & infringement: Patents County Court (PCC) and
Patents Court (PHC)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – England & Wales (UK)
• Invalidity & infringement: Patents County Court (PCC) and
Patents Court (PHC) • Appeals: Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (House of Lords)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – England & Wales (UK)
• Invalidity & infringement: Patents County Court (PCC) and
Patents Court (PHC) • Appeals: Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (House of Lords) • Summary judgments rare
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – England & Wales (UK)
• Invalidity & infringement: Patents County Court (PCC) and
Patents Court (PHC) • Appeals: Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (House of Lords) • Summary judgments rare • Strong disclosure requirements and expert witnesses widely used
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – England & Wales (UK)
• Invalidity & infringement: Patents County Court (PCC) and
Patents Court (PHC) • Appeals: Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (House of Lords) • Summary judgments rare • Strong disclosure requirements and expert witnesses widely used • Extensive oral hearings
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – England & Wales (UK)
• Invalidity & infringement: Patents County Court (PCC) and
Patents Court (PHC) • Appeals: Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (House of Lords) • Summary judgments rare • Strong disclosure requirements and expert witnesses widely used • Extensive oral hearings • Issue-based fee shifting
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – England & Wales (UK)
• Invalidity & infringement: Patents County Court (PCC) and
Patents Court (PHC) • Appeals: Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (House of Lords) • Summary judgments rare • Strong disclosure requirements and expert witnesses widely used • Extensive oral hearings • Issue-based fee shifting • Very expensive (£1 million and £6 million)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – France (FR)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – France (FR)
• Invalidity & infringement: (until June 2008) 10 Tribunaux de
Grande Instance (TGI) – most important: Paris, Lyon, Lille
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – France (FR)
• Invalidity & infringement: (until June 2008) 10 Tribunaux de
Grande Instance (TGI) – most important: Paris, Lyon, Lille • Appeal: Cour d’Appel and Cour de Cassation
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – France (FR)
• Invalidity & infringement: (until June 2008) 10 Tribunaux de
Grande Instance (TGI) – most important: Paris, Lyon, Lille • Appeal: Cour d’Appel and Cour de Cassation • Search and seizure procedure (saisie-contrefa¸con)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – France (FR)
• Invalidity & infringement: (until June 2008) 10 Tribunaux de
Grande Instance (TGI) – most important: Paris, Lyon, Lille • Appeal: Cour d’Appel and Cour de Cassation • Search and seizure procedure (saisie-contrefa¸con) • Trial conducted mostly on basis of written documents (including
written expert statements)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – France (FR)
• Invalidity & infringement: (until June 2008) 10 Tribunaux de
Grande Instance (TGI) – most important: Paris, Lyon, Lille • Appeal: Cour d’Appel and Cour de Cassation • Search and seizure procedure (saisie-contrefa¸con) • Trial conducted mostly on basis of written documents (including
written expert statements) • Moderate costs (e50,000 and e200,000)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – The Netherlands (NL)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – The Netherlands (NL)
• Invalidity & infringement: The Hague (s’Gravenhage) – patent
chamber (Rechtbank)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – The Netherlands (NL)
• Invalidity & infringement: The Hague (s’Gravenhage) – patent
chamber (Rechtbank) • Appeal: Gerechtshof and HogeRaad
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – The Netherlands (NL)
• Invalidity & infringement: The Hague (s’Gravenhage) – patent
chamber (Rechtbank) • Appeal: Gerechtshof and HogeRaad • Preliminary relief proceedings (KortGeding)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – The Netherlands (NL)
• Invalidity & infringement: The Hague (s’Gravenhage) – patent
chamber (Rechtbank) • Appeal: Gerechtshof and HogeRaad • Preliminary relief proceedings (KortGeding) • Cross-border injunctions possible in the past
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – The Netherlands (NL)
• Invalidity & infringement: The Hague (s’Gravenhage) – patent
chamber (Rechtbank) • Appeal: Gerechtshof and HogeRaad • Preliminary relief proceedings (KortGeding) • Cross-border injunctions possible in the past • Moderate costs (e60,000 and e200,000)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – differences
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – differences
• Bifurcation
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – differences
• Bifurcation • Centralized vs. decentralized (# courts)
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – differences
• Bifurcation • Centralized vs. decentralized (# courts) • Duration of proceedings
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – differences
• Bifurcation • Centralized vs. decentralized (# courts) • Duration of proceedings • Preliminary proceedings and disclosure/saisie-contrefa¸con
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – differences
• Bifurcation • Centralized vs. decentralized (# courts) • Duration of proceedings • Preliminary proceedings and disclosure/saisie-contrefa¸con • Experts and witness statements
Introduction Data Results
Motivation Legal systems
National systems – differences
• Bifurcation • Centralized vs. decentralized (# courts) • Duration of proceedings • Preliminary proceedings and disclosure/saisie-contrefa¸con • Experts and witness statements • Costs
Introduction Data Results
Data collection ⊕ Germany: • Infringement cases: no published court records – direct access to court
files in Mannheim, D¨ usseldorf, Munich • Revocation cases: published on website of BPatG and Federal Court of
Justice (BGH)
⊕ England & Wales: Patents Court Diary of the PHC, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords/Supreme Court plus various other data sources (Thomson-Reuters, Lexis-Nexis, LawTel, etc.) ⊕ France and The Netherlands: Darts-IP combined with information manually collected from court records ⊗ Common data template for DE & UK to obtain comparable data: • Case characteristics • Patent characteristics • Litigant characteristics
Introduction Data Results
Data collection ⊕ Germany: • Infringement cases: no published court records – direct access to court
files in Mannheim, D¨ usseldorf, Munich • Revocation cases: published on website of BPatG and Federal Court of
Justice (BGH)
⊕ England & Wales: Patents Court Diary of the PHC, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords/Supreme Court plus various other data sources (Thomson-Reuters, Lexis-Nexis, LawTel, etc.) ⊕ France and The Netherlands: Darts-IP combined with information manually collected from court records ⊗ Common data template for DE & UK to obtain comparable data: • Case characteristics • Patent characteristics • Litigant characteristics
Introduction Data Results
Case counts Year
Jurisdiction DE
FR
NL
UK
Total
claim filed
DU
MA
MU
BPatG (revocation)
Total
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
279 321 3* 310 436 492 383 477 437
97 129 139 148 205 197 189 249 209
21 33 37 62 59 47 45 69 48
171 165 129 144 170 196 197 195 251
568 648 308 664 870 932 814 990 945
106 126 125 85 120 118 129 106 87
42 40 31 19 45 40 35 36 38
19 22 24 28 27 28 40 31 37
735 836 488 796 1,062 1,118 1,018 1,163 1,107
Total
3,138
1,562
421
1,618
6,739
1,002
326
256
8,323
Introduction Data Results
Case counts
Year
Jurisdiction DE
claim filed
DU
MA
MU
BPatG (revocation)
Total
Total
3,138
1,562
421
1,618
6,739
FR
NL
UK
Total
1,002
326
256
8,323
Introduction Data Results
Case counts Adjustment
B Only infringement and revocation claims B Missing cases (courts not covered) B Only invention patents B Cases counted once per patent B Consolidated at case-level B Eliminate early settled cases B Count counterclaims for revocation and infringement as separate cases
DE
UK
FR
NL
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – Germany
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – Germany
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – Germany
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – Germany
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – Germany
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – Germany
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – Germany
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – England & Wales
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – England & Wales
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – England & Wales
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – England & Wales
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – England & Wales
Introduction Data Results
Case counts – England & Wales
Introduction Data Results
Case counts: under- vs over-counting
Introduction Data Results
Case duration
Introduction Data Results
Case duration Jurisdiction
Claim
Duration in months Mean
Median
DE
infringement revocation other
11.5 18.2 15.1
9.2 15.0 13.8
UK
infringement revocation other
11.7 10.8 10.0
11.0 11.2 8.2
FR
infringement revocation other
23.5 19.4 16.8
19.8 19.8 19.8
NL
infringement revocation other
13.9 17.2 na
9.8 11.4 na
Mean
Median
No counterclaim 8.6 11.0 10.3 11.2 13.0 8.2
Introduction Data Results
Outcomes for infringement and revocation claims Claim
Jurisdiction
Outcome Infringed
Revoked
Settled
Infringement
DE FR NL UK
22.0% 5.6% 36.0% 14.7%
5.6% 3.2% 8.8% 25.7%
46.1% 16.3% 2.7% 33.0%
Revocation
DE FR NL UK
7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7%
19.3% 16.2% 70.7% 42.0%
35.6% 17.6% 2.4% 25.9%
Introduction Data Results
Outcomes for infringement and revocation claims Claim
Jurisdiction
Outcome Infringed
Revoked
Settled
Infringement
DE FR NL UK
22.0% 5.6% 36.0% 14.7%
5.6% 3.2% 8.8% 25.7%
46.1% 16.3% 2.7% 33.0%
Revocation
DE FR NL UK
7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7%
19.3% 16.2% 70.7% 42.0%
35.6% 17.6% 2.4% 25.9%
Introduction Data Results
Parallel cases (same patent & same claimant and defendant) – duplication
DE
DE FR NL UK
68 46 35
FR
NL
UK
cases with parallel case
total cases
share
34
24 16
21 13 18
127 51 44 43
5,121 840 302 166
2% 6% 15% 26%
16 14
19
Introduction Data Results
Patent type and national validations – potential for duplication
Domestic %
%
EPO % also validated in DE
DE FR NL UK
58 59 26 16
42 39 73 81
89 96 95
FR
NL
UK
89
58 60
86 84 90
92 96
72
Introduction Data Results
Conclusion • Counting cases challenging • By far most cases in Germany – regardless of how cases are counted • Strong increase in case filings only in Germany – caution: partly
driven by peculiar behavior in ICT litigation (more recent evidence suggests also strong increase at UK PCC and changes in case types at UK PHC) • German courts fastest in deciding infringement – UK courts in
deciding validity • Some evidence for duplication – large variation duplication in terms of
share of cases • Partly explained by validation of EP patents
B Interpreting descriptive statistics very difficult! F So... what is the likely impact of the UPC?
