Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54128
|
| Title: | 涉外專利法之國際裁判管轄及適用法
Jurisdiction and applicable law on European patent disputes |
| Authors: | 藍彗甄
Lan, Hui Chen |
| Contributors: | 許耀明
Hsu, Yao Ming
藍彗甄
Lan, Hui Chen |
| Keywords: | 專利法之國際裁判管轄及適用法
Cross-border Jurisdiction
Brussels I Regulation (44/2001)
EPC
EPO
Patent
Rome II
infringements
validity
exclusive jurisdiction |
| Date: | 2011 |
| Issue Date: | 2012-10-24 16:38:10 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | European Patents are granted through the European Patent Office. Although such right is unitary, the European patents will break down into a bundle of national patents; each governed by the domestic law of the States which the holder of the right has designated.
Since infringement stands in the crossroads between patent enforcement and patent validity, infringement litigation generally touches on the issue of validity as it is impossible to infringe a right that does not exist or no longer exists. The nullity component in infringement litigation gives rise to additional difficulties with respect to the selection of the forum and the applicable law. As a result, the validity challenge is discussed in detail with respect to the application of the relevant rules on international jurisdiction and with respect to the identification of the relevant applicable laws.
Cross border litigation in relation to registered intellectual property rights in Europe has been extremely controversial over the years. The jurisdiction of the courts to deal with foreign intellectual property rights is after all not entirely obvious or straightforward in the light of the exclusive jurisdiction provision in the Brussels system. The judgment which the Court of Justice delivered on 13th July 2006 in case Roche and GAT result substantial conflicts. Divergent views had been expressed concerning cross border jurisdiction over intellectual property cases on Article 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation; and Article 16(4) of the Brussels Convention 1968, what is now Article 22(4) of the Brussels I Regulation.
This thesis focuses on the jurisdiction and applicable law on European patent disputes.
"CONTENTS – SUMMARY
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER II THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES 6
CHAPTER III EXTRATERRITORIAL PATENT JURISDICTION 29
CHAPTER IV A SINGLE PATENT SYSTEM? 68
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION 74
REFERENCES 76
INDEX
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
Motive and purpose of research
1
Summary of existing relevant literature 2
Research method and structure of the present thesis 4
Research method 4
Structure of the present thesis 5
CHAPTER II THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES 6
The Internationalization of Patent Law 8
The Paris Convention 8
The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) 11
The GATT TRIPS Agreement 13
European Patent Convention and European Patent Office 14
London Agreement 19
Patent Jurisdiction in Europe 20
Brussels I Regulation 44/2001 (Brussels Convention 1968) 21
The Lugano Convention 27
CHAPTER III EXTRATERRITORIAL PATENT JURISDICTION 29
Proceedings concerned with registration or validity
30
Duijnstee v. Goderbauer 1983 30
Introductory of Irreconcilable Judgments 33
Kalfelis v. Schröder1988 33
The Nature of the Connection Required for the Application of Article 6(1) 39
Roche Nederland BV and Others v. Frederick Primus and Milton Goldenberg
40
Exclusive Jurisdiction Regarding Registration and Nullity 49
Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG v. Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG 49
The Effect of Roche and GAT 56
CHAPTER IV A SINGLE PATENT SYSTEM? 58
Applicable Law - International Enforcement of Intellectual Property: Rome II
58
Creation of a Unified Patent Litigation System 64
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION 74
" |
| Reference: | BOOKS
1. Adelman, Martin J., Rader, Randall R. & Klancnik, Gordon P., Patent Law in a nutshell (2008).
2. Clarkson, Christopher M.V. & Hill, Jonathan, The conflicts of Laws, (Oxford 2006).
3. Fawcett, James J. & Torremans, Paul, Intellectual Property And Private International Law (1998).
4. Graziano, Thomas Kadner, Freedom to Choose the Applicable Law in Tort- Article 14 and 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation 113, (John Ahern & William Binchy ed., The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligation, 2009).
5. Ilardi, Alfredo & Blakeney, Michael, International Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property Treaties (2004).
6. Kur, Annette, Are there common European Principles? (Stefan Leible and Ansgar Ohly ed., Mohr Siebeck 2009).
7. Luginbuehl, Stefan, The future of centralized patent litigation in Europe: between the EPLA and the EU patent judiciary (Stefan Leible and Ansgar Ohly ed., Mohr Siebeck 2009).
8. Metzger, Axel, Jurisdiction in cases concerning Intellectual Property infringements on the internet – Brussels – I – Regulation, ALI – Principles and Max - Planck Proposals (Stefan Lieible and Ansgar Ohly ed., 2009).
9. Mueller, Janice M., An introduction to Patent Law (2006).
10. Norrgård, Marcus, A Spider Without a Web? Multiple Defendants in IP Litigation 209 (Stefan Leible and Ansgar Ohly ed., Mohr Siebeck 2009).
11. Schieff, Eric, Industrialization without national patents (1971).
12. Sender, Marta Pertegás , Cross – Border Enforcement of Patent Rights (2002).
13. Stone, Peter, EU private international law harmonization of law (2008) (2006).
14. Thomas Jr. Litigation beyond the technological frontier, comparative approaches to multinational patent enforcement (1996).
15. Torremans, Paul L.C., The way forward for cross-border intellectual property litigation: why GAT cannot be the answer (Stefan Leible and Ansgar Ohly ed., Mohr Siebeck 2009)
PERIODICALS
1. Cohen, Laurence J., Intellectual Property and the Brussels Convention: an English perspective, E.I.P.R 1997, 19(7), 379-382.
2. Droz, Georges, Compétence Judiciaire et effets des Jugements dans le Marché Commun (Étude de la Convention de Bruzelles du 27 septembre 1968) (Paris :Dalloz, 1972).
3. GW, Austin, The infringement of foreign intellectual property rights, 1997 LQ Rev. 321-340.
4. Holder, Niels, The Community Patent – breakthrough or set back? E.I.P.R 26(2), 43-47 (2004).
5. Idoi, Laurence, Vers une révision du règlement n˚ 44/2001, dit «Bruxelles I» ? Europe n˚ 7, Juillet 2009, alerte 28.
6. Jandoli, Vincenzo, Cross Border Litigation Again? This Time The Legislator Intervenes, E.I.P.R. 2009, 31(5),236-243.
7. Kazi, Ilya, Will We Ever See a Single Patent System Covering the EU, Let Alone Spanning the Atlantic or Pacific? E.I.P.R. 2011, 33(8),538-542.
8. Klink, Jan, Cherry Picking In Cross Border Patent Infringement Actions: A Comparative Overview of German and UK Procedure and Practice, E.I.P.R. 2004, 26(11), 493-504.
9. Kuipers, Jan-Jaap, Determining jurisdiction in international licence agreements: Falco Privatstiftung v. Weller – Lindhorst (C-533-07), E.I.P.R. 2010, 32(12), 659 – 663.
10. Kur, Annette, A Farewell to Cross-Border Injunctions? The ECJ Decision GAT/Luk and Roche Nederland./.Primus and Goldenberg, in: IIC 2006, 844.
11. O’Sullivan, Gearoid, Cross- border jurisdiction in patent infringement proceeding in Europe, E.I.P.R. 1996, 18(2), 654- 664.
12. Pertigas, Marta, EC: patents - cross border injunctions, E.I.P.R. 2006, 28(10), N193-194.
13. Poore, Alasdiar, The European Union Patent System: Off Course or On the Rocks? E.I.P.R. 2011, 33(7), 409-412.
14. Ranitz, Remco de, Jan Brinkhof in Conversation with Remco de Ranitz, E.I.P.R 1999, 21(3), 142-146.
15. Ranitz, Remco E.P. De & Swens, Otto P., UK Patent Law Crosses the Channel, E.I.P.R. 2008, 30(10), 389-394.
16. Tang, Zheng Sophia, Multiple defendants in the European Jurisdiction Regulation, European Law Review 2009, 34(1), 80-102.
17. Torremans, Paul L.C., Exclusive Jurisdiction and Cross-Border IP (patent) infringement: suggestions for amendment of the Brussels I Regulation, E.I.P.R. 2007, 29(5), 195-203.
18. Wadlow, Christoopher, Trade Secrets and the Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, E.I.P.R. 2008, 30(8), 309-319.
19. Warner, Steven, Patent Litigation In Multiple Jurisdictions: an end to cross border relief in Europe?, 28(11) E.I.P.R., 580, (2006).
20. Werra, Jacques De, What Legal Framework for Promoting the Cross-Border Flow of Intellectual Assets (Trade secrets and Music?) A View from Europe towards Asia (China and Japan) 27, I.P.Q. 2009, 27-76.
DOCUMENTS
1. Aruaud Nuyts, Katarzyna Szychowska, Nikitas Hatzimihail, Cross-Border Litigation In Intellectual Property Matters in Europe, Background Paper For The Heidelberg Workshop of 21 October 2006, 12, Available at http://www.ulb.ac.be/droit/ipit/docs/HeidelbergBackgPaper1.pdf.
2. Bruno Van Pottlesberghe de la Potterie and Didier François, the Cost factor in Patent Systems, Université Libre de Bruxelles Working Paper WP-CEB 06-002, Brussels 2006.
3. Brussels, 30.6.2010 COM(2010)350 final, Proposal for a Council Regulation (EU) on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent, SEC (2010) 796, SEC (2010) 797.
4. Brussels I, rules of jurisdiction. Available at http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/judicial_cooperation_in_civil_matters/l33054_en.htm
5. Burkhard Hess, Thomas Pfeiffer, and Peter Schlosser, Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States, paragraph 852-854. This article does not favor the key defendant option in cases other than the IP rights infringement.Available at http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_application_brussels_1_en.pdf
6. CLIP European Max-Planck Group for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, Exclusive Jurisdiction and Cross Border IP (Patent) Infringement Suggestions for Amendment of the Brussels I Regulation, 4. Available at http://www.ivir.nlpublicationseechoudCLIP_Brussels_%20I.pdf
7. Commission Communication, Enhancing the patent system in Europe, COM(2007) 165 final.
8. The Community Trade Mark Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, [1994] OJ L11/1.
9. The Community Design Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, [2000] OJ L3/1.
10. Council Regulation on Community Patent, COM(2000)412 final.
11. Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, [2004] OJ L 195/16.
12. Draft Agreement on the European and Community Patents Court (the Draft Agreement), 7928/09 of 23 March 2009.
13. EJCL , Nederlandse Vereniging Voor Rechtsvergelijking, Netherlands Comparative law Association, Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Matters of Intellectual Property 12, http://www.ejcl.org/143/art143-19.pdf.
14. European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation on the Community patent (COM(2000) 412 - C5-0461/2000 - 2000/0177(CNS)) (OJ C 127 E, 29.5.2003).
15. Green paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial matters, COM (2002) 196 final
16. Green paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial matters, COM (2002) 196 final.
17. Judicial Cooperation in Matters of Intellectual Property and Information Technology, Jurisdiction over Joint Defendants. Available at http://www.ulb.ac.be/droit/ipit/docs/jointdefendants.pdf
18. Katarzyna Szychowska, Quelques observations sous les arrest de la Cour de justice dans les affaires C-4/03 GAT et C-539/03 Roche, 5 (2007) 4 Tijdschrift@ipr.be – Revue@dipr.be 68
19. Nerina Boschiero, Intellectual Property in the Light of the European Conflict of Laws 14, available http://www.ialsnet.orgmeetingsbusinessBoschieroNerina-Italy.pdf.
20. Opinion of Advocate General Léger, 8 December 2005, C-539-03, Roche.
21. Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed in C-4/03, GAT
22. Opinion 1/09 of the Court, Opinion delivered pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Draft agreement- Creation of a unified patent litigation system – European and Community Patents Courts – Compatibility of the draft agreement with the Treaties, 8 March 2011.
23. Opinions quoted in Emma Barraclough, ECJ blocks cross-border patent litigation, Managing IP of July 17, 2006, Available at: http://www.managingip.com/default.asp?page=9&PubID=198&SID=641601&ISS=22150&LS=EMS100586.
24. Peter A. Stone, The Rome II Proposal on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations 15, The European Legal Forum (E) 4-2004, 213- 229. Available at
http://www.simons-law.comlibrarypdfe518.pdf
25. Regulation No 864/2007 of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 11 July 2007 On The Law Applicable To Non-contractual Obligations (Rome II).
26. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (“Rome II”) 20. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0427:FIN:EN:PDF.
27. Report on the Convention on Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matter (the Jenard Report) [1971] OJ C59/1.
CASES
1. Applied Research Systems v. Organanon, February 3, 1994 (IER 1994, 8)
2. Athanasios Kalfelis v. Bankhaus Schröder, C-189/87 [1988] E.C.R. 5565.
3. British Telecommunication v. Plumetazz, March 31, 1994 (docket no. 94/269)
4. Chiron Corporation and Others v. Organon Teknika Limited [1994] F.S.R.202.
5. Chiron Corporation and Others v. Murex Diagnostics Limited [1994] F.S.R.325.
6. Coin Controls Ltd v. Suzo International Ltd [1997] 3 All ER 45, [1997] F.S.R. 660.
7. Cordis v. Boston Scientific [1998] IER.66.
8. Duijnstee v. Goderbauer C- 288/82 [1983] ECR 3663.
9. Expandable Grafts Partnership v. Boston Scientific BV [1999] F.S.R. 352.
10. Fort Dodge v. Animal Health, Chancery Division- Patent Court (Laddie J) [1998] F.S.R 222, and Court of Appeal [1998] F.S.R. 222.
11. Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG v. Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG, C 4/03, [2006] ECR I-6509, [2006] FSR 967.
12. Hoffmann, [1988] C- 145/86.
13. Interlas v. Lincoln, Dutch Supreme Court, 24 November 1989, BIE 86.
14. Novo Nordisk v. DSM[2002] 304-312.
15. Plastus Kreativ AB v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co, [1995] R.P.R 438.
16. Roche Nederland BV and Others v. Federick Primus and Milton Goldenberg, C-539/03, [2006] ECR I-6535.
17. Reisch Montage AG v. Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH, C-103/05 [2006] E.C.R. 6827
18. Tatry, [1994] C-406/92.
19. Torre & Tendeur Universel/ Roose v. Ready Stretch & Ital Dibipack, [1996]
20. Van Gend & Loos, C-26/62 [1963] ECR 1, 12 and Costa, C-6/64 [1964] ECR 585, 593.
21. Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, C-50/00 P [2002] ECR I-6677.
INTERNET
1. The European Patent Office, http://www.epo.org
2. The European Patent Convention, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/national-law.html
3. The Paris Convention, http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/trtdocs_wo020.html
4. TRIPS, http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf
5. The Patent Cooperation Treaty, http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/
6. The WIPO website, http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en
7. EUROPA, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/10/291&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
8. The Court of Justice, http://curia.europa.eu
9. The EFTA, http://www.efta.int/about-efta/the-european-free-trade-association.aspx
10. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, http www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法律科際整合研究所
97652002
100 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0976520021 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [法律科際整合研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 593 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
