Abstract
Patent law has a profound effect on the status of inventors. Patents grant their right holders with a bundle of rights which fundamentally shape the status of inventors. EU law has had lesser impact on patent law compared to other fields of intellectual property (IP). There are no unitary patent rights within the EU as in trade marks and designs but the Unitary Patent Package (UPP) launched in 2012 aims at creating so-called patents with unitary effect and the creation of a Unified Patent court. Areas where EU law has had effect on the status of inventors are limited to issues, such as biotechnological inventions, the enforcement of patent rights and the creation of supplementary protection measures. In addition, the EU has recently been active in the field of trade secrets which has ramifications for inventors.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Article 60 (1) EPC.
- 2.
In addition, some jurisdictions provide inventor with protection through utility models or petty patents.
- 3.
Though all EU member states are Contracting states of the EPC. Switzerland, Norway and Turkey are, for instance, contracting states of the EPC.
- 4.
See Articles 64(1), 79 EPC.
- 5.
Subsection (3) of Article 65 states expressis verbis that “[a]ny infringement of a European patent shall be dealt with by national law.” However, an opposition proceeding however may be launched after the grant of the patent before the EPO.
- 6.
However, the substantive provisions of the Community Patent Convention with regards to post-grant phase of patents, such as the rules on infringement were adopted in many national patent laws of EU member states.
- 7.
This was an amended version of the CPC 1975 and was envisaged as an international agreement and was signed on 15.12 1989 again in Luxembourg, 1989 89/695/EEC, OJ EEC L 401, 30.12.1989, 1–27. Similarly to the CPC 1975 this Agreement failed to enter into force.
- 8.
The prime example for this are the so-called “Epilady” cases.
- 9.
EPLA foresaw “the establishment of a highly specialized, semi-centralized European Patent Court having exclusive jurisdiction over litigation concerning the revocation and the infringement of the European bundle patent”.
- 10.
A consensus was established to generally apply the three official languages of the EPO—English, French and German.
- 11.
Council Decision 2011/167/EU of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 53).
- 12.
Joined Cases C-274/11 and C-295/11 Spain and Italy v Council. Italy eventually ratified the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court.
- 13.
Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (UP Regulation).
- 14.
Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements.
- 15.
Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, <https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc-agreement.pdf.>
- 16.
UP Regulation, Recital 5.
- 17.
Article 89 UPC Agreement.
- 18.
Kluwer Patent Blog (2017) German complaint against Unified Patent Court Agreement: deadline for submitting views is end of October. http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/09/12/german-complaint-unified-patent-court-agreement-deadline-submitting-views-end-october/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
- 19.
Directive 98/44/EC for Biotechnological Inventions (1998).
- 20.
European Commission (1988) A European Patent Law for Biotechnology. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_P-88-111_en.htm. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
- 21.
Administrative Council Decision, OJ EPO 7/1999, pp. 437–440.
- 22.
Article 3(2) Biotech Directive.
- 23.
Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV (C-34/10) [2012] 1 C.M.L.R. 41.
- 24.
Case C-364/13 International Stem Cell Corporation v. Comptroller General of Patents.
- 25.
Article 19(1) TEU.
- 26.
Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products and Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products.
- 27.
Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, Recital 3; Regulation (EC) No 1610/96, Recital 3.
- 28.
Article 63 EPC was subsequently amended in order to take account of SPCs.
- 29.
Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, Article 13; Regulation (EC) No 1610/96, Article 13.
- 30.
Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
- 31.
Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (Trade Secrets Directive).
- 32.
Article 2(2) Trade Secrets Directive.
References
Arnold, R. (2013). An overview of European harmonization measures in intellectual property law. In A. Ohly & J. Pila (Eds.), The Europeanization of intellectual property law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker and Mackenzie. (2013). Study on trade secrets and confidential business information in the internal market. MARKT/2010/20/D, p. 2. Retrieved January 15, 2018, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016L0943&from=EN
Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2014). Intellectual property law (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bonadio, E. (2012). Stem cells industry and beyond: What is the aftermath of Brüstle? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 3, 93–97.
Ellyne, E. (2014). European unitary patent: Are we there yet? Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 4, 57–79.
Fisher, M. (2007). Fundamentals of patent law - Interpretation and scope of protection. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Kluwer Patent Blog. (2017). German complaint against Unified Patent Court Agreement: Deadline for submitting views is end of October. Retrieved January 15, 2018, from http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/09/12/german-complaint-unified-patent-court-agreement-deadlinesubmitting-views-end-october/
Krieger, A. (1988). The Luxembourg Convention on the Community Patent – A challenge and a duty. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 19, 143–157.
Massa, C.-H., & Strowel, A. (2004). The scope of the proposed IP Enforcement Directive: Torn between the desire to harmonise remedies and the need to combat piracy. EIPR, 26, 244–253.
McDonagh, L., & Mimler, M. (2017). Intellectual property law and Brexit: A retreat or a reaffirmation of jurisdiction? In M. Dougan (Ed.), The UK after Brexit – Legal and policy challenges. Cambridge: Intersentia.
Nordberg, A., & Minssen, T. (2016). A ray of hope for European stem cell patents or out of the smog into the fog? An analysis of recent European Case Law and how it compares to the US. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 47, 138–177.
Pagenberg, J. (2012). Die EU-Patentrechtsreform – zurück auf Los? Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, 6, 582–589.
Ullrich, H. (2012). Harmonizing Patent Law: The Untameable Patent Union. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper, 12-03. Available at SSRN. Retrieved March 12, 2018, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027920
Wadlow, C. (2010). Strasbourg, the forgotten patent convention, and the origins of the European patent jurisdiction. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 41, 124–149.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mimler, M. (2019). Inventor. In: Bartolini, A., Cippitani, R., Colcelli, V. (eds) Dictionary of Statuses within EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00554-2_42
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00554-2_42
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00553-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00554-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)