header-logo header-logo

04 July 2012
Issue: 7521 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

EU agrees single patent court

New court's locations include London

The new EU patent court will be located in Paris, London and Munich.

Paris will host the headquarters of the central division, with subdivisions in London for pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and in Munich for engineering.

Plans for a new unitary patent system—under which a single patent will be valid in 25 EU member states—have been under discussion for more than a decade. One point of contention was where the central divisional court would be located. EU leaders finally reached agreement at a European Council meeting last week.

Prime Minister David Cameron says the court will bring “millions of pounds and hundreds of jobs” to Britain.

However, Keith Hodkinson, chairman of Marks & Clerk International, says the agreement does not represent “a final agreement on the Unitary Patent Court or a victory for the UK government”.

“While the location of the court is certainly of economic significance, and the decision to locate at least certain specialist work in London is of course welcome, the chief concern for the professions and industry has always been the fundamental flaws in the regime, rather than the issue of where cases are heard.”

He says it is unclear what will replace controversial provisions governing the role of the European Court of Justice, which the Council has agreed to delete, or whether these can be deleted at all.

“It is also unclear what will happen to the issue of bifurcation (splitting infringement and invalidity issues into separate proceedings),” he says.

A McDermott Will & Emery spokesperson says: “Some controversial aspects remain. The system allows the application of different approaches on bifurcation, which creates uncertainty and which some claim will encourage a wave of actions to be brought in Europe by non-practising entities. Certainly the complexities of the system will be a playground for strategists.

“In addition, the new court and the EU Patent will fall under the umbrella of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). Critics argue that the non-specialist judges of the CJEU and the long delays in hearing cases there could threaten the effectiveness of the regime.”

Issue: 7521 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll